Tag: biden
trump administration

Not Too Soon To Ask How We Can Repair Trump's Wreckage

One of the more interesting, and more hopeful, questions I like to think about is: how long will it take to repair the damage done by the Trump administration? As a member of the Biden admin, I have personal experience fixing some of what got broken in Trump 1. (EG, they did a good job supporting the creation of the COVID vax but blew the distribution; also, international relations).

The trade war is an obvious candidate, but we now need to think about their newly passed budget bill in this context.

The more one learns about the bill, the more it resembles a computer virus embedded in our economy and society, infecting policy in dozens of areas, and such viruses are hard to extract. The big ticket items—the upwardly skewed tax cuts and downwardly skewed spending cuts—have gotten ample attention. The cuts to renewable energy production, a bit less so; same with reductions in debt relief for college loans. And then there are a slew of “earmarks”—tax breaks for special interests—that have gotten very little attention. Politico does an excellent job collecting e.g.’s, some of which I relegate to an appendix.

Extracting such a virus will require the same type of focus and drive that Trump and the Republicans brought to the task. In a recent post, I argued that Ds need to both emulate this focused energy while reverse engineering the tariffs and budget on behalf of actually helping people who need it, versus pretending to do so while screwing them.

What will that look like?

Unwinding the sweeping (versus narrowly targeted) tariffs, given that they’re non-legislative, should be a slam-dunk, though it will require Ds not to fold when some interest group, be they industry or union, objects.

We’re also going to have to be willing to both unwind some tax cuts and seek new revenues. We already did some of the analytic work re the latter task in the Biden administration: our proposed budgets—which never got anywhere in the divided gov’t we mostly faced—proposed significant, highly progressive revenue-raising tax hikes, but only on a narrow slice at the top of the income scale. That’s not enough to get back on a more sustainable fiscal path, which is where we need to be if we’re going to not only reverse the new cuts in the safety net but also address affordability shortfalls in housing, child care, health care, and higher ed. But it’s the right place to start, as shown in this chart from Brendan Duke (see third bar).

That shouldn’t be a heavy lift for Ds, at least not for those who aren’t in the same donors’ pockets as the Rs who passed this beast. In fact, our proposed tax hikes above $400K had a lot of support from Ds, many of whom pushed us to go further.

They were right, and this means that Democrats are going need some spine to reverse tax cuts in the bill that have some constituent support but are terribly designed. The no-tax-on-tips leaves out a big group of tipped workers with no federal tax liability from which to deduct the tax break (they’d get actual, and much needed, help from an increase in the federal minimum wage, still stuck at $7.25!). And while the tip deduction may help some of the waitress, it does nothing for the cooks. The $6,000 seniors’ deduction, along with the lifting of the SALT cap, mostly give more money to people who are doing fine without the extra help.

Next, we’ll need to restore the cuts to the safety net. Again, this should not be a heavy lift for Ds, especially given the vast unpopularity of these cuts. The questions at that point will be more about expansion. Health coverage and groceries are at the heart of the affordability crisis, points that should lead attacks on the bill (the cuts mostly kick in after the midterms, so this argument must be made in bomb-defusing terms I discuss below). Thus, expanding coverage further up the income scale is worthy of consideration, as is lowering the age for Medicare eligibility. Again, this takes revenue, which circles back to reversing tax cuts and adding new revenue increases.

Then we’ll need to get back to the industrial policy that was generating important, significant investment in renewable energy production. This too shouldn’t be a heavy lift as the production tax credits that the bill ends had very broad support, which is one reason for the deep unpopularity of the Trump budget. Even traditional Rs like the Chamber of Commerce and energy companies that recognize renewable energy production is part of their and our futures don’t understand the motivation for these cuts which seem to be driven wholly by Trump’s nostalgia for coal and distaste for wind turbines blocking his view.

Reversing the harsh deportation measures, along with funding for the wall and ICE, must also be part of this effort, but this one is complex and deserves its own later post. Any Democratic action in this area must be forthright about the need to maintain secure borders. But fair-minded people should all take solace from the fact that the Trump admin’s cruelty in this place is recognized by majorities of Americans, who are both unhappy and shocked by the ongoing extremism of masked, unidentified people grabbing people off the streets and throwing them into vans and airplanes, not to mention the local realities of losing a significant chunk of their workforces.

The only way we’ll be able to do any of this is through the same budget reconciliation process that the Rs used to pass this bill (it avoids a Senate filibuster). Which is another way of saying that the ability to right the wrongs being perpetrated is conditional on Trumps’ opponents gaining power. This, in turn, requires us to deal with the timing of the bill wherein many—not all—of the goodies (tax cuts) come first and the pain (health coverage and SNAP cuts) come later. But campaigning on defusing a time bomb seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy to me, especially if we keep the pressure on by constantly pointing out the falsehoods used to sell the package.

