Mediaboss Marketing

House Democrats on Monday outlined a bevy of tax hikes on corporations and wealthy people to fund an investment in the social safety net and climate policy that could reach $3.5 trillion.

The plan calls for top corporate and individual tax rates of 26.5% and 39.6%, respectively, according to a summary released by the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. The proposal includes a 3% surcharge on individual income above $5 million and a capital gains tax of 25%.

It's unclear how much the tax increases would raise and if the new revenue would offset the full investment in social programs. Democrats could ultimately cut the legislation's price tag as centrists balk at a $3.5 trillion total.

The tax proposals may change before Democrats craft the final bill they hope to pass in coming weeks. The Ways and Means Committee will debate tax policy when it resumes its markup of the mammoth spending package this week.

Read more of CNBC's politics coverage:

Senate Democrats will also have their say in the tax proposals. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., has called for a corporate rate of 25%, lower than the one favored by House Democrats. He has also expressed concerns about the plan adding to budget deficits.

The party will need votes from every member of the Senate Democratic caucus and all but three House Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., aim to pass the legislation through the budget reconciliation process without Republican support.

The House tax plan would not go as far as President Joe Biden initially hoped. The president had called for a 28% corporate tax and a 39.6% capital gains rate.

Biden has promised not to raise taxes on anyone who make less than $400,000 per year.

The House proposal would take huge steps to reverse the 2017 Republican tax cuts. It would hike the corporate rate to 26.5%, after the GOP slashed it to 21% from 35%.

Democrats would also restore the top individual rate to 39.6% after Republicans cut it to 37%.

The GOP has opposed the Democratic plan in part because of proposed changes to the 2017 law. Republicans also would not reverse any of the cuts as part of the Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Under the House Democratic plan, the top corporate rate would apply to income above $5 million. The first $400,000 in income would be taxed at an 18% rate.

A 21% rate would apply to corporate income between $400,000 and $5 million.

The plan would invest nearly $79 billion in IRS tax enforcement to increase revenue raised.

It would hike taxes on certain tobacco products. The proposal would also change or scale back certain deductions for high-income individuals and corporations to raise money.

The committee outline does not include a proposal to raise the $10,000 cap on state and local tax deductions set under the GOP law. A handful of Democrats from high-tax blue states such as New Jersey and New York have said they will oppose a reconciliation bill that does not raise the deduction limit.

In a joint statement Monday, Ways and Means Committee Chair Richard Neal, D-Mass., Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., and Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., signaled House Democrats will address the cap in a future version of the tax plan.

"We are committed to enacting a law that will include meaningful SALT relief that is so essential to our middle-class communities, and we are working daily toward that goal," the representatives said. Suozzi and Pascrell are among the lawmakers who said they will only vote for a spending bill that raises the deduction limit.

Democrats plan to use the new revenue to fund expansions of child care, paid leave, pre-K education, community college, public health insurance plans, household tax credits and green energy incentives, among other investments.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Read the rest here:
House Democrats propose new tax hikes to pay for their $3.5 trillion bill: Here are the details - CNBC

The marked decline in support for President BidenJoe BidenNewsom easily beats back recall effort in California Second senior official leaving DHS in a week Top Republican: General told senators he opposed Afghanistan withdrawal MORE and his administration nationally and in key swing states indicates that the Democratic Party could endure a blowout defeat in the 2022 midterm elections.

Moreover, Biden is in a significantly weaker position now than both of his most recent Democratic predecessors Bill ClintonWilliam (Bill) Jefferson ClintonBiden nominates ex-State Department official as Export-Import Bank leader Obamas, Bushes and Clintons joining new effort to help Afghan refugees 9/11 and US-China policy: The geopolitics of distraction MORE and Barack ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaGensler compares cryptocurrency market, regulations to 'wild west' We must mount an all-country response to help our Afghan allies Obamas, Bushes and Clintons joining new effort to help Afghan refugees MORE at this point in their presidencies, which suggests that Democrats could suffer even more substantial losses in 2022 than the party did in 1994 and 2010.

