Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Democrats Attempt To Woo Joe Manchin For Reconciliation Bill By Taping Single Hersheys Kiss To Latest Draft – The Onion

WASHINGTONIn their latest effort to bring the centrist lawmaker aboard for the partys signature legislation, Democrats reportedly attempted to woo Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) Monday by taping a single Hersheys Kiss to the reconciliation bills latest draft. Although we understand Joe wont budge on certain issues, we thought a sweet little treat might be just the thing to help move the needle, said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) of the foil-wrapped chocolate candy, which the majority leader had taped to the 329th page of the $2 trillion bills provision for a Child Tax Credit next to a smiley face and the words For You, Joe! Frankly, anything that helps inch us closer to a Clean Energy Standard is worth trying, and if that means sweetening the pot with a tasty morsel to brighten up Senator Manchins day, then so be it. Just making him smile is worth the effort, either way. At press time, Schumer added that should Manchin find the confection to his liking, there could be several more Hersheys Kisses coming his way.

View post:
Democrats Attempt To Woo Joe Manchin For Reconciliation Bill By Taping Single Hersheys Kiss To Latest Draft - The Onion

The Pillage Party and the Freakshow Party – National Review

President Joe Biden speaks to reporters before boarding Air Force One at Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks, Conn., October 15, 2021. (Leah Millis/Reuters)

Welcome to the Tuesday, a weekly newsletter about language, culture, and politics. To subscribe to the Tuesday and, please do! follow this link.

The Two Democratic Parties

Gather round, progressive friends, sit down here with the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, and let us speak the truth to one another, for at least a moment: Take a look, if you will, into President Bidens eyes those flat, terrified, watery, senescent eyes that could very well have been plucked from the skull of Robert Byrd or Strom Thurmond, those dull cow eyes that have been misapprehending the comings and goings of life on this earth since the Andrews Sisters were topping the charts with Pennsylvania Polka, those filmy orbs going blank as they fix absently upon the backend of everything from the first-class compartment on Amtrak and tell me: Are you looking into the eyes of a man who gives even one half of a rats furry patootie about your pronouns?

No. Whatever he pretends, no.

There are two Democratic parties, and Joe Biden belongs to the older one: the Pillage Party. Thank God for small favors.

The Pillage Party goes all the way back to Andrew Jackson, and its platform has always been precisely the same: transfer as much money as possible to constituents from non-constituents. Old Hickory and Lyndon Johnson would tell you that was all about helping out the poor folks down on the farm and in the forgotten corners of America, but you and I know that is pure bullsh**. Democrats are perfectly happy to run with something you might think of as a more naturally Republican position if it puts money in the pockets of their partisans: Removing the cap on state and local tax deductions is a Democratic issue, not a Republican one, even though it means tax cuts for the rich, and especially for rich people with expensive houses in expensive neighborhoods. Silicon Valley and Wall Street may vote for Democrats for largely cultural reasons, but Elizabeth Warrens nice progressive neighbors up in Cambridge are feeling the pinch of paying for all that progressivism out of their own progressive pockets. College-loan forgiveness is not exactly No. 1 on the agenda of desperately poor Americans in Democrat-run cities such as St. Louis or Cleveland, where the put-upon proletariat is worried about keeping the heat on this winter, not paying off the tab at Oberlin. Social Security, that epitome of the New Deal, transfers wealth from African Americans and Latinos to whites and, especially, from unmarried African Americans and Latinos to married whites because Ward and June always get theirs.

Franklin Roosevelt very cannily ensured that his New Deal was heavy on middle-class and upper-middle-class benefits, funded through payroll taxes that would remove the stigma of the relief attitude, as he told Luther Gulick of the American Society for Public Administration. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program, Roosevelt said. Those taxes arent a matter of economics, theyre straight politics.

Understanding the character of the Pillage Party makes some aspects of our contemporary politics more comprehensible.

On the matter of the social-spending bill, the Biden administration and its congressional allies have followed a very old negotiating strategy: Demand the redonkulous and accept the merely ridiculous as a compromise, trimming a trillion or so off the top. But they will fight for those dollars and that spending, just as Barack Obama was willing to throw away much of the rest of his presidency in order to sign new health-care benefits into law. We should expect like-minded Democrats to be relatively energetic in the pursuit of middle-class benefits such as child-care subsidies and free college educations.

