Mediaboss Marketing

Watching congressional Democrats these days feels like a painful, slow-motion car wreck. They are sleepwalking into a health care disaster thats entirely of their own making. With little debate or media focus, Democrats are on the verge of dooming millions of Americans to huge new health care bills, which will in turn serve to ruin any hope Democrats have of winning the midterms. And that will effectively destroy any chance of real health care reform for at least another decade.

In 2021, as part of the American Rescue Plan, Democrats improved the Affordable Care Act subsidies for the insurance exchanges. For the first time, this created a situation where all American citizens qualified to get health insurance at a legally defined affordable premium. Despite its flaws, it was a big ideological statement, and a serious improvement for the 14 million with exchange coverage. While the bill only improved subsidies for two years, almost everyone assumed Democrats would eventually make the change permanent, since it had support across the entire Senate caucus, and allowing enhanced subsidies to expire would be politically idiotic.

More from Jon Walker

It turns out, though, that one should never underestimate the collective incompetence of the Democratic Party. Making the enhanced subsidies permanent was supposed to be part of the Build Back Better plan, but Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) killed that. Now, Manchin is talking about a new, much smaller reconciliation package, which notably does not include these subsidies or any other social-program improvements. All of the spending in Manchins proposed package would be on energy programs.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, some 3.4 million Americans will become uninsured if these subsidies arent extended. The health care foundation KFF determined that premiums would more than double for many. Potentially all subscribers on the insurance exchanges will be affected, though we dont know precisely how.

Unlike the expiration of the expanded Child Tax Credit, which was a relatively even hit for every parent a year before the election, how much a person will be impacted varies greatly depending on income, age, and location. For some, the change will be modest, but others will receive news effectively of financial ruin right before they vote.

While current enhanced ACA subsidies dont expire until the end of December, open enrollment to sign up for insurance in 2023 starts on November 1st. This means customers will receive letters about their 2023 premiums, and the news will start covering stories about premium increases, in October, the same time that mail-in ballots will reach voters.

Currently, inflation ranks as the top concern among Americans, and Democrats have set it up so that millions will be told they face a massive increase in their cost of living right before the election.

Beyond broadly hurting 14 million people, the end of these subsidies will create thousands of uniquely horrific stories of financial devastation.

For a sense of how devastating inaction on extending the subsidies will be, imagine a 60-year-old woman in Huntington, West Virginia, who lost her job due to the pandemic and started a small business making $56,000 a year. The enhanced ACA subsidies mean that this year, the cheapest health insurance plan is costing her only $93 a month. But next year without the subsidies, she will be paying over $1,500 a month for the same coverage with a very high deductible.

Since almost no one thought Democrats would fail to extend the subsidies, many people made employment and financial plans accordingly. Individuals have quit jobs, moved, dropped previous insurance, and made other plans that rely on the new subsidies, only to have the rug potentially pulled out from under them in October.

Beyond broadly hurting 14 million people, the end of these subsidies will create thousands of uniquely horrific stories of financial devastation. Due to the weird interplay of the ACAs insurance rules around age and the design of the subsidies, the most jaw-dropping price hikes will be among older middle-class Americans. Many of them will likely feel betrayed that Democrats made them financially worse off than before. This is a group that tends to turn out disproportionately in midterm elections. All of these stories will be news fodder to highlight in the weeks before the midterms.

Congressional Republicans have steadfastly opposed any improvement to the ACA since its inception. Republicans have even refused to allow the normal minor clerical corrections that follow almost every major piece of legislation, so they could try to exploit these technical issues to ruin the ACA in multiple lawsuits. If Republicans win another massive midterm victory because Democrats once again mishandled health care, it is extremely unlikely they are going to want to turn around and help Democrats fix the problem.

Furthermore, if Republicans win in 2022, Democrats are unlikely to win another trifecta for at least another decade, if not longer. In addition, if millions of people feel they have been burned by making the mistake of choosing to use the Democrats health care program, public opinion of the program could take a big hit. The ACAs favorable rating has improved by five points since Democrats enhanced the subsidies, but remains at 58 percent, owing in part to implacable opposition from the right wing. Those numbers will likely rocket downward if the subsidy enhancements expire.

