

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The outgoing CPC leader is proud of empowering the caucus to fight for "an economic agenda that worked for working people and poor people."
After six years at the helm of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, dedicated to "building the infrastructure" necessary to effectively fight for key policies on Capitol Hill, term-limited Rep. Pramila Jayapal is determined to ensure that the CPC's incoming leaders "are as successful as possible."
Jayapal (D-Wash.) spoke with Common Dreams on Wednesday about her time leading the caucus of nearly 100 lawmakers whose legislative priorities include "comprehensive immigration reform, good-paying jobs, fair trade, universal healthcare, debt-free college, climate action, and a just foreign policy."
She was elected first vice chair of the CPC in June 2017, just months into her freshman term in Congress. Explaining her foray into leadership, Jayapal affectionately said, "I blamed it all on Keith Ellison," a Minnesota Democrat who was then a congressman and caucus leader and is now his state's attorney general.
"He was very encouraging," she said of Ellison. "He knew that the whole reason I was running, because he had heard me talk about it on the campaign trail... was because I wanted to strengthen the power of the progressive movement inside Congress and figure out how we could be more effective working on the inside and the outside, which I was coming from."
Jayapal, who was born in India and came to the United States as a teenager for college, founded the immigrant advocacy group Hate Free Zone—which later became OneAmerica—after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Residents of the Seattle area elected her to Congress in 2016, during her first term in the Washington State Senate.
In politics, Jayapal has shared stories from her own life with the world, publicly writing and speaking about her experiences as an immigrant woman of color, a woman who had an abortion, and a mother to her trans daughter. She has welcomed the mentorship of Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the first woman of color to co-chair the CPC and, as Jayapal put it on Instagram earlier this week, "one of the most courageous and effective progressive leaders I have had the privilege to know."

Backed by leaders like Ellison and Lee—who is leaving Congress after this session—Jayapal jumped into the CPC hoping to transform it into "a caucus that could really have the power to stand up for working people and deliver." In 2018, she was elected co-chair with Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), and following 2020 caucus rule changes, she became a solo chair.
"What I realized when I came in is that we didn't really have the infrastructure we needed to support us to be powerful as a bloc of votes," said Jayapal, who utilized the skills and connections she developed as an organizer in the role she is now preparing to leave.
"I was able to come in and not only think about how you build power on the inside, but also how you coordinate with the outside," she said. "And that inside-outside strategy, and the trust I had, and the relationships I had, were really critical to my success in building the infrastructure here in Congress and sort of coalescing the movement around a set of priorities that we were then able to fight for and stand up for."
Jayapal recognized the need to hire staff and reform CPC rules to boost meeting attendance and caucus cohesion. She explained that "I felt very strongly about leadership transition to build the bench, and so I put in term limits for the CPC chair as well."
Thanks to that policy, she will pass the torch to Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) early next month. Jayapal, who will be chair emeritus, told Common Dreams, "I'm just really proud to have built an infrastructure that I can pass on to the next chair that just wasn't there before and will continue to get better, of course, with new leadership."
The 35-year-old incoming chair will be joined by Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) as deputy chair and Jesús "Chuy" García (D-Ill.) as whip. They will face a Republican-controlled Congress and the second administration of President-elect Donald Trump.
"I'm honored to build on the legacy of Chair Jayapal," Casar said after the caucus election earlier this month. "I've fought back against extremist, egocentric autocrats in Texas for my entire adult life. The Democratic Party must directly take on Trump, and it'll be CPC members boldly leading the way and putting working people first."
Related: New Progressive Caucus Chair Ready to 'Fight Billionaires, Grifters, and Republican Frauds'
Trump won his first presidential contest the same day Jayapal was initially elected to Congress. On that night in November 2016, before the White House race was called, Jayapal described her victory as "a light in the darkness" and told supporters that "if our worst fears are realized, we will be on the defense as of tomorrow," according to The Seattle Times.
After four years of fighting the first Trump administration, CPC members kicked off 2021 with a fresh opportunity to advance progressive policies: Although the Senate was divided, Democrats controlled the House of Representatives and President Joe Biden was sworn in—despite Trump contesting his 2020 loss and inciting an insurrection.
During Biden's term, which ends next month, the Jayapal-led caucus has successfully encouraged the Democratic president to pursue various executive actions promoting access to contraception, climate action, corporate accountability, higher wages, lower costs for essentials, and relief for immigrants from countries in crisis, among other priorities.
The caucus also played a significant role in enacting major pieces of Democrats' Build Back Better agenda. In the summer of 2021, Jayapal made clear to Congress and the president that House progressives would withhold votes from what became the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law—also known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act—unless they also passed legislation on the climate emergency and social issues.
Biden signed the infrastructure bill in November 2021—followed by the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022. The delay was largely due to obstructionist then-Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), who ditched the party in the aftermath and are both leaving Congress at the end of this session.
Although Jayapal wishes the second bill would have passed sooner, and tackled the country's childcare and housing crises, she said that she is still "particularly proud" of what the caucus was able to accomplish with that battle. As she told Common Dreams, "There would be no Inflation Reduction Act without Build Back Better, and there would've been no Build Back Better without the CPC."

Those two legislative packages were "about changing the way that we thought of government's ability to fight for working people," she continued. They "were about delivering results to people that would matter, whether it was in terms of great jobs, whether it was in terms of taking on climate change, whether it was in terms of driving down the cost of prescription drugs, [or] unrigging the tax system so that the wealthier began to pay their fair share."
"All of those things were kind of fundamental and core to an economic agenda that worked for working people and poor people," said Jayapal, who has personally championed legislation including the College for All Act, Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act, Housing Is a Human Right Act, Medicare for All Act, Transgender Bill of Rights, and Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act—partnering with Senate progressives such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the founding chair of the CPC.
