Note that progressive Congress members from NY also support repeal of the cap. A compromise would be to raise the cap amount so that only the very well off would be affected.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/03/31/centrist-democrats-panned-demanding-revival-major-tax-break-rich

Now, with Democrats in control of the upper chamber, several lawmakers are using their leverage in the narrowly Democratic House to try to force a full repeal of the SALT cap into upcoming legislation. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) estimates that 62% of the benefits of repeal would go to the richest 1%.

In a joint statement late Tuesday afternoon, Reps. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), and Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-N.J.) declared that they “will not accept any changes to the tax code that do not restore the SALT deduction and put fairness back into the system.”

“We say, ‘No SALT, no deal,'” the lawmakers said. “The GOP passed an unfair cap of $10,000 on state and local tax (SALT) deductions to pay for their 2017 tax giveaway. Due to the GOP cap, our home states of New York and New Jersey have been crushed and residents have been leaving for other states.”

The trio of House Democrats issued their demand just 24 hours ahead of President Joe Biden’s expected release of a $2.25 trillion infrastructure and climate package that the president is aiming to finance by hiking taxes on the wealthy and corporations. While Biden is pushing to partially reverse some elements of the 2017 GOP tax law—including its cut to the corporate tax rate—the initial package is not expected to call for repeal of the SALT cap.

Axios reported earlier this week that Gottheimer and other centrist Democrats are pushing back against some of the proposed tax increases while simultaneously demanding repeal of the SALT cap as a necessary component of the forthcoming package.

In a column on Tuesday, The Week’s Ryan Cooper argued that “Democratic moderates are holding climate policy hostage to get a tax cut for the rich.” He continued:

The deduction is effectively a roundabout subsidy of high-tax blue states (because it lessens the burden of paying their often higher taxes), and capping it was a gleeful Republican finger into the eye of places like Maryland, New York, and California. But the benefits of removing the cap would be extraordinarily regressive. It would cost about $357 billion over just five years, and according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, over half of that money would be collected by the top 1 percent. Meanwhile, the bottom four-fifths of Americans would get basically nothing…

There are a modest number of arguably middle-class people affected by the SALT cap, but even in New Jersey and New York the vast majority of people hit by this are very comfortable or better. If Democrats wanted to throw a bone to union pipefitters in Long Island (or whoever) paying huge property tax bills thanks to old homes that have appreciated a lot, they could easily just increase the cap a bit so the top one percent doesn’t get the lion’s share of the benefit. But Gottheimer and Suozzi want to remove the cap entirely, because that’s what local oligarchs want.

Politico reported Tuesday that in addition to Gottheimer, Suozzi, and Pascrell, “several more lawmakers are in conversations about the [SALT cap repeal] effort and plan to formally join in the coming days.”

“Right now, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team can only afford to lose three Democratic votes,” Politico noted. “The push to revisit SALT—which comes as Biden unveils his multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure proposal on Wednesday—comes with a hefty price tag: $88.7 billion for 2021 alone, and far more for a permanent repeal of the cap.”

The idea of repealing the SALT cap has also won buy-in from some House progressives, including Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.)—though they have not publicly demanded repeal as part of the upcoming infrastructure package.

“There are some members who feel very strongly about it,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters Tuesday. “I’m not sure that our members will see it as one of the fundamental reforms for the tax system that would make the system more fair.”

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/03/31/outrageous-46-million-americans-say-they-would-not-be-able-afford-healthcare-if-they

A new study released Wednesday morning shows that nearly 50 million Americans would be unable to afford quality healthcare should the need for treatment suddenly arise, a finding seen as further evidence of the immorality of a for-profit insurance system that grants or denies coverage based on a person’s ability to pay.

“People can’t afford their goddamn healthcare,” Tim Faust, a proponent of single-payer healthcare, tweeted in response to the new report. “Families spend less on food so they can make insurance payments. This problem is felt by all, but concentrated among poor people and black people. The American model of health reform—throwing money at private insurers—can not solve it.”