On a separate track, previous pandemic relief measures included a continuous coverage option that gave states higher shares of Medicaid funding. Those changes end if the administration ends the public-health emergency created by COVID-19. The emergency could end as soon as this summer, according to published reports, which would instantly allow states to cull their Medicaid rolls and throw 12 million people, by one estimate, off public health insurance. Build Back Better would have stepped down the increased payments to states slowly, kept a small portion of them in place, and made it harder for states to disenroll lots of beneficiaries in one shot. But with Build Back Better dead, thats gone too, imperiling millions of Medicaid patients, again just before the midterms.

If Democrats miss the opportunity to permanently fix Medicaid and the ACA subsidies, it might not be possible to ever rebuild trust in the ACA or in the Democrats brand as the party of health care. It will be very hard to sell slowly building on the ACA if Democrats prove they cant be trusted to ever do that.

Continue reading here:
Democrats Creating Their Own October Surprise - The American Prospect

OLYMPIA The veto pen struck again.

For the past few years, Gov. Jay Inslee has irked his fellow Democrats with some of his vetoes, prompting outcries and even lawsuits from legislative leaders for his more creative applications of executive authority.

This week, the governor kept it simple, issuing a standard partial veto of Senate Bill 5901, intended to spur economic development through tax incentives.

Nonetheless, Inslee's veto prompted bursts of frustration yet again from Democratic lawmakers and showed just how central tax preferences are to Washington politics and policy.

In SB 5901, Democrats thought they had a good idea to spur investment in rural Washington: a new sales and use tax deferral program to boost the construction of some large warehouse projects across most of Washington's 39 counties.

Currently, tax deferral programs of this type only exist in King County, according to a fiscal analysis of the legislation.

Sponsored by Sen. Emily Randall, D-Bremerton, SB 5901 also capped the sales tax exemptions for the construction or expansion of warehouses or grain elevators to

$400,000, according to a legislative analysis.

The bill passed the Legislature with bipartisan majorities and was co-sponsored by moderate and progressive Democrats, a conservative Republican and Senate Majority Leader Andy Billig, D-Spokane.

But on Thursday, Inslee rejected a swath of the bill, including parts that expanded the sales tax deferral on large projects across much of the state, and the $400,000 cap.

"I could not justify thinking that it was a good investment for Washingtonians to subsidize warehouse owners, when every time I turn around I see a new warehouse," Inslee said in a question-and-answer session with reporters.

The governor had actually intended to go even further and veto the entire bill, and even prepared the explanation of the full veto. But shortly before Thursday's bill signing, the governor's office decided to keep part of the legislation.

The reason? Because part of the legislation might benefit a clean-energy project the governor is seeking to lure to Washington.

"There was a provision in there that could be important to a high-tech manufacturer in the clean-energy space," Inslee said, when asked about the change to a partial veto.

"It's very important to get that company to Washington state, and it would be a very large entity and would help in our clean energy, as well," he added.

The state is actively trying to recruit that company, according to Inslee spokesperson Jaime Smith. Asked about which company the state is trying to lure, Smith referred questions to the state Department of Commerce.

In an email, spokesperson Penny Thomas wrote that, "as you can imagine, throughout an active recruitment project we are not at liberty to share many specific details, especially the company identity."

The veto prompted frustration from Randall, who is expected to have one of the most competitive Senate races this fall.

"Now, with this partial veto, SB 5901's impact will not expand beyond the biggest warehouses in King County, and the smaller facilities and businesses like those that might grow and scale at the Port of Bremerton's industrial park will not see the benefits of this tax exemption," Randall said in prepared remarks. "I am extremely disappointed in the governor's decision to ignore the needs of our more rural local economies."

In a statement, Billig said he was disappointed and called the veto "misguided."