While the Congressional Progressive Caucus will have new leadership next year, Jayapal plans to remain engaged by providing advice and support as chair emerita and by co-chairing the CPC Political Action Committee with Casar and Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.). Under the PAC's current heads—Jayapal, Pocan, and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.)—it "has grown from a $300,000 budget in the 2016 election cycle to raising $12 million over the past three election cycles," the group said Wednesday.
Jayapal told Common Dreams that she is "really proud of the fact that we've had an incredible record" for CPC PAC endorsements. Over the past decade, a majority of pre-primary backed candidates have won their general election races—often "pushing back on big money that came in, dark money that came in, sometimes in the millions," she said, pointing to Reps. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) and Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) as examples.
Lee, Ramirez, and Jayapal were all reelected last month, but overall it was a devastating cycle for Democrats, who failed to win control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. The outgoing CPC chair is among those who have responded to the results by urging the Democratic Party to reject super PACs and uplift working-class voters going forward.
In a memo earlier this month, Jayapal, Casar, Frost and fellow CPC member Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) called on the next Democratic National Committee chair, whoever it is, to "create an authentic... brand that offers a clear alternative and inclusive vision for how we will make life better for the 90% who are struggling in this economy, take on the biggest corporations and wealthiest individuals who have rigged the system, expose Trump's corporate favoritism, and create a clear contrast with Republicans."
Noting Republicans' aim to use their forthcoming federal trifecta to pass another round of tax cuts for the rich, Jayapal said that "when we fight against the tax cuts, the Trump tax scam 2.0, we should tie it to this: The Democratic Party is not beholden to corporate PACs and dark money. We are fighting for the people."
"There's a clear contrast between Trump and his billionaires... and Democrats who are fighting for the vast majority of Americans, the 99% of Americans who are out there struggling every day," she added. "That's the contrast we need to be able to draw."
In her final days as CPC chair, Jayapal is highlighting that contrast by slamming Trump and the billionaires who have his ear, like Elon Musk, for risking a government shutdown—which could begin Saturday—by derailing a bipartisan spending bill this week.
"The past 24 hours is the clearest demonstration yet of what Trump 2.0 will entail: The president of the United States allowing his unelected billionaire friends to control the government and enrich themselves at the expense of working people," she said in a Thursday statement. "We cannot succumb to a government by billionaires, for billionaires."
Bringing back the Covid-19-era safety net would bolster financial security and help defeat Trump and the Republicans next November.
By many major indicators, the economy under President Joe Biden is doing great.
Real gross domestic product (GDP) has grown 5% since 2019. Unemployment has fallen to a low of 3.7% after a peak of around 15% in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic. And inflation, although still higher than pre-pandemic levels, appears to be receding. Real wages are up by 3.5% since Biden took office, with low-wage workers seeing the biggest of those gains between July 2022 and July 2023.
Yet many Americans still seem decidedly unhappy with economic conditions today. Several recent polls have found that people in the United States hold negative views of the economy and of how President Biden has been handling it, despite the rosy macroeconomic indicators. For instance, the Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index, which has been measuring consumer confidence levels nationwide since 1978, found that consumers’ feelings about the economy and their personal finances—although up from an all-time low last summer—were still quite negative in August 2023. And a July New York Times poll found that only 20% of Americans would rate economic conditions today as “excellent” or “good.” (By contrast, 49% rated the economy “poor.”)
This disconnect has led many pundits to wonder what’s going on, with some chalking up Americans’ low opinion of “Bidenomics” to partisanship or ignorance. Look beyond top-line metrics like GDP growth or unemployment, though, and you’ll find a more complicated story. Many Americans report struggling financially, in part because of the discontinuation of many early pandemic welfare policies. So even as the U.S. economy has reaped continued benefits from those programs and is seeing a jobs boom driven in part by the federal government’s historic investments in clean energy and domestic manufacturing, many people are understandably resentful at feeling like the ladder’s been kicked out from under them.
Instead of combining necessary investments in green manufacturing and infrastructure with social safety net provisions to protect the vulnerable, the federal government seems to be giving with one hand and taking with the other.
The situation shows that high-level metrics like GDP growth and unemployment are not good proxies for Americans’ quality of life—or for economic justice. It also demonstrates the need for a progressive economic program of combining ambitious “demand-side” welfare policies with “supply-side” investment programs like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). That combination is likely to be more conducive to actually helping people—while also being politically popular.
We can’t dismiss the high points of today’s economy, or the role Biden and national Democrats have played in rebuilding it. Real GDP and job growth have not just rebounded from the early Covid recession—they have outpaced the recovery of many other advanced capitalist countries. The United States has also been outperforming most of these nations in lowering both inflation and unemployment. The resulting tight labor market has even helped lower income inequality for the first time since the 1980s.
Biden and Democrats in Congress can take some credit for all this. The relatively generous welfare policies they passed at the beginning of the pandemic helped stimulate demand, making the recession shorter and the recovery from it stronger than would have been the case otherwise. More recent policies, like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the IRA, and the CHIPS Act, have made major investments in domestic manufacturing, further buoying the economy.
So why aren’t Americans celebrating Bidenomics? In a perceptive article at The New Republic, Kate Aronoff points out that many people simply aren’t aware of—and probably don’t viscerally care about—the administrations’ efforts to address climate change and create jobs, including the IRA. The problem is that many of these policies are “pretty boring,” Aronoff says: “Few people get up in the morning excited about the U.S. share of manufacturing employment, or tax credits to install heat pumps.” She goes on to argue that such projects should be married to more visible public investments in things like parks, swimming pools and national forests, and government support for the arts and culture—making sure that “people are having a nice time,” and that they know the government is responsible for it.