“The rot is pervasive and it runs deep,” Faust added. “People who can’t afford healthcare just don’t get healthcare. Wealthy men get to live fifteen years longer than poor men. We have condemned poor children to die from things which do not kill rich children. In America, sickness makes you poor; poorness makes you sick; then you die.”

According to the report by Gallup and West Health, 18% of U.S. adults—around 46 million people—say that if they needed access to quality healthcare today, they would not be able to cover the costs. The same percentage of adults report that, amid a deadly pandemic, someone in their household has opted to skip needed care over the past year due to inability to pay.

New: 21 Democratic senators, led by Finance Committee Chairman @RonWyden, write a letter asking President Biden to "include recurring direct payments and automatic unemployment insurance extensions tied to economic conditions in your Build Back Better long-term economic plan." pic.twitter.com/mWSNImQHbU

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) March 30, 2021

https://www.businessinsider.com/aoc-calling-migrants-surge-invokes-white-supremacist-ideas-2021-3?utm_source=reddit.com

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday said that referring to the rise in border crossings over the past few months as a “surge” or “invasion” smacks of white supremacy.

“So much of our national conversation, which is not a conversation, about immigration, is driven by people who could not care less about immigrants. So often, people want to say, ‘Why aren’t you talking about the border crisis?’ or ‘Why aren’t you talking about it in this way?’ Well, we’re talking about it, they just don’t like how we’re talking about it,” she said while answering questions on her Instagram Story.

“It’s not a border crisis. It’s an imperialism crisis, it’s a climate crisis, it’s a trade crisis, and also, it’s a carceral crisis,” she added, arguing that the US’ foreign policy legacy in Central America, its trade policies, and its contributions to global climate change have disproportionately affected the global South.

Read more: The MAGA messaging on immigration is scaring the hell out of some conservatives as millions of newly naturalized citizens will soon be joining the American electorate

Ocasio-Cortez also pointed out other issues with using the word “surge.”

“Anyone who’s using the word ‘surge’ around you, consciously, is trying to invoke a militaristic frame. And that’s a problem. Because this is not a surge, these are children,” she said. “And they are not insurgents. And we are not being invaded, which, by the way, is a white supremacist idea, philosophy, the idea that if an ‘other’ is coming in the population, that this is an invasion of who we are.”

Early Wednesday, freshman GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene accused Ocasio-Cortez of “lying” and “being a racist,” in connecting the terms “surge” to white supremacy.

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/545254-keeping-up-with-the-cuomos-becomes-a-full-blown-scandal-for-once-beloved

So, think about it: While “Keeping Up With the Cuomos” was in full swing, anchor Chris was well aware of the nursing homes scandal but didn’t dare to direct even one question about it to his brother because of a conflict of interest. Chris was also receiving serious preferential treatment around testing when little was available to the general public.

And when things went south for the governor, he was able to hide behind a “rule” that he couldn’t cover his brother.

This is obviously an ethical nightmare for CNN, which has already seen its ratings plummet by almost 50 percent since January now that Donald Trump is off the big stage.

CNN’s argument was always that it was the objective network — down the middle, far apart from its competitors on the left and right.

That position is a distant memory.

“We generally do not get involved in the medical decisions of our employees,” a CNN spokesman explained in a Thursday statement that ignored the obvious ethical questions. “However, it is not surprising that in the earliest days of a once-in-a-century global pandemic, when Chris was showing symptoms and was concerned about possible spread, he turned to anyone he could for advice and assistance, as any human being would.”

All networks have their controversies big and small. Most can eventually shake them off and move on. But the Cuomo brothers show is decidedly different. You can point the finger at the governor and at the anchor.

But most of all, you can point the finger at the network that somehow allowed it all to happen.

Wisconsin Supreme Court rules Tony Evers’ emergency orders, face mask requirement unlawful

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled Gov. Tony Evers acted unlawfully when he issued multiple pandemic emergency orders — including face mask requirements — handing Gov. Tony Evers a significant setback in his ability to impose COVID-19 mitigation efforts.