Indeed, voters nationally and in seven key swing states disapprove, rather than approve, of the job Biden is doing by a margin of 7 points or greater, according to a Civiqs survey released last week.

Nationally, 50 percent of voters disapprove of the job Biden is doing as president, while just 42 percent approve.

For reference, at the same point in Obamas first term, Obamas net approval rating was 19 points higher than Bidens is right now. At the time, a majority of voters (52 percent) approved of Obama, while 41 percent disapproved, according to a Gallup survey released on Sept. 13, 2009.

That being said, in the 2010 midterm elections, Democrats lost a net of 64 House seatsand Republicans gained six seats in the Senate.

Likewise, on Sept. 12, 1993, Clintons approval rating was recorded at 47 percent approve and 42 percent disapprove by a Gallup survey. To put that in context, Clintons net approval rating was 13 points higher than Bidens is at the same point in his presidency.

Yet in the 1994 midterms, Democrats lost a net of 52 House seats and Republicans picked up eight seats in the Senate.

To note, Democrats blowout midterm defeats in both 1994 and 2010 can be attributed in large part to their passage of massive spending and tax bills in the years prior.

The Democrats 1994 defeat came after they pushed through Congress the then-largest tax increase in history without any Republican support. And in 2010, Democrats lost due in large part to voters perception of an ineffective economic stimulusas well as governmental overreach on health care and the economy by the administration and congressional Democrats.

To note, a number of recent polls show that voters have grown increasingly negative on the Biden administrations handling of major domestic issues, including the economy, COVID-19, immigration at the southern borderand the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

And now, with congressional Democrats having approved a budget blueprint in their $3.5 trillion dollar spending bill which will bring massive tax increases and will likely increase the debt, deficit and inflation the electoral backlash against Democrats could be even more substantial than in both 1994 and 2010.

In addition to Bidens precipitous national decline, the presidents approval rating in key swing states, most of which he won in 2020, has dropped. This of course bodes poorly for Democrats 2022 prospects and also makes it increasingly likely that Biden will be a one-term president notwithstanding a dramatic turn of events in Democrats favor.

In five key swing states Georgia, Florida, Arizona, North Carolina and Pennsylvania voters disapprove, rather than approve, of the job Biden is doing by a 10-point margin or greater, according to the aforementioned Civiqs polls. To note, Biden won Georgia, Arizona and Pennsylvania in 2020 and narrowly lost North Carolina and Florida.

And in Michigan and Wisconsin two swing states that were once reliably Democratic, both of which Biden won in 2020 voters now disapprove of the presidents job performance by margins of 7 and 8 points, respectively.

It is noteworthy that, both nationally and in these key states, Bidens approval has been driven down in large part by independent voters. Though Biden won national independent voters handily in 2020, a majority (58 percent) now disapprove of the president, while just 31 percent approve.

This data is clearly troubling for Democrats especially when taken together with the fact that the mere circumstances of the 2022 midterms are challenging for the party. Republicans need to pick up just five House seats, and redistricting alone could cost Democrats close to or even more than that number.

Further, since World War II, only twice has the presidents party gained seats in the midterm elections in 1998 and 2002, when both presidents had approval ratings over 60 percent and, even so, saw only meager House seat gains.

Simply put, the current 2022 outlook for Democrats is grim and it could get even worse.

If the Biden administration continues to push unnecessarily big government spending initiatives and tax increases, along with weak immigration policies and an incoherent foreign policy strategy, Democrats could suffer the most substantial midterm loss of any party in recent history.

Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael BloombergMichael BloombergWithout drastic changes, Democrats are on track to lose big in 2022 Bidens, former presidents mark 9/11 anniversary The tragedy of 9/11 an inflection point in American history MORE. He is the co-author of a forthcoming book The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat."

