Mediaboss Marketing

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

Despite party control of Congress and the presidency, Democrats are still struggling to enact their agenda. The ballyhooed bipartisan infrastructure deal is stuck in the House, and the sweeping $3.5 trillion reconciliation package has been the source of bitter disputes among party members.

The Biden administration set out with hopes for big, bold change transformational was the word in the winter and into spring. But in autumn, disarray is ubiquitous.

We are not surprised that one-party control has not enabled Democrats to swiftly or easily move their agenda. Our research shows that parties with unified control in Washington routinely fail to enact many of their highest priorities. They are typically forced to accept significant compromises to pass any of their agenda items.

That has been true in every recent case when a party held unified control of government. In 2017, a Republican failure to reach intraparty consensus resulted in a striking collapse punctuated by John McCains thumbs-down of the partys efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare. Later that year, Republican leaders had to scale back their visions for tax reform to pass the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In 2010, significant disagreements within the Democratic Party undermined and ultimately dashed their plans for a cap-and-trade program to combat climate change. To get the Affordable Care Act across the finish line, many Democrats had to accept a bill that fell short of their aspirations the failure to establish a public insurance option still stings many liberals.

Why do unified majorities in Washington struggle and often fail to enact their agendas? In our research, we tracked the successes and failures of majority parties in Congress on their policy goals from 1985 through 2018 (265 agenda items in total). The study covers the last several periods of unified party government in Washington those that occurred during the presidencies of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

We find that parties with unified control in Washington since the Clinton years have struggled for two reasons.

The filibuster explains some of the majority parties struggles. Senate rules require most legislation to obtain 60 votes to advance to passage. As a result, minority parties have a chance to either veto or reshape most legislation. Still, even though its a constant source of discussion and debate in todays Washington, we find the filibuster was the cause of only one-third of failed attempts by majority parties to enact their priorities during unified government since 1993.

The second reason is less well appreciated but accounts for the other two-thirds a large majority of failures. Both parties have been, and remain, internally divided on many issues. Parties are often able to hide their disagreements by simply not taking up legislation on issues that evoke significant fissures. But when those issues reflect their campaign promises, majority parties will often forge ahead even in the absence of internal consensus on a plan.

Whether Democratic or Republican, the party with unified control in Washington in recent years has failed on one or more of its highest-priority agenda items because of insufficient unity within its own ranks. In 2017, Republicans failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act because of the opposition of three Senate Republicans (Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mr. McCain). In 2009-10, Democrats failed to enact a cap-and-trade policy because of spats between coastal Democrats and those representing the interior of the country. In 2005, Republicans failed to reform Social Security despite President Bush making it his top domestic legislative priority because of a lack of consensus in the party about how to proceed. In Mr. Clintons first term, Democrats were never able to unify behind a single plan to enact comprehensive health care reform despite relatively large majorities in both chambers.

What Democrats are trying to do with their Build Back Better effort today is even more difficult than usual. Congress has rarely tried to pass more than one budget reconciliation bill in a two-year session. In March, Democrats used reconciliation to pass the American Rescue Plan on straight party-line votes; theres no precedent for enacting two such ambitious partisan reconciliation bills within a single year. To pass a second sweeping package with razor-thin majorities should be seen as a long shot. The fact that the party is furiously negotiating a pared-down version suggests how much importance it has attached to its success for both electoral and policy reasons.

Parties campaign on ambitious policy proposals. But its much easier to agree to a campaign plank than to rally behind specific legislation. The devil is in the details. If Democrats somehow avoid large-scale agenda failure and pass both the bipartisan infrastructure bill and a sweeping reconciliation bill, they will have done something rare: They will have outdone all their recent predecessors who had single-party control of national government.

James M. Curry, an associate political science professor at the University of Utah, and Frances E. Lee, a professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton, are the authors of The Limits of Party: Congress and Lawmaking in a Polarized Era.