The order means the governor will be barred from extending the state’s current COVID-19 emergency order and mask mandate, which was set to expire on April 5, unless the Republican-controlled Legislature votes to extend it. Otherwise, it will continue to be up to local governments, such as cities and counties, to impose their own virus restrictions.

The court’s 4-3 ruling on Wednesday, with conservative swing Justice Brian Hagedorn joining the conservative majority, follows a pattern of skepticism the state’s highest court has exhibited toward the governor’s mitigation efforts since the pandemic began.

Hagedorn delivered the majority opinion where he wrote that Wisconsin law gives Evers extraordinary powers for only a short duration, 60 days, following the declaration of a public health emergency.

“The plain language of the statute explains that the governor may, for 60 days, act with expanded powers to address a particular emergency,” Hagedorn wrote. “Beyond 60 days, however, the legislature reserves for itself the power to determine the policies that govern the state’s response to an ongoing problem. Similarly, when the legislature revokes a state of emergency, a governor may not simply reissue another one on the same basis.”

Since the start of the outbreak, Evers has issued three public health emergencies and a series of related orders. The case asked the court to strike down two of the governor’s most recent executive orders, which could affect not only the state’s face mask requirement but a future governor’s ability to address emergency situations without buy-in from the Legislature.

The case also challenged Evers’ limits on public gatherings and capacity restrictions in bars, restaurants and stores. However, those limits are no longer in effect after an appeals court put them on hold. The Supreme Court declined to take up that case, so there are no statewide capacity limits although some local restrictions remain in place.

The case was brought by major Republican donor Jere Fabick, who has given more than $350,000 to Republican or conservative candidates in Wisconsin between 1994 and 2020, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. In 2016, Fabick gave $20,000 to conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley. Fabick is a board member and policy adviser for The Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank and also the president of a multi-state Caterpillar equipment and engine dealer.

Fabick argued that Evers’ second and third state of emergency declarations and the related emergency orders go beyond the governor’s short-term emergency authority.

Wisconsin law limits public health emergencies to 60 days, although the Legislature can extend them. Evers has issued new health emergencies, reasoning that the challenges caused by the pandemic have changed since March.

BREAKING: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has just signed the marijuana legalization bill into law.

Possession is immediately legal.https://t.co/q33gFsBRfR pic.twitter.com/FvzMnKKqaL

— Tom Angell 🌳📰ⓥ (@tomangell) March 31, 2021

I don’t believe this will save Cuomo’s governor’s seat, but it’s good that he bowed to some pressure.

From Meteor Blades

https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2021/3/31/2023722/-Biden-Harris-4t-plan-to-green-U-S-infrastructure-is-on-the-right-apth-But-far-more-money-needed

Yes, that $4 trillion or so the Biden-Harris team wants Congress to endorse is a whole lot of money. (Just the first $2 trillion is being presented Wednesday.) The administration’s proposal would head us very much in the right direction, and by 2009 standards it is hugely bold and visionary, in part a product of extensive grassroots input that Biden actively encouraged and obviously listened to. But this $2 trillion spread over eight years isn’t enough. And neither is the full $4 trillion.

I could hear the demurrers long before reaching this point. C’mon, MB, a trillion a year will never pass Congress. It’s ridiculous. So long as the filibuster remains on the Senate’s books, that’s certainly true. But then that’s the case with the Biden-Harris proposal as well. Which tells us we should forget the odds and push for what is really needed. We shouldn’t shy away from long-shot legislation if it is needed legislation.

Big News! Hello Somebody 🙌🏾 https://t.co/XOQKRgSMET

— Nina Turner (@ninaturner) March 31, 2021

Nina also got the endorsement of a key council member in Cleveland as well.

From Cleveland.com:

Jackson’s support is the second high-profile endorsement for Turner in two days. On Tuesday, Cleveland City Councilman Blain Griffin, a major player in local Democratic politics, announced he would back Turner’s candidacy over establishment favorite Shontel Brown, a Cuyahoga County councilwoman and chair of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party.