Read the original here:
Without drastic changes, Democrats are on track to lose big in 2022 | TheHill - The Hill

UPDATE: 7:15 p.m.

By 5 p.m. at Springdale School, the District 17 polling place, the stream of voters grew steadier. A serpentine line bubbled up at the precinct's entrance, studded with parents and their children waiting in line to vote.

Just before the after-work crowd descended, turnout there looked more robust, with 231 voters casting a ballot, according to the site's moderators.

With her infant daughter perched on her hip, Katherine Velez emerged from the double doors after casting a vote for Simmons. The state representative caught Velez's attention because of her campaign promise to rebuild the faltering infrastructure at Stamford Public Schools.

"The mayor has been in office for years now," Velez said. In her mind, Martin had failed to make meaningful progress in the schools, and his opponent was exactly the change the city needed, she said.

On the other hand, Celia Didier was more concerned about the infrastructure on her street in Springdale. She wants to see the roads paved and speed bumps installed and has been on high alert after hearing about a spate of carjackings in the neighborhood.

"I feel like I need my voice heard," she said, but fate foiled that decree before she could formally back Mayor Martin for his third term. She wasn't showing up in the voter rolls. Didier would have to head to the city's Registrar of Voters if she wanted to partake in this year's polling.

Though both candidates have pledged to maintain Stamford's momentum and remedy the ills of administrations past, Simmons voter Tim Nash said he understood that both of the day's contenders were fundamentally similar candidates.

The real difference, he suggested, lay in their experiences.

"It's a classic case of traditional politics versus the progressive way of thinking," Nash quipped before heading into the polls.

UPDATE: 6:50 p.m.

In District 19 around 5 p.m., the Democratic candidates for the Board of Representatives chatted with voters outside the Long Ridge Fire Companys station on Old Long Ridge Road. The Stamford Democratic City Committee-endorsed candidates, Don Mays and John Pelliccia, were joined by current District 19 Rep. Bob Lion, who decided not to run for reelection this year, and District 13 Rep. Eric Morson.

I think the turnout is probably a little more than I expected, Mays said. Having it be a nice day is very, very helpful. For us, I think were doing pretty well. Its really hard to tell.

Pelliccia said he was feeling optimistic after all their conversations with voters.

Their opponents, Jennifer Matheny and Pina Basone, were also upbeat.

I think that all our efforts really paid off, Basone said.

We made some great connections when we knocked (on) doors, and it showed here today, Matheny said. We had so many people say, I remember you. We talked about this. We talked about that.

North Stamford resident Aaron Chisena said he voted for Mays and Pelliccia for the Board of Representatives, and Simmons for mayor.

Ive lived in Stamford for about eight years, and I think that Stamford kind of needs a change and some new blood, Chisena said.

Also at the polling location was Simmons father, Steve, who held up a campaign sign for his daughter and greeted voters.

Ron Malloy, Stamfords Democratic registrar of voters, said 402 people had voted at the polling spot as of 6 p.m. the most of any district so far.

UPDATE:6:25 p.m.

Just before 4 p.m., poll moderator Cynthia Pulley admitted it had been a slow day at the District Eight polls, housed at the Old Rogers School. Though the afternoon rush, with its reliable influx of voters, had yet to strike, 98 voters had cast their ballots at Pulley's location.

After nine years working every election in Stamford, Pulley, 40, said she understood the ebbs and flows of the day well. There was always a morning crowd and a lunch crowd before the afternoon rush. The "last minuters" showed up just before polls closed, all scrambling to fill out their ballots before it became too late.

"People turn out for the presidential elections," she said, "but I feel like this is more important."

On a grassy patch in the parking lot outside of the school, now home to Domus Kids, Kyle Houser stood with a bright blue "Caroline Simmons for Mayor" sign. All around him, placards heralded both Democratic candidates, Simmons and incumbent Mayor David Martin.

Regardless, he'd come specifically on behalf of the Stamford Professional Fire Fighters Association. The union of 250 firefighters threw its support behind Simmons early on in the campaign.