Fair enough. Creating communal spaces for leisure has long been an important element of progressive and left-wing political projects. But disapproval of Biden’s economic record isn’t just about ignorance or indifference to his policy achievements. Lots of Americans today really are dealing with economic hardship. Consider a few results from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors’ 2022 Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED):
The Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey contains similar revelations: Food insecurity, for instance, is at its highest level since Biden was inaugurated.
It is not too hard to find an explanation for all this, as writers Stephen Semler and Branko Marcetic have argued. The Biden administration allowed the temporarily expansive welfare policies and economic protections enacted during the pandemic to expire. Those included emergency Medicaid and food stamp expansions, eviction moratoria, increased child tax credits, and many other anti-poverty measures.
With these policies’ expiration, it’s no wonder that many people are struggling. Homelessness is up by nearly 40% in big cities including New York and Chicago, eviction filings are on the rise; more adults have been skipping medical treatment due to cost; and only 63% of adults said they could cover a hypothetical $400 emergency expense with cash, down from 68% in 2021. The imminent end of the pause on federal student loan repayments threatens to make things much worse.
Biden and the Democratic Party did succeed in breaking with prior policy orthodoxy in two ways. The first was by passing the American Rescue Plan in early 2021, a relatively generous enlargement of the welfare state in response to the Covid-19 crisis, which focused largely on providing direct support to households. The second break came with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the IRA, and the CHIPS Act—investments focused on boosting supply-side production, including green industry. These policies aim to boost domestic manufacturing and job growth and to help speed the country’s decarbonization.
Biden still has opportunities to help working people, and there are plenty of actions that he and national Democrats could take now to make people’s lives better and to shore up political support.
But by letting the Covid welfare state collapse, the economic and political benefits of this new industrial policy are being muted. Instead of combining necessary investments in green manufacturing and infrastructure with social safety net provisions to protect the vulnerable, the federal government seems to be giving with one hand and taking with the other.
From a policy perspective, this doesn’t make much sense. The “demand-side” and “supply-side” policies serve different goals, and both sorts of programs are necessary for creating an economy that serves everyone’s needs. We need the government to invest aggressively in clean energy and green jobs. We also need programs that guarantee people healthcare, food, and housing.
Politically, it’s clear enough why welfare has gone by the wayside—the attempt to pass a more permanent expansion of the welfare state in the form of Build Back Better (BBB) failed in Congress. It was the obstinance of conservative Democrats such as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) that ultimately sank BBB. Yet there’s a strong case to be made that Biden and other Democratic leaders gave away the store by failing to use their leverage. Progressives wanted to attach a vote on BBB to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, which Manchin strongly supported. By allowing the vote on the infrastructure bill to proceed first, party leadership gave away much of its negotiating power to get Manchin to agree to BBB. The saga called into question the authenticity of the Biden administration’s commitment to the social spending bill in the first place.
But Biden still has opportunities to help working people, and there are plenty of actions that he and national Democrats could take now to make people’s lives better and to shore up political support. That will mean making aggressive use of executive power. First and most obvious, the Biden administration should extend the student loan repayment pause, and it should also use all powers at its disposal to actually make good on its promise to cancel student loan debt. This spring, the Congressional Progressive Caucus put forward a list of other items that Biden could enact through executive orders. These include providing generous sick leave and vacation by strengthening Service Contract Act regulations, and expanding access to healthcare premium subsidies.
Biden could also make the overwhelmingly popular move of legalizing marijuana on the federal level. The administration just announced a plan to negotiate lower prices on a number of drugs for seniors under Medicare, but Biden could take even more aggressive action to lower pharmaceutical prices across the board. Though they are currently stymied by a Republican House majority and a razor-thin Senate majority, congressional Democrats can campaign on no-brainer welfare-state measures like Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s (D-Mich.) End Child Poverty Act which would provide direct child allowances.
With 2024 presidential polls showing Biden in a dead heat with presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, Democratic complacency is extremely dangerous. A second Trump presidency is likely to be far worse than the first, given that the former president and his team would come in with experience and a real plan. They are planning on, among other things, cleaning house in the federal bureaucracy and filling it with loyalists, invoking the unitary executive theory to give Trump complete control over the executive branch while shielding him from prosecution, and rolling back already-insufficient progress on climate change. A Trump administration would also almost certainly replace Biden’s pro-worker National Labor Relations Board with a virulently anti-labor board.
To avoid this bleak scenario, Democrats should take Americans’ negative views of the economy seriously. This means taking action to provide material benefits to working people while improving their economic security. It also requires offering an exciting, positive alternative political vision to counter the GOP’s grievance-mongering. It will be up to progressives and the Left in and outside of Congress to articulate such a vision—and demand that Biden and the Democratic Party act on it.
Despite the demise of Build Back Better, we should not give up on expanding traditional Medicare. Real change takes time and persistence.
President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare into law 58 years ago Sunday—on July 30, 1965. Before Medicare, most American seniors could not obtain health insurance; they had to rely on charity or help from relatives with medical bills.
"Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and to enjoy good health. Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness,” said President Johnson at the signing ceremony. “And the time has now arrived to help them attain that opportunity and to help them get that protection."
Medicare was modeled on a typical Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan in 1965. The average health insurance plan 58 years ago did not include hearing, vision, or dental coverage. As Kaiser Health News points out, “Back in 1965, life expectancy was lower and health care (including dental) was more affordable.”
“When Medicare was created, its architects assumed expansion… in terms of benefits. (But) they didn’t anticipate the shift in American politics to the right.”
Today, life expectancy is longer and healthcare costs have skyrocketed. But traditional Medicare still does not cover hearing, vision, and dental care—leaving beneficiaries to bear the full cost of care for their ears, eyes, and teeth. Hearing aids, dental crowns, and eyeglasses can amount to thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses, which many seniors simply can’t afford.