At the same time, the Biden administration has chosen to punt on certain progressive priorities, such as the court-packing scheme that has fueled so many left-wing daydreams. Left-wingers in Congress introduced a bill to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 members in order to provide the administration an opportunity to pack the court with politically reliable progressives, but the Biden administration handed the question over to one of those goofy presidential commissions, which will produce recommendations that will be hotly debated and fought over two conservatives recently resigned from the commission in protest but which will produce, in all likelihood, squat in terms of actual change. An administration that wanted to overturn the constitutional order in the pursuit of abortion or gun-control goals would not have handed this off to a blue-ribbon committee. We should not misread what that means: It isnt that the Biden administration gives a fig about the constitutional order; its just that it doesnt care nearly as much about the so-called social issues or gun control as it does about moving money from Smith (R) to Jones (D), and chose not to invest very much political capital in the proposal.

The main political function of the commission is giving conservatives another squirrel to chase, and one suspects that the Biden administration would much prefer to have a culture-war battle over the Supreme Court than to have conservatives instead bothering the president about his involvement in any of his sons shady shenanigans or discovering what personal benefit he may have derived from them. If you are Joe Biden, you dont want to see Hunter on the news not if you could instead have Ted Cruz on there trying to explain originalism to Americans.

Joe Biden belongs to the Pillage Party. And he does not have to negotiate with Republicans nearly as carefully as he must deal with the other Democratic Party: the Freakshow Party. The Freakshow Party has been on the progressive scene for a long time, and if the Pillage Party is The Grapes of Wrath, the Freakshow Party is Last Exit to Brooklyn. Its the Shout Your Abortion and Show Me Your Pronouns! party. The three legs of that wobbly stool are the Jew-Hating Weirdo Left (Sharpton, Farrakhan, Omar, Occupy types, etc.), the Loopy White People Left (NPR, vegan bakeries, college towns everywhere you see a Subaru covered in bumper stickers), and 2SLGTBQIA+ (which I really hope is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs email password). Its natural occupation is that of hall monitor.

Consider this from one of Slates increasingly pornographic (and, apparently, fictitious) advice columns:

We do not allow our children to have their own computers to prevent the risk of them being radicalized by alt-right websites, so our kids share a laptop that we monitor and control access to. We found an excel spreadsheet in Jacks folder that listed the names of all of his classmates, as well as dates and descriptions of their problematic behavior. Some of the descriptions I saw include has a mom who is a cop, no pronouns in insta bio, laughed at a fat joke, lists problematic show as one of their favorites, mimicked a foreign accent, and used cis-normative language.

Maybe thats the work of some right-wing satirist sneaking one in on Slate. But, in any case, the spectacle of some progressive punk kid making a list of pronoun transgressions while getting ready to go all We Need to Talk about Kevin on his classmates thats a pretty good window into the soul of the Freakshow Party. You will never see so much intolerance in the service of tolerance, so much hatred in the service of love, so much ruthlessly enforced conformism in the service of diversity.

They are vicious and petty, but they do not actually matter all that much. What they are is useful. Have you ever used a fan or a loud air conditioner to help you sleep in a noisy environment? The constant, regular, low drone isnt enough to keep you awake, but it is enough to drown out the noises that might keep you up: a dripping faucet, a hotel elevator located a little too close to your room, raccoons on the roof of the cabin, whatever. Thats what the Kulturkampf stuff really is: noise, just enough to keep us from being awakened by the things going bump in the night. This is not to say that culture doesnt matter it does. In fact, it certainly matters more than any other single factor. But the outrage-of-the-day stuff on Twitter and talk radio doesnt really touch or move the culture all that much. Its just churn, white political noise. Partisan-outrage media on the left and partisan-outrage media on the right traffic in the same commodity: disgust. Disgust is the easiest way to produce emotional engagement, slightly edging out fear. But the so-called culture warriors who spend their days advertising new reasons for their audiences to hate people they already hate are at best self-deluding. They arent fighting any kind of culture war in that war, they are not the soldiers but profiteers.