"The portion of the bill that he vetoed would have saved the state millions of dollars by narrowing a tax exemption used by the largest warehouse developers and, at the same time, provided more opportunity for smaller businesses to benefit from the tax exemption," he said in prepared remarks.

(c)2022 The Seattle Times

Visit The Seattle Times at http://www.seattletimes.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

More here:
Inslee rankles fellow Democrats by vetoing part of tax-incentive bill geared toward rural WA - Yakima Herald-Republic

The mercurial rise of Ron DeSantis is the Democrats fault.

I say this with gratitude, not regret. Absent some catastrophe, DeSantis is going to win a second term as governor of Florida this coming November and, after that, he has a fair shot of being president. This is partly because he has done an excellent job for his state. Its also because he was unusually lucky in his enemies.

Unable to help themselves, the Democrats have aided him at every stage. They still are.

2018 was a good year for the Democratic Party, but not so good a year that the quality of its candidates didnt matter. Had the party nominated a credible centrist in Floridas toss-up gubernatorial race Gwen Graham, for example that candidate would not only have won the governors mansion for the Democrats for the first time in two decades, shed have ended DeSantis career.

But the Democrats didnt choose a credible centrist. They hosted a messy and divisive primary, selected the radical Andrew Gillum as their nominee, lost by 0.4 points, and set DeSantis up for a bright future. Opportunity: missed.

The Dems still had a chance to turn it around, even after he won. Ron DeSantis is a good governor, but he is not perfect, he does not get every call right, and he is as susceptible to base political temptation as any other human being. Florida has undoubtedly grown more Republican of late, but it is not Mississippi, and the Democratic Party will eventually win a big election here simply by being a sober, credible alternative to the GOP.

If the Florida Democratic Party understands this, it has a peculiar way of showing it. Instead of calmly rebuilding, it has allowed itself to become so crazy in its opposition to DeSantis, it has elevated him to national status, provided him with all the incentives he needs to play Churchill at the gates, and, by confirming that any Republican (not just Trump) will be treated terribly in the press, turned him into a rock-ribbed conservative hero.

To DeSantis delight, his opponents have become addicted to stepping on rakes. In their desperation to take him down, the Florida Democratic Party has chased one absurd conspiracy theory after another. Its leading lights have sided with the disgraced fabulist Rebekah Jones, who falsely accused DeSantis of manipulating state COVID data; it has spread a debunked 60 Minutes claim that there was something untoward about Florida using the states largest supermarket chain to distribute vaccines; it has pretended that the plan to make Florida the 23rd state with a state guard augurs something sinister; and it has advertised a link that does not exist between contracts awarded to the drug company, Regneron, and donations to DeSantis campaign.

Worse still, the party has come to believe its own rhetoric. Nikki Fried, the states Democratic agriculture secretary (and a potential 2022 gubernatorial nominee), has taken to claiming that Florida isnt a free state; to comparing DeSantis to the leader of a communist country, to a dictator, and, in a lot of ways, to Hitler; and to charging that he represents a danger to the world. In the meantime, her colleagues in the legislature have gone all out to oppose a set of COVID policies that have made Florida a magnet for disgruntled Americans and to assail a K-3 education bill that, despite the dishonest way in which it has been characterized (Dont Say Gay), is popular among Democrats.

The results have been predictable. DeSantis now leads his likely opponents in every reputable statewide poll, has an approval rating of around 55%, and, when compared to the hysterical descriptions to whichvotersare treated, appears refreshingly normal to the average American.

Bang-up job, guys.

Charles C. W. Cooke is a senior writer at National Review.

Read the original here:
Democrats only have themselves to blame for the rise of Ron DeSantis - New York Post

Democratic lawmakers are openly pressuring Attorney General Merrick Garland to bring the weight of U.S. law enforcement againstmembers offormer President Trump's inner circlethey've deemed uncooperative with the House'sinvestigation of the Jan. 6 attack.

Why it matters: The House select committee is seeking to compel or punish Trump loyalists who don't comply with the investigation, while Republicans are preparing to win back control of Congress in November and end the probe.

The big picture: The pressure campaign is putting President Biden on a collision course with his own party.