President Joe Biden’s original Build Back Better plan finally would have added hearing, vision, and dental coverage to traditional Medicare. The White House ultimately dropped dental and vision care from its plan after objections from Democratic centrists, leaving hearing coverage as the only potential benefit expansion. Then, the entire Build Back Better plan was killed at the end of 2021 when Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) withdrew his support, effectively ending any real chance to expand traditional Medicare benefits while Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress.
As Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, observed, “Medicare is the kind of program where you’d expect the benefits to be expanded over and over again.” But other than the addition of Part D prescription drug coverage (administered by private plans) in 2003, Medicare benefits have not been expanded in the 58 years since the program was enacted.
“When Medicare was created, its architects assumed expansion… in terms of benefits,” Oberlander told Kaiser Health News. “(But) they didn’t anticipate the shift in American politics to the right.” This shift, which took root with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1981, emphasized tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, increased military spending, and spouted a lot of bluster about reducing deficits (hard to accomplish given the first two items on the list).
What President Biden called “human infrastructure”—services for everyday Americans struggling to thrive in a global economy amid growing wealth inequality—became a tougher political sell after 1981. The ill-fated Build Back Better plan was an earnest attempt to begin investing more resources in “human infrastructure.” Despite the demise of Build Back Better, we should not give up on expanding traditional Medicare. Real change takes time and persistence.
In fact, there has been real progress on Medicare in other ways. The Inflation Reduction Act (the reconstituted version of Build Back Better) finally allows Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices with Big Pharma—an historic reform that took some 20 years to enact. The Inflation Reduction Act will cap beneficiaries’ out of pocket drug costs at $2,000 per year (starting in 2025), limits seniors’ insulin costs to $35 a month, and penalizes drug-makers for raising prices above the rate of inflation.
While Congress was unable to enact a hearing benefit for traditional Medicare enrollees, legislation introduced by Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) required the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to create a rule greatly expanding access to over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids, which the FDA did in 2022. These OTC products (suitable for mild-to-moderate hearing loss) can be significantly less expensive than prescription hearing aids. And while the president’s proposed dental benefit for traditional Medicare did not survive the legislative process, the Biden administration has expanded the definition of “medically necessary” dental care under Medicare Part B.
A 2021 study by Kaiser Family Foundation indicated that MA customers “still generally end up with significant out-of-pocket costs” for hearing, dental, and vision care.
Some Medicare Advantage (MA) plans do offer hearing, dental, and vision coverage—but those benefits are extremely modest and don’t always make up for the disadvantages of Medicare Advantage. Many MA insurers are under investigation for overbilling the government, denying authorizations for reasonable medical procedures, and misleading customers through celebrity ad campaigns. Meanwhile, Medicare Advantage plans restrict beneficiaries to limited networks of providers and sometimes don’t cover medical care outside of a patient’s home region.
A 2021 study by Kaiser Family Foundation indicated that MA customers “still generally end up with significant out-of-pocket costs” for hearing, dental, and vision care. “It stands to reason there would be lower out-of-pocket spending in Medicare Advantage than in traditional Medicare, but the differences are not as large as one might expect,” Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president at Kaiser Family Foundation, told Kaiser Health News.
These privatized Medicare plans, which unfortunately are growing in market share under the power of their advertising (boosted by a pro-MA bias during the Trump administration), were not part of the original vision for Medicare when President Johnson signed it into law. Traditional Medicare is the bedrock program which has provided seniors with health security since 1965. It must be preserved—and expanded—in accordance with the real needs of 21st century seniors.
On this 58th anniversary of Medicare, let’s recommit to President Johnson’s promise of the “opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health” and provide “security against the economic effects of sickness.”
U.S. Senate Democrats' compromise bill, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022, addresses not just inflation but also several key longstanding problems facing our economy and society.
There is a simmering debate about the causes of today's inflation; but regardless of what side one takes, this bill represents a step forward. For those worried about excessive demand, there is more than $300 billion in deficit reduction. And on the supply side, the bill would mobilize $369 billion of investments in energy security and decarbonization. That will help bring down the cost of energy--one of the main drivers of current price growth--and put America back on track to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by some 40% (from 2005 levels) by 2030.
This bill represents a step forward.
These investments will yield far-reaching returns. The costs of climate-driven events (wildfires, hurricanes, tornados, and floods) will reduce our standard of living even more than today's inflation will, and they are disproportionately borne by lower-income households, people of color, and future generations. These costs are far larger and more difficult to rectify than the costs of deficits.
Moreover, enhancing energy security has become essential. For far too long, authoritarian leaders of petrostates have been able to hold the rest of the world hostage. Russian President Vladimir Putin has reminded us once again that energy interdependencies come with serious risks (something I warned about more than 15 years ago). Weather may be variable, but fossil-fuel dictators are unreliable and downright dangerous.
The IRA also would help address the rising health-care costs that have long plagued America, both by lowering Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) premiums for millions of Americans and by capping out-of-pocket drug costs for those on Medicare. The pharmaceutical industry has received tens of billions of dollars more from Medicare payouts than it otherwise would, simply because the government is prohibited from negotiating for lower prices. This gift to the industry will finally be rescinded, yielding savings of almost $300 billion over ten years.
The United States is one of the world's leading sources of pharmaceutical innovation, and much of the basic research behind these advances was paid for by American taxpayers. Yet, Americans pay much more for prescription drugs than people in other countries, partly because drug companies have been given an unbridled power to set prices. Many of us have been fighting for years to curb these firms' undue market power. If the IRA becomes law, this provision alone would be a signal achievement.