In the context of Texas, I have often said that I worry about Houston more than I worry about Austin. Thats another way of saying that I worry more about the Pillage Party than the Freakshow Party. Freakshow politics is, by its nature, less serious. Its interests are less enduring, its attention span is shorter, and its adolescent motives wear out pretty quickly. That is why you see so many Freakshow partisans graduate to the Pillage Party once they have secured real power. Bill Clinton spent about 10 minutes in the 1960s counterculture before he figured out what real power looks like. Barack Obama could not have been more pleased to move on from the Reverend Jeremiah Wright to Warren Buffet. Hillary Rodham did not grow up to join the Marxist vanguard she joined the board of Walmart. The demands of wokeness change from day to day: One day, its engaging in Maoist self-criticism sessions and denouncing ourselves for our privilege, the next day, its pretending to believe that Bruce Jenner is a woman named Caitlyn. That sort of thing has been keeping conservatives hopping from one foot to the other since about 1968, but the Left was never really able to build a stable political movement on top of that: 1968 gave us Richard Nixon, the radicalism of the 1970s gave us Ronald Reagan, the 1990s gave us Newt Gingrich and the real beginnings of what would later become Tea Party Republicanism, and the turn of the century was dominated by George W. Bush and the foreign-policy agenda he never wanted to be the centerpiece of his presidency.

It wasnt until Barack Obama that the American Left started to figure out how to make it work: While Donald Trump and other jibbering jackasses of that kidney were going nuts about Obamas birth certificate and the Freakshow Party was pitching a circus tent in lower Manhattan, Obama was busy pillaging: creating expensive new health-care benefits that served to entrench his own personal power even as it decimated (more than decimated, in fact) his party in the states, working through green energy programs and the like to help ensure that Wall Street and Silicon Valley saw their financial interests aligned with the Democrats as much as their cultural interests are, etc. As a candidate, Obama fumed to his New York City moneymen buddies that he was fed up with the teachers unions and their cynical rent-seeking, which was a message very much tailored for an audience whose own children would never see the inside of a public school; once he had their money and their votes, he forgot all about that, because the teachers unions are, in fact, the textbook case of Pillage Party politics: You get a few million people relying on you for oversized salaries and generous benefits, and they volunteer as your foot soldiers.

Obama was, of course, Freakshow-adjacent, and he surely is a freak at heart, but he didnt actually practice very much in the way of Freakshow politics: sharp words for the Cambridge, Mass., police, that sort of thing, most of it pretty low-cost for him, politically. But his opponents wanted to chase the Freakshow, and he was clever to let them, and to occasionally goad them. Meanwhile, it was pillage, pillage, pillage.

Biden may have learned a little something from that. Hes got trillions going out the door, and his colleagues moderate position is giving a trillion or two back in negotiations. The Right, meanwhile, is chasing its tail: Masks! Mandates! Iodine! Ivermectin!

You might think that Republicans could make that strategy work, too. For years, the Left offered much the same analysis of the GOP that I offer of Democrats: that the social conservatives were basically running interference for the tax-cutters and business-deregulators. And there may have been something to that, once. But while we still have two Democratic parties, theres only the one Republican Party still standing: the Putz Party.

The GOP Gaggle of Putzes.

Which Brings Us To . . .

There has been some interesting back-and-forth and some positively tedious back-and-forth! about the proposal from various anti-Trump/anti-Trumpism conservatives to set up a new political party so that Reaganite ideas might have a political home. I dont think very much of the idea of a new party, because I do not think that there are enough anti-Trump conservatives to make much difference as an electoral matter, even as spoilers, though some of my more psephologically inclined colleagues believe otherwise.

But, if youll allow me, I think I can clarify the terms of the debate: On one side, we have people who think that the most important thing for the long-term good of the country is to keep Democrats from holding power for the next ten or 20 years, and, on the other side, we have people who believe that the most important thing for the long-term good of the country is to keep Trumpists from holding power for the next ten or 20 years. I think there are good-faith arguments for both positions, and I have even seen one or two of those increasingly rare specimens.

What conservatives are likely to end up with, in any case, is a worst-of-both-worlds outcome: Trumpists do not have the necessary attention span to hold power nationally on anything but a sporadic basis, and they lack the kind of positive policy agenda that would help them to organize themselves into a genuine political movement instead of the personality cult that they are today. At the same time, the economic incentives of right-wing media more or less ensure that Trumpism will remain enough of a force within the Republican Party for long enough to cripple it for a generation. Donald Trump was for many years a generous donor to Democratic campaigns, from Hillary Rodham Clinton to Chuck Schumer, but his deformation of the GOP will be his lasting gift to the Democrats.