What we're watching: During a meeting Monday night at which the select committee recommended House contempt votes against former Trump aides Dan Scavino and Peter Navarro, Reps. Elaine Luria (D-Va.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) all called on Garland to act.

How we got here: The ramped-up calls come three months after the House voted to hold former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in contempt for ending cooperation with the investigation.

Federal prosecutors so far have not brought charges.

But, but, but: Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Democratic Caucus, said neither the committee nor the Justice Department should "operate under false deadlines and timeframes that would render their work incomplete."

Read the rest here:
Democrats push Garland to come down on uncooperative Trump allies - Axios

The green energy revolution has led Democrats to embrace calls for more mining creating a potential flashpoint between those seeking climate action and others fighting for environmental justice.

President Biden turned yesterday to a Cold War-era law to marshal Defense Department resources toward supporting new mining activities in the United States, including through assisting with costly studies and industrial processing activities all to obtain more minerals needed to make electric vehicle batteries. The order singled out five commodities as a priority: lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite and manganese.

Bidens order arrived after a request from Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the latter a long-standing champion of critical minerals policy who is running in a contested election this fall.

As the White House was rolling out its directive, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a largely pro-mining hearing that could serve as a blueprint for a potential deal on energy and critical minerals.

The hearing featured three experts on the mining industry and two representatives from mining companies: Julie Padilla of the Twin Metals copper-nickel mine in northern Minnesota and Scott Melbye, CEO of Uranium Energy Corp. and the head of the Uranium Producers of America, an industry association.

Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) said during the hearing that hardrock mining and minerals will play a pivotal role in the energy transition. Mineral technologies moving hand in hand, evolving together, Hickenlooper said, is how civilization has always progressed.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said it is essential to produce more minerals at home and reduce our countrys dependence on foreign-produced minerals, Wyden, who recently introduced a bill that would subsidize some mining activities, said reducing that dependence on other countries is as much a national security issue as it [is] an environmental one (E&E Daily, March 9).

And Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) called for the government to streamline our permitting process, and declared that mining in Nevada will one day make her state a nexus for our clean energy and our critical mineral future.

Its not clear what exactly a legislative deal would look like, and little was mentioned of a deal during the hearing. However, in a show of interest for policymaking on minerals and energy, Manchin announced he would hold another hearing on the issue next week.

Democrats have tried to paint an optimistic picture in the months since Manchin killed off their marquee climate and social spending bill, the Build Back Better Act. Manchin himself has indicated that he largely supports the roughly $300 billion in clean energy and electric vehicle tax credits contained in the bill, which passed the House last year (E&E Daily, March 23).

Asked by E&E News what the legislative future looks like for critical minerals policy, Manchin underscored his enthusiasm for the issue.

We can meet the demand that we have in America, Manchin said in an interview yesterday. Thats what this is all about, and right now were way behind the curve.

Could a compromise that combines clean energy tax credits and critical minerals legislation receive 50 votes in the Senate? Manchin told E&E News, Well have to wait and see on that.

In another signal of the machinations at play, Biden yesterday tied his Defense Production Act critical minerals order to his greenhouse gas emissions goals (E&E News PM, March 31).

We need to choose long-term security over energy and climate vulnerability, Biden said during an event at the White House. We need to double down on our commitment to clean energy and tackling the climate crisis with our partners and allies around the world.

Other Democrats said yesterday that they see room for a deal on critical minerals and clean energy, given Manchins enthusiasm. Wyden, for instance, used yesterdays hearing to gin up support for the suite of clean energy tax credits he helped tuck into Build Back Better.

Murkowski, the former Energy and Natural Resources chair and longtime Manchin collaborator, also said she sees potential for a more conventional bipartisan energy package, with Russias invasion of Ukraine spurring a flurry of proposals from both parties.

He and I are talking about what the world of possibilities is, Murkowski told reporters yesterday.

Were talking about what more we can do in the energy space because I think theres a recognition that the country is looking differently at our energy resources, Murkowski added. And, in fairness, the world is looking at the resources that America has and is wondering what this policy might look like.