Furthermore, the bill would deliver sorely needed improvements to U.S. tax policy. Corporations and the wealthiest households are not paying their fair share of taxes. That not only erodes confidence in our democracy, but also is economically inefficient. Tax revenues are necessary to finance essential public expenditures without generating inflationary deficits.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine has reminded us why defense expenditures are necessary. But to preserve America's competitiveness, we also must invest heavily in education, research, technology, and infrastructure. Here, the bill includes provisions that would raise more than $450 billion (over a decade) through a 15% minimum corporate tax, increased tax enforcement, and the introduction of a 1% excise tax on stock buybacks.
The 15% minimum corporate tax is especially important. The U.S. has led a global negotiation to curtail the practice of a few governments cutting special deals for corporations so that they can siphon tax revenues and jobs from other countries and compete in a race to the bottom in tax rates--a race in which the only winners are the multinational corporations. A 15% US minimum corporate tax will not only raise badly needed revenue; it will also help stop this self-defeating global race. This is especially important for the U.S., because it spares American jobs from unfair competition.
But the landmark global agreement that America forged is unlikely to move forward if America itself does not abide by its conditions. From climate change and food insecurity to the fight for democracy in Ukraine, there are so many issues for which we need global cooperation. Like the climate measures, the U.S. minimum corporate tax is an important step in showing that we can be good global citizens.
Like the climate measures, the U.S. minimum corporate tax is an important step in showing that we can be good global citizens.
Of course, some critics on the right (many of them allied with drug companies, other major corporations, and the wealthy) will argue that the IRA will be inflationary, and they will even produce models "proving" that that is the case. But we know by now that bad models give bad predictions. Just look at the models that were marshaled in support of Ronald Reagan's tax cuts for the rich (which they falsely claimed would increase revenues) or Donald Trump's tax cuts for corporations (which they falsely claimed would spur additional investment).
These predictable arguments against the IRA's tax provisions are based on a flawed assumption: namely, that corporations will "shift" the burden of the minimum tax by raising prices and lowering wages. But economists have long recognized that the current U.S. corporation-tax regime--which allows firms to deduct virtually all costs, including labor and capital--is close to a pure profits tax. And a longstanding presumption in economics is that a pure profits tax does not lead to either higher prices or lower wages.
This also implies that these taxes can be raised without fear of adverse effects, either on inflation or investment. The big distortions--and gross inequities--in the tax system come from inadequate enforcement and large loopholes, and the IRA at least makes progress on the first of these fronts.
While the full benefits of the IRA will be realized only gradually over the coming years--especially as we invest in the green transition--some of its anti-inflation effects could be felt almost immediately, particularly in the case of the drug-pricing provision. Since markets are forward-looking (even if imperfectly so), the anticipation of increased renewable-energy supply should lead to decreased fossil-fuel prices today. Moreover, according to some of the more prevalent theories, anticipations of future inflation are a key determinant of current inflation, so even the bill's slower-moving inflation-dampening provisions could have anti-inflationary benefits today.
No bill is perfect. In America's money-driven politics, there will always be compromises with special interests. The IRA is not as good as the original Build Back Better bill, which would have done more both to promote equitable growth and to fight inflation. But we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Ultimately, the IRA is a very important step in the right direction.
Grassroots progressive groups on Tuesday urged Democratic congressional leaders to ignore Republicans, right-wing members of their own party, and neoliberal economists who are pushing lawmakers to hit the brakes on federal spending as inflation surges to levels not seen in decades.
"Pulling back on effective, popular investments will not solve the problems we face."
In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the ProsperUS coalition counters that such a "pivot to austerity" would only "make families poorer, increase unemployment, and cancel long-overdue, necessary, and widely-popular investments in our economy."
"Without further action, the economic gains we've made since we passed the American Rescue Plan will be erased," the coalition wrote, referring to a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief measure that economist Larry Summers--who served as secretary of the Treasury Department during the Clinton years--has attempted to blame for rising inflation.
But ProsperUS--a diverse alliance coalition of labor, faith-based, small business, and policy organizations--argues "that "while rising prices are creating real harm for millions of families, it is increasingly clear that rising prices are the result of corporate greed and supply chain issues, not public spending."
To bolster its case, the coalition points to a recent analysis by the Economic Policy Institute's Josh Bivens, who contends that "the rise in inflation has not been driven by anything that looks like an overheating labor market--instead it has been driven by higher corporate profit margins and supply-chain bottlenecks."
"Policy efforts meant to cool off labor markets--like very rapid and sharp interest rate increases--are likely not necessary to restrain inflationary pressures in the medium term," Bivens concluded. "Other tools that would be less damaging to typical families--like care investments to boost expected growth in labor supply or a temporary excess profits tax--could be effective in tamping down inflation over the next year and should be a bigger part of the policy mix."
ProsperUS sent its letter as President Joe Biden's flagship Build Back Better package continues to languish in the U.S. Senate due largely to opposition from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who has cited inflation and the national debt to argue against additional federal spending on green energy, child care, and other priorities.
In a statement on Tuesday, ProsperUS spokesperson Claire Guzdar cautioned that "choosing to veer away from investments that succeeded so incredibly in keeping families and the economy afloat over the last two years could derail our economic recovery altogether"--an assessment that economists have echoed, citing the consequences of austerity in the wake of the Great Recession.
"Starving our economy of these long-term investments," added Guzdar, "is penny wise and pound foolish and will lead to slower growth, fewer jobs, less revenue, and larger deficits in the long run."
As a cautionary tale, ProsperUS points to the expiration of the boosted Child Tax Credit at the end of last year. In January--the first month since June 2021 that eligible families didn't receive the monthly benefit--child poverty spiked by 41%, and subsequent survey results showed that Democrats are shedding support among families that have been cut off from the payments.