See the original post here:
Opinion | Why Democrats Are Having Trouble in Congress - The New York Times

James Carville is furious. Its the LAW!!! If you do not enforce it, Dems will look as weak as people think they are, he texted me earlier this week. I would ask if we could use DC jail for Bannon.

What has Carville itching to put former President Donald Trumps ex-adviser behind bars? Defiance. The special congressional committee charged with investigating the January 6 insurrection gave former Trump White House officials Steve Bannon, Mark Meadows, Kash Patel, and Dan Scavino until the end of this week to comply with its subpoenas for testimony and records. Bannon has so far refused to cooperate.

Congressional Democrats, who control both chambers and have a majority on the January 6 committee, can ask the House or Senate sergeant-at-arms to arrest Bannon. Yesterday afternoon, though, Representative Bennie Thompson, the Mississippi Democrat who chairs the committee, announced that he will pursue a more moderate path: Next week, the committee will vote on whether to refer Bannon to the Justice Department for potential criminal prosecution.

We fully intend to enforce the subpoenas, Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, who is one of two Republicans on the special committee, assured me. That doesnt come with the snap of a finger, but we will get to the bottom of these questions and pursue all avenues.

Democrats want to uphold norms of interparty civility while also preventing Trump and his buddies from completely undermining democracy. But time is running out. The January 6 committee is one of Congresss last chances to narrate the Capitol riots and the Trump administrations efforts to subvert the peaceful transfer of power. The only way to fight fascism is with narrative, Masha Gessen, the writer and activist, once told me. The select-committee probe presents a real opportunity to do just that.

Enforcing the committees subpoenas isnt a controversial idea, Representative Eric Swalwell of California told me. We must enforce congressional subpoenas not just for holding insurrectionists accountable but to show everyone in America that we all follow the same rules, he said. If Bannon and company are above the law, why wouldnt nonpublic figures toss their lawful subpoenas in the trash?

Perhaps Bannon thinks that the committee wont follow through, or that jail time might martyr him. Hes dodged consequences for alleged misconduct before. Last year, he faced prison for his role in the We Build the Wall scheme, which prosecutors said was fraudulent, but Trump granted him an 11th-hour pardon. At least hes had some time to think about what he might have to pack.

Read: Republicans refuse to reckon with January 6

The committee had hoped to depose Bannon, Meadows, Patel, and Scavino this week, according to lawmakers, but some members of that group have been more cooperative than others. While Mr. Meadows and Mr. Patel are, so far, engaging with the Select Committee, Mr. Bannon has indicated that he will try to hide behind vague references to privileges of the former President, Representative Liz Cheney, a Wyoming Republican, wrote in a joint statement with Thompson.

Bannon seems likely to continue resisting his subpoena. The executive privileges belong to President Trump, and we must accept his direction and honor his invocation of executive privilege Mr. Bannon is legally unable to comply with your subpoena requests for documents and testimony, Bannons attorney, Robert Costello, wrote in a letter to the committee earlier this month. Bannon hasnt worked in the executive branch since August 18, 2017, more than 1,500 days ago. And Trump is no longer the chief executivehes just some guy playing golf at his country club. The Biden administration has already waived executive privilege for the Trump-era documents that the January 6 commission was seeking.

The committee is in agreement about pursuing criminal referrals for witnesses who refuse to cooperate with their subpoenas. We now have a Justice Department committed both to the rule of law and to the principle that no one is above the law. The January 6 committee will respond with equal swiftness to those who fail to comply, holding them in criminal contempt and referring them to the Justice Department for prosecution, Representative Adam Schiff of California told me.

The problem with enforcing congressional subpoenas, though, is that it pits two of the Democrats priorities against each other. Democrats have been tasked with both upholding democracy and defending constitutional norms. The norm of the past 90 years has been that congressional subpoenas are honored because the people subpoenaed are honorable. That doesnt seem likely to happen here. Still, Congress hasnt jailed a witness since 1934, when it found William P. MacCracken Jr. in contempt for refusing to participate in a Senate investigation into how federal airmail contracts were awarded. MacCracken was taken into custody by the Sergeant at Arms, although rumor has it that he was held at the Willard Hotel, according to the The Washington Post. A criminal referral to the Justice Department would likely move much slower than MacCrackens arrestand could prove easier to fight. If Bannon can delay long enough, he could simply run out the clock, and hope that Democrats lose control of Congress in 2022.