I wouldnt be at all surprised to see the Republicans have a very good midterm election. But there is a difference between having power and deserving power and an even vaster gap between having power and knowing what to do with it. Still, there may be some electoral victory, but I do not think that that will change the fact that the GOP is now simply too damaged and disreputable to provide a useful channel for the conservative electoral project. There are a few good men left in the Republican Party, but they mostly are there out of mere sloth. And, if theres an argument for a new party, thats really it: Conservative ideas and policies need some electoral instrument, and the Republican Party is no longer that.

In a sense, conservatives are still struggling with the question of 2016: Who deserves to lose more?

You may as well ask whether its better to have testicular cancer on the left side or on the right side. Cancer is cancer.

Words About Words

Pronouns matter. A reader shares this from a news report: A driver has died after striking two deer in the road, which caused them to veer and roll into an oncoming vehicle. What the sentence says is that the deer swerved into the path of an oncoming vehicle; what it means is that the driver swerved into the path of an oncoming vehicle.

A New York Times headline reads, badly: It Wasnt Just My Life on That Stage. So Was My Purpose. There are a couple of ways to write that to avoid the awkwardness: My Life Was on That Stage So Was My Purpose, or, It Wasnt Just My Life on That Stage It Was My Purpose. You want the parallel construction rather than the train wreck. One of the things that I noticed when teaching writing is that inexperienced writers often forget what they have just written once they move on to a new sentence. For that reason, they dont do certain things that would improve their prose, such as varying the length and structure of sentences within a paragraph or building toward a conclusion. There isnt anything grammatically wrong with either of those sentences, in the same way that there isnt anything wrong with either Irish Spring Deodorant Soap or a blueberry pie. The trouble comes from trying to combine them.

A couple of readers write to share that they have gone through life thinking the opening line of that Fugazi song is not ahistorical but hey, sorta cool.

Rampant Prescriptivism

What about people who use try and when they mean try to? Should we send them all to go live in a colony somewhere?

There isnt anything necessarily wrong with try and. This is a matter of writing what you mean: The most likely outcome is that we will try and fail to pass the bill, or, We will try and hope for the best. These do not mean the same thing as: We will try to fail to pass the bill, or We will try to hope for the best.

The best way to avoid trouble is to think about what the words you are writing actually mean, not what it is that you are trying to say. If you do that, you will try and write what you mean.

Send your language questions to TheTuesday@NationalReview.Com

Home and Away

Inflation causes higher Social Security spending, and higher Social Security spending causes inflation. Welcome to the vicious circle. More in the New York Post, which is, as far as I know, the only newspaper to have an entire Public Enemy song dedicated to denouncing it.

The Marquis de Sade wrote about La philosophie dans leboudoir politics in the bedroom. In our time, its straight to the toilet. More from National Review, which is, as some of you apparently need to be reminded, a fortnightly magazine, which means that it comes out every two weeks.

You can buy my latest book, Big White Ghetto: Dead Broke, Stone-Cold Stupid, and High on Rage in the Dank Wooly Wilds of the Real America, here. Its the sort of thing that gets you called an elitist by people who think this is a put-down even though they are fully aware that you work at a magazine founded by a guy who installed a harpsichord on his yacht.

My National Review archive can be found here.

Listen to Mad Dogs & Englishmenhere.

MyNew York Postarchive can be foundhere.

My Amazon page ishere.

To subscribe to National Review, which you really should do, gohere.

To support National Review Institute, gohere.

Recommended

Last week I mentioned, but hardly did justice to, Mark Leonards new book, The Age of Unpeace: How Connectivity Causes Conflict. From trade to immigration to social media, the book covers a lot of ground, but covers it very intelligently.

In Closing

Part of me hopes that my friend Kathryn Lopez will write a novel. Her observations about medical waste are the sort of thing that a modern American Dickens might make something of.

To subscribe to the Tuesday, follow this link.

If you valued reading this article, please consider joining our fight by donating to our Fall Webathon. Your contribution makes it possible for us to continueour mission of speaking truth and defending conservative principles.