"Pulling back on effective, popular investments will not solve the problems we face," the coalition's letter reads. "As both polling and recent demonstrations remind us, people across the country are looking to Congress to build on the successes of the last year by delivering on care, climate, and good jobs. We urge you to act now to fulfill the promise of desperately needed federal investments--workers, families, and communities across the country are counting on you."
Lawmakers are scrambling to revive the Child Tax Credit after Senator Joe Manchin effectively killed it along with the Build Back Better Act.
Through immoral and unsound economic sophistries, Manchin has now recruited more of his Congressional colleagues to support a dangerous "compromise": including "means testing" and work requirements to limit the credit. After months of broken promises, we don't have faith that Manchin will support this bill even with his compromises. But we do know that this one will come on the backs of the poor.
Many [arguments in favor of means testing] are rooted in the mistaken belief that people are poor due to their own failings--and then attach racist, gendered, and elitist stereotypes about the poor to justify such restrictions.
"Means tests" restrict the availability of public assistance based on income. They're often burdensome requirements that make people "prove" they're poor enough to deserve help. These restrictive tests currently limit access to Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and more.
They're often established using the poverty line. But since the official poverty line is far too low, many of these means tests not only underestimate who needs these programs, but also how much they need. They shift the burden to potential beneficiaries and away from our elected officials, who are constitutionally mandated to provide for the general welfare.
Several examples show the damage of this approach.
Before the pandemic, over 90 percent of the 42 million people who were receiving food stamps weren't receiving enough to have a healthy diet. An August 2021 expansion of the program seemed to recognize this, raising average benefits by about $1.19 per person, per day. However, even after this expansion, the benefits still did not cover the average costs of a meal in one out of five U.S. counties.
Likewise, before Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, millions of people who required low-cost or free health care were excluded from accessing the program. After the ACA raised the eligibility threshold, Medicaid enrollment increased by one-third in states that expanded the program.
During the pandemic, another 10 million people enrolled in Medicaid. It now covers over 80 million people, which is as much a reflection of the great need for health care as it is of the restrictions imposed by means testing.
Tired Old Stereotypes
Arguments in favor of means testing often go hand-in-hand with arguments in favor of work requirements or other restrictions to welfare programs.
Many are rooted in the mistaken belief that people are poor due to their own failings--and then attach racist, gendered, and elitist stereotypes about the poor to justify such restrictions. President Bill Clinton relied on these arguments to pass welfare reform in 1996, which introduced a five-year lifetime limit on benefits, imposed strict work requirements, and made it harder for poor mothers to earn a college degree.
In the first five years after welfare reform, welfare rolls dropped from 12.2 million in 1996 to 5.3 million in 2001. This was widely celebrated as a success. But in 2014, a record 47 million Americans--nearly 1 in 6--lived below the poverty line. Another 95-100 million lived right above it, often dropping below that threshold over the course of a year. While the number of people receiving welfare had decreased, poverty and economic insecurity were a widespread and common condition.
Today, we are now seeing a revival of these arguments.
The resurgence of tired old stereotypes and punitive policy prescriptions comes in response to the widespread success of the expanded Child Tax Credit. Under the American Rescue Plan Act, Child Tax Credit benefits were increased, payments went out monthly instead of as a yearly tax credit, and the program was expanded to include families who had not been to access it before because they were too poor to pay taxes. It still included a "means test" -- but only at a generous upper bound. The lower bound was removed.
As a result, in 2021, over 27 million households who were not eligible for this benefit before began receiving monthly payments, most of which were used to meet basic needs: food, clothing, water, heat, housing and electricity. These payments reduced racial inequities, with poor Black and Latino households experiencing real reductions in their levels of poverty. In total, some 61 million children and 36 million households received the payments.
The resurgence of tired old stereotypes and punitive policy prescriptions comes in response to the widespread success of the expanded Child Tax Credit.
Although the Child Tax Credit lifted nearly 4 million children above the poverty line--and made it a little bit easier for tens of millions of people to live through a continuing pandemic and economic downturn--Manchin says he will only support it if he can fundamentally change what worked about it in 2021.
Organizing for the Truth
Manchin and his colleagues want to keep us in the fiction that was systemized through welfare reform: that poverty is only a marginal issue, facing a few million people, who need a little bit of help to get back on their feet again.
They want to keep telling us the lie that welfare programs are bad for us, but good for the rich (remember, a tax cut or a subsidy is also welfare). They want to tell us that we don't need help because we can work, even though they won't make sure we have safe jobs, living wages, or paid leave. And they want to make sure we don't know that continuing the Child Tax Credit expansion, at $20 billion, would cost less than the $25 billion Congress awarded the Pentagon above what military leaders even asked for--raising the total figure to some $778 billion.
In 1967, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote: "When we go into action and confront our adversaries, we must be as armed with knowledge as they. Our policies should have the strength of deep analysis beneath them to be able to challenge the clever sophistries of our opponents."
The Poor People's Campaign--the 140 million poor and low-income people in this country and our moral allies--see through these clever sophistries.
We are going into action as we organize a Mass Poor People's and Low Wage Workers' Assembly and March on Washington on June 18, 2022. And we are armed with knowledge. We will not compromise on our needs, because we know what is possible.
Anything less than everything we need isn't enough.
Rep. James Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, said Thursday that he would be willing to support Sen. Joe Manchin's proposal to further restrict eligibility for the expanded child tax credit, a program that expired last month thanks in large part to the West Virginia senator's opposition.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Clyburn (D-S.C.) said that during negotiations over Democrats' stalled Build Back Better package, "Manchin made it very clear that he had a problem... not with the child tax credit per se, but he wanted to see it means tested."
"Means testing equals more bureaucracy, red tape, and waste."
"I'm not opposed to that," Clyburn said. "Who would oppose that? So, I would like to see him come forward with a bill for the child tax credit that's means tested. I think it would pass."