Because the January 6 committee cannot rely on members of Trumpworld acting honorably, it may have to go further, Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, told me. Historically, the enforcement mechanism for congressional subpoenas to executive-branch employees was as much political as it was legal, she explained. In other words, the parties negotiated over the scope of subpoenas, because the political cost of outright defiance was seen as too high. Trump broke that process, convincing his followers that refusing to submit to congressional oversight was a virtue, not a violation of our laws. If Congress cant regain the ability to enforce its subpoenas in the light of a norm-breaking presidency, its oversight abilities will be extinguished.

Read: The Capitol rioters won

Last year, Congress drafted a resolution to be used with noncompliant members of the Trump administration. It was meant to give congressional subpoenas teeth. As a police officer, you see a lot of people who think theyre above the law, Val Demings, one of the sponsors of the resolution, told me. We called them habitual offenders, and the only way to stop them is to hold them accountable. When theres no enforcement mechanism, its no surprise that we see corruption, cover-ups, and contempt towards those of us trying to bring accountability to Washington No one is above the law, up to and including the president of the United States.

Will putting Bannon in jail make him tell the truth about what happened leading up to and on January 6? Dont count on it. Will jail be something Bannon can use for fundraising and publicity? Thats one of his core competencies. But a fight with Bannon over congressional power and criminal referrals, however protracted, could help Democrats too. Drawing more attention to the committees investigation and its high stakes isnt necessarily a bad outcome for those of us who want to preserve democracy. If the January 6 committee can hold widely watched, televised hearings, with or without Bannon, perhaps some of the truth will get through to Americans so far unmoved by what happened early this year. The committees power to convince, rather than its power to punish, will matter most.

Read the rest here:
Democrats Are Ready to Send Steve Bannon to Jail - The Atlantic

While they prepare the bill for floor action, majority party leaders are deciding whether to pair the must-pass funding package to avoid a shutdown with a measure to tackle the approaching debt cliff a plan Republicans vehemently promise to reject. A bill that addresses both fiscal threats would likely pass the House, but its odds are highly questionable in the Senate, where all but four GOP lawmakers have promised to vote against raising the debt limit.

The premise that Republicans are not going to vote in any way, shape, form or fashion for a debt limit increase is a correct premise. That would not happen, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) warned this week.

Democrats would be remiss to pass the funding bill without debt limit action, since the Treasury Department is expected to run out of borrowing ability sometime next month a breaking point likely to trigger economic turmoil. Majority party leaders can maximize their leverage over Republicans by coupling the issues, forcing GOP lawmakers to either fall in line or go on record against billions of dollars in disaster aid, preventing a government shutdown and avoiding debt default.

"The debt limit is something that we should do almost automatically," Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said this week. "So any opportunity that we have to pass it, the sooner the better. ... Wherever we can get a bill in, I hope we can get the debt ceiling included in it."

A cap on the nations ability to borrow money was reinstated on Aug. 1. The Treasury Department has since implemented a number of workarounds to keep paying the governments bills on time, but Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned those measures could be exhausted as soon as next month a scenario that would wreak unparalleled economic havoc.

Earlier this week, some Senate Republicans indicated a willingness to support a stopgap bill that includes billions of dollars in hurricane and flood relief requested by Biden, citing their own needs in states rocked by Hurricane Ida and other storms throughout the year.

But any measure to raise or suspend the debt limit must be left off, GOP lawmakers said, insisting that Democrats handle a typically bipartisan issue alone, since the majority party is pursuing multitrillion-dollar spending plans without Republican support.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) bluntly said Monday that he would not support a continuing resolution that includes disaster aid and action to stave off a debt default.