Continue reading here:
The Pillage Party and the Freakshow Party - National Review

Why Democrats Say Young Voters Are Crucial to Flipping Texas – The New York Times

Instead, he said, national Democratic leaders treated Texas like a piggy bank, raising money from donors who lived there for campaigns in other states. Nobody believed Texas could be won, but it is a different place today, he said.

Indeed, the margins for Republicans have shrunk or stayed the same in presidential elections in Texas over the last decade. In 2012, Republican Senator Mitt Romney won Texas with 57 percent of the vote. In 2016, Donald J. Trump earned 52 percent. Last year, Mr. Trump again won 52 percent.

Democratic spending has at the same time grown over the last several cycles: While about $75 million went to Democratic candidates in the state in 2016, roughly $213 million went to Democratic candidates in 2020. That 2020 number was still dwarfed by the $388 million spent on Republican candidates, according to Open Secrets, which tracks political spending across the country.

Because of Texas size, both Democrats and Republicans spend more money there than in nearly any other state in the country. But the percentage spent on Democratic candidates is one of the lowest in the country. Roughly 35 percent of all political spending in Texas goes toward Democrats, according to Open Secrets. In Wisconsin, a key swing state in every election, 49 percent goes toward Democrats.

There have been some high-profile attempts at investing in the state before: Michael R. Bloombergs campaign spent several million dollars for Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential primary. In 2014, Battleground Texas, an effort led by former Obama aides, spent millions only to have every Democrat lose in statewide elections.

Rafael Anchia, a Democratic state lawmaker from Dallas who is the chairman of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, said Mr. ORourkes campaign was the only statewide Democratic effort in recent memory with a large enough budget to reach across the state. Mr. Anchia said that like other Texas Democrats, he has made the case to national funders that the state could be competitive.

No longer is Texas considered this fools gold, he said. It has demographics similar to Californias but has been a low-turnout, low-voting state.

Here is the original post:
Why Democrats Say Young Voters Are Crucial to Flipping Texas - The New York Times

10 Wasteful Items in Democrats’ $3.5 Trillion Tax-and-Spend Monstrosity – Daily Signal

House Democrats a few weeks ago released the full text of their big-government socialism $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend package.

Many important elements were already clear. It would recklessly boost federal spending at a time of already high inflation, impose ruinous tax hikes when the post-pandemic economic recovery is still vulnerable, and impose an anti-work welfare state.

However, due to the incredible length of the bill2,465 pages, or about the length of two King James Biblesthere are thousands of separate provisions, far more than can be properly analyzed by legislators or the public.

The following are just 10 of the ridiculous things buried in the bill.

There have been several instances of federal agencies promoting critical race theory and similar far-left agendas to employees. In Section 31056 of the bill, Congress wants to legally mandate such training at the Department of Health and Human Services, the largest nondefense agency.

The idea that an agency focused on administering social benefits programs is a haven of racists ought to be laughable, but apparently House Democrats think otherwise.

Section 70203 of the bill earmarks $200 million for Presidio Trust, a park located in the north end of San Francisco, which is represented by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

The Presidio park contains many scenic views and even a golf course. San Francisco is one of the wealthiest parts of the country and can easily afford to support the park, which makes this handout egregious even without Pelosis involvement.

While the bill contains many tax hikes, it also opens loopholes for some politically favored groups. One of these, Section 138517, would give a tax credit toward compensation for local news journalists.

The secretary of the treasury is required to issue regulations and guidance as are necessary, which could allow the government to determine what counts as news.

Worse, the tax credit is refundable, meaning that a money-losing organization would get a check from Uncle Sam, rather than simply not owing anything. That means its corporate welfare.

That would serve to prop up media organizations that the public doesnt consider valuable enough to support voluntarily. Apparently, we need to be forced to do so.

The activist left insists that housing is a rightand that this supersedes fundamental private property rights, including the ability of property owners to exclude others from squatting or to evict tenants who refuse to honor their rental agreements.

The federal government advanced this notion with its unconstitutional eviction moratorium under the guise of preventing the spread of COVID-19.

Now, Congress wants to fund anti-property activists and regulatory enforcers to the tune of $1.25 billion, including erecting legal hurdles for property owners merely trying to defend their rights in court against delinquent tenants.

Sections 40106 and 40107 might not explicitly require funding for left-leaning groups, but phrases like fair housing organizations can only be reasonably understood to mean exactly that.