Experts largely acknowledge that in order to quickly transition away from fossil fuels, the world will need to dig up more metal out of the ground to build new energy and transportation systems.

The United States largely relies on foreign sources, primarily China, for its supplies of these minerals, posing what security hawks say is a risk to national economic stability as the nation transitions away from using oil and gas.

Experts, however, say a boom in mines producing metals essential for making batteries like lithium and nickel would almost certainly encroach upon ways of life for many Indigenous people. By one estimate, most nickel, copper, lithium and cobalt reserves are within 35 miles of a Native American reservation.

Morgan Bazilian, director of the Payne Institute for Public Policy at the Colorado School of Mines, told E&E News that typically U.S. lawmakers disregard the views of Indigenous peoples, regardless of what political party they belong to.

Historically its been the case, because the tribes get nothing. Theyre treated very poorly in general. Thats obviously very long-standing in the history of the United States, Bazilian said.

The order stated that the Defense Department would ensure that all mining-related activities would adhere to existing requirements for government-to-government consultation with Native American tribes.

The same day as the order, the Interior Department published a notice in the Federal Register outlining plans to hold hearings and take public comments about changing current mining laws and regulations, including ways to improve Indigenous consultation.

But all this was cold comfort for environmentalists and Indigenous activists opposed to more mining.

There is no federal requirement for the government to actually consult with Indigenous communities only recommendations. Next week, the House Natural Resources Committee will hold a markup on legislation that would enshrine such a requirement in law, but its unclear whether the bill can pass in a Congress with thin margins for legislative action.

Knowing that Bidens order could ripple across tribal lands, Raquel Dominguez, a policy associate at the nonprofit Earthworks, said that as a person of color, reading news of Bidens order made her want to cry.

I am shaking right now, because I am so worked up over this, Dominguez told E&E News. If it makes me this emotional, just reading about it and working on it at a policy level, think about how it actually affects the people who are dealing with this.

E&E News also yesterday received a list of statements from Indigenous people living in Nevada close to lithium mines currently in development. All condemned the presidents action.

This is a second invasion, said Day Hinkey, a member of the Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone tribe and an organizer with the People of Red Mountain. Hinkey and others living in northern Nevada are fighting the Thacker Pass lithium mine, the largest U.S. lithium project currently under development (E&E News PM, Feb. 25).

I believe this is gonna be the second coming of environmental destruction. The first were in now is the climate crisis from the fossil fuel industry, and I believe this next one will be lithium mining, Hinkey said.

Environmental justice concerns for the Indigenous came up at the ENR hearing, as well as a long-running fight over the 1872 General Mining Act.

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said reforming the law and instituting royalties for reclamation will be crucial.

Theres going to be an enormous amount of pressure from Western communities that are still suffering from the water quality impacts of that to say, Yeah, you can talk about more mining, absolutely. But the cost of that is going to be to finally fix the 1872 Mining Act,' Heinrich said in an interview this week.

Heinrich nonetheless said he sees opportunities for a deal with Manchin, calling the potential extraction of rare earths from acid mine drainage an area of common ground.

Democrats typically concerned about the impacts of mining on Native peoples said they hope the Biden administration will act with care and caution as it pumps up the mining industry.

I think they have credibility and trust in how they do this, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said. Obviously, we will make sure that its done right, but that goes more to how its done than whether it needs to be done.

House Natural Resources Chair Ral Grijalva (D-Ariz.), one of Capitol Hills top voices on environmental justice issues, took a similar line, saying that the Biden White House recognizes the fundamental flaws in the rules governing mining on public lands and is committed to putting much-needed safeguards in place.

Im also optimistic that President Biden and Interior Secretary Haaland will move this decision forward with the same commitment to consulting affected tribes and local communities they have demonstrated throughout this administration, Grijalva said in a statement.

But, he added, theres no situation in which Im going to feel good about giving even more subsidies to the mining industry.

Continued here:
Democrats go big on mining. Will there be a backlash? - E&E News