For example, the admin claims deficit reduction from the bill starting this year, followed by quite large reductions next year. That’s unlikely, and requires tracking. Ending credits for the production of renewable energy occurs this year and next, and this too should be scrutinized for job losses and energy-cost impacts.

I hate to say it but this is only day 167 of this administration. There will be a lot more damage to reveal and elevate along with damage-reversal planning to do as the months roll on. But, especially in the days around July 4th, I like to think about this as a labor of love for this country, which needs a whole lot of that right about now.

Appendix: Earmarked tax breaks in the new bill that you might have missed.

From Politico:

Senate Republicans not only kept a House-approved provision exempting gun silencers from a long-standing $200 tax on firearms — they dumped the tax on all guns it applied to, except machine guns and what the legislation terms “a destructive device.” That cost: $1.7 billion.

There’s a new supersized deduction for business meals — though only for employees at certain Alaskan fishing boats and processing plants, with the measure stipulating the facilities must be “located in the United States north of 50 degrees north latitude” though not in a “metropolitan statistical area.”

There’s a $2 billion break important to the rum industry and, tangentially, Louisiana, said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a tax writer…“We have the highest per capita intake of alcohol in the nation,” he said.

…an expansion of a little-known break that Silicon Valley investors have used to nix tax bills on tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars in earnings from Internet startups. Another spends $26 billion to create a new $1,700 credit for people who give to groups providing scholarships for children to attend private school.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) secured a $7 billion tax cut for farmers that allows them to postpone paying some of the capital gains taxes they owe when selling off farmland.

…a $1 billion provision allowing “spaceports” — which the legislation defines as “any facility located at or in close proximity to a launch site or reentry site” — to sell tax-exempt bonds…Sen. Ron Wyden, the chamber’s top Democratic tax writer, said in an X post that “Trump’s wedding gift to [Jeff] Bezos and birthday gift to [Elon] Musk were tucked in the new budget bill.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

GOP Celebrates Presidential Immunity-- So Long As It Doesn't Mean Biden

GOP Celebrates Presidential Immunity-- So Long As It Doesn't Mean Biden

Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity invites the nation’s leader to participate in a four-year crime spree, including doing away with opponents, while secure in the knowledge that they enjoy blissful elevation above the law.

Republicans are, of course, extraordinarily pleased.

Donald Trump started the ball rolling on his Truth Social site, calling the ruling a “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION,” even though there is no direct mention of presidential immunity in the Constitution. Other Republican lawmakers are piling on, expressing their satisfaction with a ruling that sets the president up to be a dictator.

So long as it doesn’t apply to the actual sitting president.

Every Republican lawmaker who’s spoken on the matter seems to agree that this ruling means that special counsel Jack Smith, who has indicted Trump in two different investigations, has to pack it up and go home.


While there are plenty of other Republicans eager to show Trump that they’re happy about his new, shiny armor, two of the responses are extra special.

While House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer shakes a fist at weaponizing the legal system for political gain, and House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan takes a punch at “hyper-partisan prosecutors,” neither says a word about the multiple investigations Republicans have run into President Joe Biden and members of his family.

Because, of course, they don’t read this ruling as protecting the sitting president. They read it as being specific to Donald Trump.

Even as they’re cheering for how this ruling allows presidents to act now and worry about the consequences never, Republicans are still complaining that Biden is a “dictator.”

The “Biden dictatorship” has become the way that Republicans talk about the incumbent president. It both gives their base something to whine about, and helps defuse Democratic statements warning about Trump’s actions should he return to power.

Here’s Doug Burgum, North Dakota’s governor and a shortlisted candidate for Trump’s vice president, appearing on Sunday’s edition of “Meet the Press”:

“Going into 2024, I think both parties are going to be very focused on [the election],” Burgum said. “I think the threat to democracy, as a governor in North Dakota today, I’ve been living under what I call the Biden dictatorship because of all the rules and regulations.”

Burgum was called out on this statement by host Kristen Welker, who pointed out that not only has Biden issued far fewer executive orders than Trump, he’s also issued fewer than Burgum has as governor. So does that make Burgum a dictator?

Burgum changed the subject.

To make it a little extra clear, another of Trump’s potential VPs, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, was over at “Face the Nation” on Sunday, explaining that without a ruling of absolute immunity, presidents might be prosecuted for almost anything.

But when it came to Biden, Vance had a different message. When host Margaret Brennan asked if Biden might be prosecuted under a Trump administration, Vance replied that it “would be the responsibility of the attorney general, Margaret.”