"Her voting record on fire issues is impeccable," Houser, 39, said. The union advocates for growing the fire department to meet the demands of a growing Stamford and is confident that Simmons could help them achieve their goal.

Houser pointed out that, even though Stamford is now the second biggest city in the state, it has the "fourth-largest full-time fire force," which he said could put residents at risk.

He added: "Weve seen an effort to grow the city... but not its public safety."

UPDATE: 11:15 a.m.

Incumbent city Reps. Gloria DePina and Lila Wallace stood by the entrance of the District 5 voting location at the Yerwood Center early Tuesday morning as challengers Bonnie Kim Campbell and Melinda Punkin Baxter beckoned voters from nearby.

District 5 is a hotly contested battleground with its three primary races that will decide two Democratic candidate slots for the Board of Representatives and one for the Democratic mayoral candidate.

Despite those races, moderator Darwin Davis said as of 9:45 a.m. less than 100 voters had turned out to cast their ballots.

Id say weve had a consistent flow of voters though, Davis said.

Lafayette Bryant, 41, said he came to the polls Tuesday morning to vote for DePina. DePina, he said, has been a vocal advocate for the Black community in the West Side.

Were looking for a change in the Stamford community with the rise of homelessness, and we definitely want to address some of the things that are happening with city jobs. I feel like there is a lot of discrimination, Bryant said.

While there, Bryant said he cast a vote for incumbent Mayor David Martin as well.

Stefanie Markham said she was driven to vote on Tuesday because she felt Stamford is in need some new blood.

Markham, whose family has lived in the city for decades, said she felt the incumbent Democrats werent doing enough to address the issues facing longtime Stamford residents, so she voted for Campbell, Baxter and state Rep. Caroline Simmons for mayor.

There are high rises going up everywhere, the rents are skyrocketing, theres not enough affordable housing and (Martin) isnt really doing anything to help us, Markham said.

Original story:

STAMFORD Its Primary Day for the citys Democrats, who will be choosing the candidate who they think has the best chance of beating former Major League Baseball manager Bobby Valentine in the Stamford mayoral election in November.

Does incumbent Mayor David Martin or state Rep. Caroline Simmons have the better shot for a Democrat to remain at the helm of the city and hold off a challenge by Valentine, who is running as an unaffiliated candidate?

After Simmons won the endorsement of the Democratic City Committee in a tight vote this summer, Martin submitted enough signatures from registered Democrats to force a primary election. Martin was first elected mayor in 2013.

Besides the mayoral race, city Democrats in two districts are also deciding who to back in runs for the Board of Representatives.

Bonnie Kim Campbell and Melinda Punkin Baxter are challenging incumbent Reps. Gloria DePina and Lila Wallace in District 5.

In District 19, Jennifer Matheny and Pina Basone are running against DCC-endorsed candidates Don Mays and John Pelliccia. The current representatives of the district, Bob Lion and Raven Matherne, decided not to seek reelection this year.

There are about 31,300 registered Democrats in Stamford, according to the registrars of voters. There are about 13,400 registered Republicans and 27,500 unaffiliated voters in the city.

Only registered Democrats can vote in the primary. There is no same-day registration.

Polls will be open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. Tuesday. There are 20 polling locations across the city. Voters can find their polling place at http://www.stamfordct.gov.

Those who have applied for and received absentee ballots have until 8 p.m. Tuesday to drop them off at a ballot box in the parking garage of the Stamford Government Center, 888 Washington Blvd., or at a box outside the Harry Bennett library, 115 Vine Road. Voters were able to use COVID-19 as a reason for seeking an absentee ballot.

For those who have mailed in their absentee ballots, the town clerks office must receive them on Election Day at the latest or else they wont be counted.

Staff writer Brianna Gurciullo contributed to this report.