In fact, many--including dozens of Clyburn's fellow House Democrats--have voiced opposition to Manchin's demand for a lower income cut-off for the program, which lawmakers and the Biden White House are aiming to revive in some form.
In October, 27 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) making the case for universal programs and warning against "complicated methods of means testing that the wealthy and powerful will use to divide us with false narratives about 'makers' and 'takers.'"
Manchin himself has made use of such pernicious narratives, telling colleagues behind closed doors that he believes some parents used the boosted child tax credit payments to buy drugs. Survey data shows parents largely used the monthly checks--up to $300 per child under the age of six and $250 per child between the ages of six and 17--for food and other necessities.
During an appearance on a West Virginia radio show on Thursday, Manchin reiterated his view that any child tax credit expansion Democrats pursue in the future must be "targeted" toward those who "make $75,000 or less" per year. According to Axios, Manchin had previously told the White House that "the child tax credit must include a firm work requirement and family income cap in the $60,000 range."
The expired, poverty-reducing program was already means tested, limiting eligibility to married couples who earned $150,000 or less annually and single parents who earned $75,000 or less.
After the boosted version lapsed at the end of 2021, the child tax credit reverted to its earlier form, which provides annual lump-sum payments but excludes the poorest families.
As Vox's Li Zhou wrote in October, Manchin's mean testing push "overlooks a few problems," including that "means-tested benefits can actually be more expensive to provide, harder to sell politically, and less effective than universal social programs, and they can place both a social stigma and discouraging bureaucratic requirements on Americans in need."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) similarly argued at the time that "means testing equals more bureaucracy, red tape, and waste."
"That's why programs where means testing gets implemented are less popular, not more popular," she added. "It's also why many people who are eligible for means-tested programs still don't get healthcare or help at all--it's too hard."
As Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project and a trenchant critic of means testing, put it recently, "There is literally not a single thing that the means-tested approach is better at than the universal approach."
"When understood properly, the means-tested approach costs the exact same amount of money and has a massive list of negatives that the universal approach does not," Bruenig wrote last month. "It is a completely indefensible approach to benefit design."
To justify obstructing one of his party's top legislative priorities, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia has repeatedly claimed that the Build Back Better Act would exacerbate rising inflation.
"The House-passed Build Back Better Act would make crucial investments to lower inflation and cut household costs."
But a new report published Wednesday by the congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC) argues that Democrats' 10-year, $1.75 trillion reconciliation package would actually relieve inflationary pressures on the economy by slashing the sky-high costs of child care, prescription drugs, housing, and other basic necessities.
"By addressing the threat of climate change," the report adds, "the bill would reduce the role of fossil fuel price spikes and extreme weather in driving future inflation, insulating the economy from key sources of price spikes that can lead to inflation--just as occurred in 2021."
The report goes on to argue that because its costs would be funded by tax hikes on rich individuals and large businesses, the Build Back Better Act "does not present the risk of economic overheating--a concern that was waved aside as previous administrations passed trillions of dollars in tax cuts that were never paid for."
The JEC released its analysis just as the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced Wednesday that the Consumer Price Index--which measures the costs of consumer goods and services--has risen 7% over the past year, the sharpest increase in four decades.
"Very, very troubling," Manchin said of the new inflation figures.
But Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), chair of the JEC, offered a different perspective on the data. While acknowledging that rising prices are "straining household budgets"--particularly for those with low incomes--Beyer disputed the notion that the Build Back Better Act would make matters worse.
In fact, Beyer argued in a statement, "the House-passed Build Back Better Act would make crucial investments to lower inflation and cut household costs by investing in workers, boosting productivity and making healthcare and child care more affordable--all while being fully paid for by asking the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share."
"The economic recovery and the Federal Reserve's actions [on interest rates] will bring down short-term inflation in 2022, but the Build Back Better Act presents the best tool at Congress' disposal to reduce inflationary pressure long-term, build economic resilience, and promote economic growth that is stronger, stable, and more broadly shared."
Economists have also pushed back on the argument that the Build Back Better package would worsen inflation, which experts say has been fueled by a range of factors, from pandemic-related supply chain disruptions to corporate profiteering.
"There is also no good way to connect the dots between the Build Back Better agenda, which is currently being debated in Congress, and higher inflation," Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, wrote in a recent CNN op-ed. "The legislation provides support for public infrastructure and various social programs, and longer-term, it is designed to lift the economy's growth potential, which will ease inflationary pressures."
Despite its potential benefits for families, the economy, and the climate, the Build Back Better Act continues to languish in the Senate with no clear path forward as Manchin refuses to drop his objections to the expanded child tax credit (CTC), affordable housing investments, and other key provisions of the bill.
And as the Washington Post reported over the weekend, Manchin no longer even supports his own counteroffer to the White House, which excluded the CTC and other measures.
Nevertheless, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)--the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus--said in a Wednesday appearance on CNBC that she believes Democrats will ultimately be able to pass some compromise version of the Build Back Better Act in the coming weeks.
"In the end, our view is that we can do Build Back Better, very close to the framework that Senator Manchin committed to the president on," Jayapal said, referring to a proposal the White House released in October. "Right now, we are in the midst of a big push on voting rights... As soon as that is done, probably next week, our attention will turn back to Build Back Better."
Progressives in the U.S. House of Representatives and a coalition of 140 advocacy groups this week ramped up pressure on Senate Democrats to serve people and the planet, not polluters, with the climate provisions of the Build Back Better Act.
"Congress members, senators, and the president are negotiating with people's lives."
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) statement and coalition's letter came amid reports that Senate Democrats may delay a vote on the House-approved budget reconciliation package until next year so they can focus on voting rights legislation.