The bill seeks to impose a federal takeover of housing policy, both through the construction of massive amounts of public housing and by strong-arming local governments into changing zoning rules.

Bending local communities to the will of Washington elites on the texture of local neighborhoods undermines the ability of families and local governments to determine for themselves the distinctive features of their communities.

While there are many opportunities to reform housing policy, one-size-fits-all federal mandates are the wrong approach. Yet Section 40103 would dedicate $4.5 billion just for bureaucrats at all levels of government to develop and evaluate housing plans.

The private sector could construct tens of thousands of housing units for that amount of money, but this bill would rather tax businesses to pay bureaucrats to think about building houses.

Congress is on the verge of passing a $1 trillion-plus infrastructure package that came together following months of bipartisan negotiations.

The package already moves federal transportation policy solidly to the left, including many new programs relating to social justice and climate.

One of the reasons why some moderate Republicans supported the bill was that President Joe Biden promised not to include more transportation funding in the Democrat-only $3.5 trillion social spending bill, since that would mean the bipartisan negotiations were not a true give-and-take.

However, Sections 110002 through 110012 of the partisan bill contain a total of $26.5 billion for rail, slush funds, and Green New Deal transportation programs.

Thats exactly the double dipping that Biden vowed to avoid, and is yet another reason why Congress should move away from the flawed bipartisan bill before its too late.

The legislation contains trillions of dollars worth of new benefit programs. Normally, the price of a program is understood to include the cost of paying the government employees who administer it, along with any necessary public awareness activity.

Yet this bill is littered with at least $13.3 billion in additional funding specifically for federal bureaucrats and billions more for ad campaigns, on top of the trillions in program costs.

This highlights the true socialist nature of the bill, which is to get as many people as possible dependent on as many government programs as possible, so that the politicians who support those big-government programs can remain in power.

The spending package includes hundreds of billions of dollars to fund the lefts vision of education, including free community college tuition, free school meals, and poorly crafted pre-K programs.

Even smaller education provisions are flawed. Section 20006 of the bill would give $197 million for Grow Your Own, a concept that prioritizes schools hiring teachers that live nearby.

Such staffing decisions are fair game for local districts and school boards, but the federal government should not use taxpayer dollars to micromanage those choices.

One of many housing initiatives in the bill, Section 40105, would give $7.5 billion for a community restoration and revitalization fund.

The money would go toward nebulous concepts, such as creating equitable civic infrastructure and capacity building, which would give bureaucrats the ability to fund housing projects or left-wing activists as they see fit.

Unfortunately, such place-based subsidies fail to help those in need and are often susceptible to inefficient allocation or even corruption.

Most importantly, they do nothing to address underlying causes of poverty; namely, children denied educational choice trapped in underperforming public schools, burdensome business regulations, government mismanagement, or disempowered law enforcement

Sections 80010 and 80011 would provide $2.35 billion for the Federal Citizen Services Fund, which deals with government websites and information technology for the executive branch.

Those already receive annual funding through the appropriations process. Notably, the bill would provide the equivalent of 20 years of funding for the Federal Citizen Services Fund and 25 years of funding for executive branch information technology.

That sort of largesse (at taxpayers expense) demonstrates the complete lack of prioritization that characterizes the legislation.

These ridiculous items are just 10 of the countless reasons why Congress should steer clear of the largest tax-and-spend bill in world history, which would impose real costs on the economy and on American society.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email[emailprotected]and well consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular We Hear You feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Visit link:
10 Wasteful Items in Democrats' $3.5 Trillion Tax-and-Spend Monstrosity - Daily Signal

House, Senate Democrats at odds over whether to slash paid leave plan – POLITICO

The Senate and House committees with jurisdiction have been at odds over spending $300 billion or $494 billion, respectively, on the program for a while, a source familiar with the conversations said. A funding level of $300 billion is likely enough to cover three to four weeks of leave, the source said, but not the 12 weeks that President Joe Biden proposed or that House Ways and Means Chair Richard Neal (D-Mass.) put forth.

Specifics are still in flux as Democrats continue to negotiate a topline. But sources said there are a handful of options being floated, including reducing the length of the benefit; capping how much workers take home; phasing in the program; and giving it an expiration date.