Republicans seem to have read this ruling as if it said "Trump" everywhere the Supreme Court wrote "president.” To be fair, that's probably what this partisan court meant. However, there is one former Republican official who seems to understand that this ruling can be applied more broadly.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Sarah Longwell

Former Trump Voters Still Won't Back Him After Biden Debate

Two-time Donald Trump voters who’ve since soured on the former president still don’t plan to back him after his debate with President Joe Biden, according to a focus group spearheaded by conservative strategist Sarah Longwell.

Longwell, publisher of The Bulwark and prominent “Never Trumper,” joined CNN on Friday to discuss the fallout from Biden’s much-maligned performance at the first presidential debate held on Thursday.

Longwell said she hosted a focus group Friday morning with “two-time Trump voters who are out on Trump — people who did not want to vote for him again.”

Noting “some of them had been leaning Biden prior to last night's debate,” Longwell said, “this morning, they told us that they just didn't think they could get there on Biden.”

“I will say, though, they were very clear about Trump still,” the Republican strategist said. “One of the things you heard from all the voters in the focus group is that Trump is a liar. Trump is a bad person. They don't want to vote for Trump. There was nothing about last night in Trump's performance that brought these voters who don't like Trump back to him.”

“The problem is that those voters needed to be persuaded to vote for Joe Biden, not just against Trump, and that didn't happen last night. That's what we heard,” she added.

CNN then played audio of the “double haters” who voted twice for Trump but are now undecided.

"It's like watching a train wreck,” Melanie from Kansas told the focus group. “I don't like either of the candidates. It's like, which one's worse? Biden’s cognitive stuff is just — it's evident. And then Trump is just a horrible human.”

Karen from Massachusetts agreed.

"It is shameful that that's country has these two candidates to pick from: You have a felon, and a gentleman who has certainly done his best, in his mind, for his country — but it's time for him to step away.”

Explaining the responses from her focus group, Longwell said “the double haters … have always sounded like this."

“The thing is, they don't hate Joe Biden, actually,” Longwell noted. “They just think he's too old. They do hate Donald Trump. They think he's a bad person of bad character. And so Joe Biden had to show up last night and convince those people that he could do the job.”

“Because that didn't happen last night, you just heard a lot of people talking about being embarrassed, feeling like, ‘Is this the only thing we could, the best we can do in this country?’” Longwell added.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Trump and Biden

Trump Blabs Debate Strategy -- Now Biden Plans Rebuttal

Former President Donald Trump recently telegraphed how he'll come at President Joe Biden in next week's presidential debate. Now, Biden's advisors are refining the president's counter-attack.

In his latest column for The New Republic, writer Greg Sargent delved into how Biden's campaign team is preparing the president to respond to likely attacks from his Republican opponent focused on immigration. On his Truth Social platform, Trump strongly hinted that he'll be attempting to pin isolated incidents of undocumented immigrants committing violent crimes on Biden.

"We have a new Biden Migrant Killing - It’s only going to get worse, and it’s all Crooked Joe Biden’s fault," the former president wrote. "I look forward to seeing him at the Fake Debate on Thursday. Let him explain why he has allowed MILLIONS of people to come into our Country illegally!"

Of course, as Sargent noted, the facts don't jibe with Trump's assertions that immigrant crime is a serious problem. Earlier this year, data from various large urban police departments showed that native-born U.S. citizens commit crime at a much higher rate than undocumented immigrants.

"Contrary to public perception, we observe considerably lower felony arrest rates among undocumented immigrants compared to legal immigrants and native-born US citizens and find no evidence that undocumented criminality has increased in recent years," read a 2020 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

However, this won't stop Trump from attempting to frame immigrant crime as prominent and to lay blame for it at Biden's feet. Those close to the president say Biden has a major opening to parry that line of attack and to turn the tables back on his opponent. Former Bill Clinton adviser James Carville told Sargent that Biden could say to Trump: "When I took over from you, crime in the United States was rising. I inherited a rising crime rate. We are now in one of the greatest declines in crime we’ve had in modern American history."

"The public doesn’t know that," Carville said.

Biden is currently at the presidential Camp David retreat to prepare for the debate with his closest advisors. This includes mock debate sessions with aides playing the ex-president. Trump, in the meantime, is putting off traditional debate prep and is instead on the campaign trail in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on Saturday.

Dan Pfeiffer, who was a communications adviser to former President Barack Obama, encouraged Biden to pivot from Trump's attacks about migrant crime and instead "express concern about the victim and their family." He added that Biden could then put his opponent on the defensive by harping on "the chaos that Trump unleashed in our immigration system with his cruelty and incompetence."

The first debate of the 2024 cycle will be this Thursday, June 27. While general election debates are typically hosted by the Commission on Presidential Debates, this one will be hosted by CNN and televised from Atlanta.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World