The CPC's Wednesday statement--attributed to six House Democrats including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the nearly 100-member caucus--expressed alarm about industry-led efforts to undercut the bill's policies to reduce planet-heating emissions and emphasized progressives' opposition to "fossil fuel handouts."
"The Build Back Better Act has rightfully been touted as the largest-ever federal investment in climate action," the CPC members said. "Today, we urge the Senate to resist the fossil fuel industry's efforts to remove basic guardrails on the tax credits for carbon sequestration."
As the statement explained:
The House-passed version of Build Back Better requires fossil fuel emitting plants to store 75% or more of their carbon pollution--an eminently reasonable requirement, as the fossil fuel industry itself touts carbon capture's ability to achieve a 90% sequestration rate. But now, special interest groups are pushing our Senate colleagues to remove the requirement altogether, and provide a no-strings-attached taxpayer handout to the biggest polluters.
For Congress to pass such a policy--especially as the South and Midwest are still recovering from the latest climate change fueled disaster--would be an insult to basic tax fairness and to every member of our communities demanding environmental justice. It's simple: A bill that aims to tackle climate change and rapidly decarbonize our economy cannot include gifts for polluters.
Highlighting President Joe Biden's pledge to halve U.S. emissions from 2005 levels by 2030, the CPC said that "in order to meet that mandate, our colleagues must oppose any efforts to remove the limited guardrails that currently exist on carbon sequestration subsidies and protect our national effort to rapidly transition to solar, wind, and other renewable energies."
While House progressives argued that the bill's promise to address the climate emergency "must not be weakened," the advocacy group coalition went a step further in a Tuesday letter to three top senators--Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).
"We call on you to remove fossil fuel subsidies and... incentives for the development of harmful energy sources and technologies," says the letter, initiated by 11 groups that belong to United Frontline Table.
Specifically, the coalition is calling for the removal of:
"By investing in fossil fuels and these false solutions and technologies that perpetrate continued pollution, environmental justice inequities, and public health harms in communities," the letter warns, "the Build Back Better Act falls short on the scale of investments needed to transition away from fossil fuels towards a renewable and regenerative economy."
That warning was echoed by representatives for groups backing the letter.
"These incentives in Build Back Better are giveaways to the polluting industries that got us into this mess," said Adrien Salazar, policy director of Grassroots Global Justice Alliance. "Congress members, senators, and the president are negotiating with people's lives."
"Investing in dirty energy would lock in years of continued emissions and climate delay that harms Indigenous, Black, and people of color communities the most," Salazar said. "A Build Back Better Act with billions of dollars for industries that want to keep polluting cannot reasonably be called a climate bill. Senators must remove dirty energy from this bill and direct funds to support a just transition to a renewable energy economy."
Bineshi Albert, co-executive director of the Climate Justice Alliance, noted that "President Biden and members of Congress are touting the Build Back Better Act as a potentially historic investment to confront the climate crisis."
Reiterating the coalition's critique of "handouts to fossil fuels and dirty energy technologies that harm already overburdened and historically harmed communities," Albert asserted that "Congress and the president should not throw frontline communities living with fossil fuel extraction and climate crisis under the bus to get this bill across the finish line."
"Congress and the president should not throw frontline communities living with fossil fuel extraction and climate crisis under the bus to get this bill across the finish line."
If and when the $1.75 trillion social infrastructure and climate package does reach Biden's desk will be determined by Senate Democrats, who now may not vote on the legislation until March, NBC News reported Wednesday, citing a pair of unnamed congressional sources.
According to NBC, "The decision to try again next year is based on simple math--Schumer doesn't have the 50 votes needed to pass the legislation thanks to Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who remains a holdout."
The Sunrise Movement, which last week blasted efforts by Manchin and the fossil fuel industry to water down the bill, responded with outrage to reports of a delayed Senate vote.
"This is shameful," said Sunrise executive director Varshini Prakash. "After a year of climate disasters killing hundreds of people through brutal storms, tornadoes, and fatal heatwaves, indefinitely postponing a vote on Build Back Better could mean a death sentence for millions."
Democratic Reps. Mondaire Jones and Katie Porter are again pushing back against any effort to implement means testing to water down potentially historic social investments proposed in their party's Build Back Better plan.
Making the proposed investments in the social safety net--including child care and Medicare expansion--universal is both "good policy and good politics," they wrote in a Washington Post op-ed published Thursday.
Jones (D-N.Y.) and Porter (D-Calif.) made their case a day after they joined other leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in which they similarly pushed for universal programs in the reconciliation package over "complicated methods of means-testing that the wealthy and powerful will use to divide us."
The op-ed also followed reporting indicating that President Joe Biden and some Democrats, including Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, are open to or are directly pushing for means-testing--income caps--on certain programs to lower the plan's overall costs.
However, wrote Jones and Porter, the argument that means-testing aligns with "fiscal responsibility" just doesn't hold water.
"Means-tested programs cost more to administer, because complex systems, processes, and entire offices must be created to determine who qualifies," in contrast to "universal programs [that] allow us to maximize our investment in the American people," they wrote.
In addition, while means-testing proponents point to a need to exclude wealthier households from receiving benefits, Jones and Porter wrote that the practice "often excludes the most vulnerable poor, who aren't always able to jump through the required hoops to prove their eligibility."
Universal programs, the two lawmakers argue, "build solidarity that helps them stand the test of time--when we all have a stake in the success of a public program, it can withstand changing political winds."
The op-ed noted as an example former President Donald Trump's campaign pledge not to cut the widely popular universal programs Medicare and Social Security, as well as the cutting of means-tested programs such as SNAP and TANF by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
Simply put, Jones and Porter wrote, "means testing is a choice to deprive millions of our neighbors of what they need simply to cope with a budget artificially limited by regressive tax policy."