Visit link:
Martin or Simmons? Democrats head to the polls for primary in Stamford mayoral race - The Advocate

Photo: Erik Pendzich/Shutterstock

Monday night, after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appeared at the Met Gala wearing a dress emblazoned with the slogan Tax the Rich, her critics exploded in indignation. The complaint (mostly, but not exclusively, from the right) assailed AOCs fraud, hypocrisy, and peddling empty political slogans.

But what exactly is the problem here? Should a politician who favors higher taxes on the rich avoid social engagements with them?

To the (very limited) extent to which the critics were able to articulate what they see as the contradiction between her beliefs and her behavior, it appears to be as follows: AOC believes rich people are terrible and should be outlawed or killed, yet she mingles comfortably among them. Our asshat radicals cosplay the revolution, complains cool-kids philosopher Ben Shapiro. Actual revolutionaries eat the rich. They dont eat cake with the rich, then declare their virtue by wearing a shirt saying Eat the rich.

But of course AOC is not, and does not claim to be, an actual revolutionary. She is an advocate of dramatically more egalitarian economic policy, but not an advocate of executing the rich. Her agenda is not based on a moral critique of the rich, but a rather banal observation that rich people can stand to have less money in order to finance social needs for those in greater need.

Indeed, the whole idea that the Democratic Partys rationale for more progressive taxation is based on personal moral condemnation of the rich is almost entirely a canard invented by the right. First conservatives accuse liberals of hating and wishing to punish the rich, and then turn around and accuse them of hypocrisy for violating the belief they never actually held.

The strangest aspect of this little setpiece in political outrage theater is that AOCs stance on taxing the rich is not an answer we need to divine by projecting fantasies onto her appearance. She is an elected official with written, measurable policy proposals, and a key player in a live ongoing debate over what is intended to be the most significant tax increase on the rich in decades.

AOCs glamorous evening hobnobbing with the rich is orders of magnitude less consequential than her intention to tax their fortunes. Whats truly shallow is the fixation with symbolism and cultural association rather than the concrete fiscal transfer taking shape right now. It is bizarre to watch AOC be accused of being a fake class warrior in the midst of a live class war in Washington with trillions of dollars at stake.

Just how we reached such a delusional point merits some reflection. The cause seems to be a trope in political commentary that identifies Democrats as the party of the rich and Republicans as the party of the working class. Millions and millions of words have been spilled probing the thoughts of the lumpenproletariat Trump base in their truck stops. Hardly a day goes by without one columnist or another assailing Democrats as The Billionaires Party (in this case, National Reviews Kevin Williamson, from Sunday). The left bemoans the Democrats alienation from the common folk, while the right gloats over it.

There is some underlying basis for this. Politics throughout the western world have grown increasingly polarized by education. And since education and income are correlated, this has pushed affluent voters increasingly to the left while nonaffluent voters have moved right. Of course, if you disaggregate education and income, you can see that affluence still makes you more Republican, and poverty makes you more Democratic. (High-income voters without a college degree are an extremely Republican constituency.) And the phenomenon is a trend, not a level, which is to say that working-class Democrats and rich Republicans remain very plentiful.

One result of this trend is that Democrats have increased their cultural power. The dominant position progressive ideas have held in academia for decades has spread to entertainment, media, and even many businesses. Conservatives are not just working the refs when they claim to feel marginalized. Holding right-wing beliefs while living in a place like New York, Washington, or Los Angeles has become a genuinely alienating experience.

But the changes in the composition of the two parties voting bases have not altered the long-standing class orientation of their policy agendas. Democrats still vote to redistribute income downward, while Republicans vote to redistribute it upwards. The political medias fixation with the marginal change in the composition of the two parties bases has made it lose touch with the actual purpose to which they use their power.

The class orientation of their programs the important things they actually do with power has not changed. Democrats are pushing through a bill whose intent and effect would be to bring about a historically large downward transfer of resources. The upper-middle-class voters the party has been attracting in greater numbers would face combined tax rates at or around 60 percent, in the highest tax states. The spending these taxes would finance would go to people of modest means.