Weve seen a strong commitment to maintain the comprehensiveness of the program; maintaining the eligibility criteria that ensures the most marginalized and vulnerable people can access the program, Vicki Shabo, who studies paid leave at the left-leaning New America, said. Those are both very important components that need to stay. And then theres other dials you could turn to try and scale.

Taking these routes will inevitably decrease the programs reach, and possibly its efficacy. But advocates say that enacting any paid leave policy even one that isn't as comprehensive as first envisioned is preferable to cutting the benefit from the package entirely.

They fear that if lawmakers dont capitalize on the momentum created by the pandemic to pass the program now, it may never happen.

The worst case scenario is the status quo, Kathryn Rand, an economist at the RAND Corporation, said. I know that theres so many ways that this can go wrong, but the worst case scenario is the status quo.

Heres what may be on the policy chopping block in the paid leave plan:

Both Bidens American Families Plan and the House Ways and Means Committee plan would provide all workers with 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave for a wide variety of reasons, including illnesses, injuries, births, caregiving, a family members military deployment and more.

The most effective way to cut down the cost of the program would be to shorten the length of the benefit, experts said. Indeed, this is likely one of the only ways to shave hundreds of billions off the cost, and thus the route lawmakers are most likely to take.

Eight weeks would be the minimum amount of time to see the benefits of a paid leave program and deliver on the economic benefits the Biden administration and congressional Democrats are promising, sources familiar with the Hill negotiations said.

But advocates worry that anything less than 12 weeks would weaken the program, reducing its potential health and economic benefits. Most of the evidence used to draft the House Ways and Means text was based on state paid leave programs, which are typically at least three months.

This is driven by data, Paid Leave for All Director Dawn Huckelbridge said. We know theres a reason why we think three months should be a minimum.

On top of that, much of the broader research on how paid leave can boost the economy and reduce infant deaths is based on 12 weeks of leave. Less than that, experts warn, and some of those financial and health benefits could be minimized.

Ive been in Washington long enough to know that a lot of times, numbers are arbitrary, Lelaine Bigelow, vice president for social impact and congressional relations at the National Partnership for Women and Families, said. But there is so much health evidence to back up the reason why we are fighting for 12 weeks.

Another option to cut the cost of the program is to put a lower cap on monthly benefits. The House plan would provide the average worker with two-thirds of their usual pay on a sliding scale, capped at an estimated $5,200 a month.

The Senate language will likely max out that amount at $4,000 a month, one source familiar with the discussions said.

This would likely bring the cost of the program down by about $50 billion, another source said.

One of the reasons the White House justified pegging its program at $225 billion is because the benefits would be phased in over 10 years, rather than going into effect all at once like the House program. If senators wanted to lower the price tag of their bill, they could take a similar approach.

That could prove problematic for states and employers, however. The House draft includes language that would provide grants to states and employers with their own paid leave programs to help them meet the federal standard. But having the legislation phase in over the course of the decade could make it more difficult for them to come into compliance, given that they'd have to meet various standards staggered over the phase-in period and thus, less likely to take part, a source familiar with the discussions said.

A phase-in could also complicate matters for workers, the source pointed out. Americans dealing with an illness or injury could end up putting off treatment until the next stage of the program so they can receive more robust benefits.

Lastly, any phase-in would mean the programs funding would be heavily weighted toward the last year because that's when the full benefits would take effect. An unofficial CBO estimate pegged the last year of Bidens 10-year phase-in at about $90 billion alone, a source familiar with the conversations said. If thats the case, then the nine preceding years would need to be much less robust spending-wise.

Perhaps one of the most straightforward ways to lower the cost of a paid leave program would be to slap on an expiration date either after the 10 years proposed by the Biden administration, or even sooner.

Why not look at a five-year plan? Cut it in half? Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) said in an interview. All ships sail, and weve gotten the job done.

Temporary isn't always temporary in Washington. Eliminating a benefit like paid leave would be politically difficult, if not impossible, after a decade.

But having a set end-date for the benefit could discourage state and employer participation, one source said, because they would be setting up complex and expensive programs just to lose federal funding if and when it ends.

"For President Bidens legacy, its important to make these longer-term investments and not have short-term cliffs, Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), who leads the centrist New Democrat Coalition, said. "We need to make sure people have certainty."

Read the original post:
House, Senate Democrats at odds over whether to slash paid leave plan - POLITICO