This debt limit is all justifying their robbing the bank to spend a whole bunch of new social programs that are going to feed the fires of inflation, he said.

See original here:
Biden dials top Democrats as shutdown countdown begins ...

House Democrats want to raise taxes on the largest corporations and wealthiest Americans to help pay for the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package. The series of proposed tax code changes are set to spark heated debate on Capitol Hill as Republicans and some centrists Democrats push back on the sweeping spending proposal that tackles a range of President Biden's policy priorities.

The House Ways and Means committee tasked with drafting the funding proposal unveiled its text on Monday. It comes as the committee is set to mark up the legislation on Wednesday, the same day Speaker Nancy Pelosi has set as the deadline for all committees to complete their drafted portions of the legislation.

House Democrats are proposing increasing the corporate tax rate to $26.5% up from 21% for businesses that have incomes above $5 million. At the same time, they've proposed lowering the tax rate even further for the smallest businesses making up to $400,000 to 18%. Corporations with incomes falling in the middle range would not see corporate tax hike.

This comes out just below President Biden's own proposal unveiled this spring. He called for the tax rate to be increased to 28% after it was slashed from 35% to 21% under President Trump in 2017.

The proposal also revamps the tax brackets for the wealthiest Americans, increasing the top income tax rate to 39.6% from 37% which applies to individuals with a taxable income of more than $400,000, married individuals filing jointly with taxable income over $450,000 and heads of households with taxable income over $425,000.

Under the proposal, the top capital gains rate would increase from 20% to 25%. This is less than the President's proposal which included nearly doubling it to 39.6% rate on households with an income of more than $1 million. Instead, the proposal includes a 3% surtax on individuals making more than $5 million.

Another proposal in the drafted legislation increases the tax rate on tobacco products.

White House spokesman Andrew Bates praised the proposal, noting it "makes significant progress towards ensuring our economy rewards work and not just wealth by cutting taxes for middle class families; reforming the tax code to prevent the offshoring of American jobs; and making sure the wealthiest Americans and big corporations pay their fair share" and meets two of the president's core goals.

While the legislation includes changes to the tax code, it also includes $80 billion in funding for the IRS over the next decade which would increase enforcement on the wealthiest Americans.

According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% have avoided paying an estimated $163 billion in taxes a year. The full tax gap between what is owed and what is actually collected is an estimated $600 billion annually and could reach an estimated $7 trillion over the next ten years. The increase in funding to the IRS would allow the collection of an additional $200 billion over a decade, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

According to a document on the House Democrats' tax proposal circulated among lawmakers and obtained by CBS News, the series of tax changes and provisions would raise an estimated $2.9 trillion in revenue including an estimated additional trillion from the wealthiest individuals and another $900 billion from corporations.

Along with the White House's estimated $600 billion in growth, the document states, the proposal would pay for the $3.5 trillion spending plan, which includes provisions such as expanding Medicare, extending the monthly Child Tax Credit, implementing a 12-week paid family and medical leave policy nationally, providing universal pre-K to all 3- and 4-year-olds, making two years of community college tuition free and more.

But the tax-and-spend agenda has a long way to go on Capitol Hill. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House Ways and Means Committee will continue its work marking up its portion of the legislation, known as the Build Back Better Act. In a statement, Chairman Richard Neal said its investments can all be funded "responsibly" and taken together, the proposals "expand opportunity for the American people and support our efforts to build a healthier, more prosperous future for the country."

But over the weekend, Senator Joe Manchin continued to pour cold water on the $3.5 trillion reconciliation package, saying Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would not have his vote on a package of that size. The West Virginia Democrat suggested Congress needs to scale down its number to meet urgent needs, putting him at striking odds with progressive Democrats such as Senator Bernie Sanders, who said Sunday whittling down the package to $1.5 trillion was "absolutely not acceptable" to him.

Democrats have 50 seats in the Senate leaving no room for dissension. The Senate returns from recess Monday.

See original here:
Democrats' new tax proposal takes aim at corporations and ...