It surely isnt Met Gala attendees who will make use of expanded Medicaid in red states or free community college. The people dismissing programs like that as undesirable or unaffordable are the conservatives who posture as tribunes of the working people.

Indeed, the two parties are more polarized over redistribution than any other single dynamic. Republicans will routinely abandon their posture against spending, deficits, centralized government control, but they will never waver from their opposition to taxing the rich.

Notably, the recent bipartisan infrastructure bill further revealed that the Republicans are not implacably opposed to taxes per se. They repeatedly floated proposals to finance roads and bridges with regressive user fees. Democrats refused, insisting that taxes must fall exclusively on people earning $400,000 or more, a demand Republicans would not abide. While they papered over the divide by settling on a series of fake funding sources, the dispute revealed how cleanly the partisan divide runs along class lines: Republicans would only accept regressive taxes, while Democrats would only accept progressive taxes.

For all Donald Trumps dclass behavior and political appeal to non-college-educated voters, neither his administration nor his political allies ever challenged the partys plutocratic cast. His administrations signature domestic policy revolved around a giant tax cut for the wealthy and business owners, and a failed effort to throw middle-class people off their health insurance to finance another tax cut for the wealthy.

The Republican Party has spurred a lot of talk about populism, but nothing resembling a serious challenge to its fanatical opposition to redistribution. If J.D. Vance is elected to the Senate, he will vote for the next big capital gains or estate tax cut Republicans put in front of him.

Even a casual familiarity with the contours of the ongoing policy fight would dispel the vulgar Marxist assumption that the Democratic Partys growing support among affluent voters would signify a rightward change in its economic program. Its downright strange to be living through a polarized fight over whether hundreds of billions of dollars will remain in the hands of the wealthy, or instead be used to finance benefits for the downtrodden without the broader debate taking any real note of it.

You would think the class contours of the debate in Joe Bidens Washington would be obvious enough that people clinging to their image of fancy Democrats and downscale Republicans couldnt ignore it anymore. But the human ability to ignore the obvious is strong enough that many of us cant see who wants to tax the rich even when its staring right at us in blazing red letters.

Analysis and commentary on the latest political news from New York columnist Jonathan Chait.

View original post here:
What If We Had a Class War and Nobody Noticed? - New York Magazine

Low-income communities and people of color tend to be especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change because of historic inequities. In recognition of that fact, legislation introduced by Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, both Democrats, would require that at least half the members of a climate corps come from under-resourced communities of need. In addition, at least half the investment would support projects in underserved communities, with at least 10 percent spent in Native American lands.

Their bill, which has support from major environmental groups like the Sunrise Movement, would create the climate corps as part of AmeriCorps.

Tens of thousands of young people are going to be working to future-proof our country, Mr. Markey said. Within five years, he added, a Civilian Climate Corps will become part of the personality of the country in terms of how a whole new generation views climate change.

That has some Republicans worried.

What exactly does that mean? Representative Tom McClintock of California asked at a recent hearing. Does it mean a taxpayer funded community organizing effort? Young climate pioneers in every neighborhood to report on who is watering their lawn, whose fireplace is smoking, who is spreading forbidden climate disinformation?

Others noted that President Franklin Delano Roosevelts conservation corps was created when the United States was suffering from 20 percent unemployment. Thats not the current situation, where the national unemployment rate was 5.2 percent in August and many companies are having difficulty finding workers.

Representative Bruce Westerman of Arkansas, the top Republican on the House Committee on Natural Resources, called the Civilian Climate Corps a make-work program that will compete against American businesses at a time when help wanted signs remain in the windows.

Ultimately, however, Republicans are not in a position to influence the package since the party has already signaled members will unanimously oppose the broader $3.5 trillion budget bill. The fate of the program is up to Democrats and whether they can reach agreement, supporters of the climate corps said.

See the original post:
Democrats Want a Climate Corps. They Just Cant Agree How to Create It. - The New York Times