Friday, April 30, 2021
Thursday, April 29, 2021
How President Biden Wants To Pay For His New Programs
Republicans are opposing all of his programs. They are saying the country cannot afford the programs because it would put the country much deeper in debt. They didn't mind going deeper in debt when they passed their tax cuts for the rich and corporations, but they are very resistant to spending money to help ordinary Americans.
Of course, they are wrong. President Biden doesn't want to put the nation further in debt, and he has a plan to prevent that. The Republicans just don't like his plan, because it would mean higher taxes for the rich and corporations.
President Biden's first plan -- the one to fight the virus and give Americans some money -- was done on credit. He needed to get it passed quickly, and that couldn't be done with a battle over raising taxes. But his new plans (infrastructure, healthcare, education, etc.) are going to be paid for. Here (from Axios.com) is how he wants to do it:
To pay for his plans, Biden is essentially relying on five new lines of revenue.
- Raise the top marginal tax rate from 37% to 39.6% for Americans who make more than $400,000.
- Treat capital gains as regular income, and tax it at the highest rate plus a 3.8% Obamacare surcharge for a total of 43.4% on households with more than $1 million in investment income.
- Tax capital gains at death and eliminate the so-called “stepped-up” basis that allows estates to revalue assets after their original owner dies.
- Inject some $80 billion into the IRS to audit high-income earners and collect an additional $700 billion by increased tax compliance over 10 years.
- Draw on any leftover revenue from increasing the corporate tax rate, as Biden previously proposed in the American Jobs Plan, including a global minimum tax and raising the rate from 21% to 28%.
Public Sees Biden As More Moderate Than Obama
From NBC News:
Americans perceive Joe Biden as more moderate than Barack Obama at the same stage of his presidency, a new survey shows, even as progressive activists say the incumbent is governing to the left of the former president.
The perception of Biden as a moderate may be helping him win support from congressional Democrats in competitive parts of the country who might otherwise feel pressure to oppose his agenda.
In April 2009, the NBC poll found that 59 percent of registered voters saw Obama as "very" or "somewhat" liberal, while 30 percent saw him as moderate. A new NBC poll released Sunday finds that 44 percent see Biden as "very" or "somewhat" liberal, while 42 percent see him as "moderate."
This surprises me. While President Obama was a moderate in an attempt to get some Republican support, President Biden has asked for that support but refused to moderate his agenda to get it. The programs announced by President Biden are the most progressive of any president since Lyndon Johnson.
But I don't mind the public viewing him as a moderate. It just means the Republicans have failed in their effort to demonize him, and it will make it easier to get his programs through Congress and accepted by the public.
Partisanship Is Just The Reality Of The 117th Congress
Bipartisanship is all that's being discussed these days by the talking heads of cable news. They seem to think that's the only way any legislation can be passed. But is that a reality-based view? The 117th Congress is the most partisan Congress in decades, and it's a legitimate question to ask if bipartisan legislation is even a possibility in this Congress.
Consider the following. It is part of a guest essay in The New York Times by John Lawrence:
There is nothing wrong with reaching across the aisle to seek common ground.
But insisting on bipartisanship — given the major policy divide between the parties on economic recovery, tax reform, climate change and health care — usually guarantees gridlock (which promotes voter cynicism) or actions that are watered down and ineffective (which are condemned by everyone, right and left).
There is nothing wrong with being partisan. . . .
In the decades after World War II, bipartisan policymaking became the norm because the ideological divisions within both parties — for example, there were numerous liberal Republicans who, since Reconstruction, supported civil rights — compelled cross-party alliances. Most issues did not break down ideologically by party. In fact, for much of the 20th century, supporters of political reform, environmentalism and civil rights could be found as easily in the Republican as in the Democratic Party.
A sizable cohort of moderate to liberal Republicans like Jacob Javits, Clifford Case and Mark Hatfield provided the votes to pass progressive legislation. Similarly, during periods of conservative activism, Republicans could reach across the aisle to find conservative Democrats (like “boll weevils”) to help pass their priorities.
But those circumstances no longer exist, and as a result, bipartisanship has become the Sasquatch of American politics: rarely seen but fervently sought. The opportunities for finding cross-party support for significant legislation, except in response to a national calamity, like the Troubled Asset Relief Program for the financial crisis, have evaporated. The parties have fundamentally changed — there are now very few liberal Republicans or conservative Democrats — and that transformation has hollowed out the middle ground of American politics. Continuing to demand bipartisanship as the validator of sound policy is not only fanciful but also self-defeating. . . .
In the past half-century, the parties have become far more ideologically unified and distinct. In a 2014 report, Pew Research found that a persuadable middle — moderate to liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats — in Congress shrank from 240 representatives and 29 senators in the 1970s to nine and three, respectively, 20 years later to none in 2014. Members of Congress voted with their party leadership 60 percent of the time just a few decades ago but now vote well over 90 percent along party lines, and even more so when voting on major policy issues.
Seeking bipartisanship looks more and more like a fool’s errand. President Barack Obama offered significant concessions to Republicans in hopes of attracting their support on legislation like the 2009 stimulus and the Affordable Care Act, but he came up almost totally empty-handed. Many Democrats were furious that their broader designs — especially on health care — had been trimmed to attract nonexistent Republican support. The consequences of this caution are still with us.
The aspect of political divisiveness that we can do something about — and that exacerbates the partisanship we probably cannot completely undo, at least for a while — is the incendiary rhetorical overkill of political debate. . . .
Our ideologically segregated parties should use political power to accomplish objectives promised in campaigns and then let voters decide if the party has earned the right to govern. True, this approach could result in sweeping policy changes, but voters would then have clarity about whom to hold responsible for governing successes and failures.
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
Trump's Popularity Plummets To A Record Low
The chart above reflects the result of the new NBC News Poll -- done between April 17th and 20th of a national sample of 1,000 adults, with a 3.1 point margin of error.
Most Support Biden's Spending On Infrastructure/Healthcare
The charts above are from the Monmouth University Poll -- done between April 8th and 12th of a national sample of 800 adults, with a 3.5 point margin of error.
It's shows the public supports President Biden's plans to spend big on both infrastructure and enhanced healthcare. They know both are badly needed and will benefit the country.
Republicans are currently shooting themselves in the foot again. They have proposed only a tiny infrastructure plan and oppose more spending on healthcare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)