Skip to main content
Category

Blog Post

Policy Pulse – January 2025

By Blog Post, Newsletter

The New Year Brings A New Fight Ahead

As we settle into 2025, we have new ways to make our voices heard, and strong partnerships to engage with us to work for policies that lift up all working people of PA, and across the country. Our fresh focus this year as part of our ongoing tax justice campaign is a ‘Federal Fight Back’- to bring attention to the proposed federal cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and other critical programs that Republicans will use to pay for extending and expanding the Trump 2017 tax cuts for the ultra-rich and wealthy multinational corporations. These cuts could be part of a federal budget and reconciliation bill coming as soon as the end of this month. One of the first things we’ve done is to hold community conversations in the eastern part of the state. More on those, below. We hope you, too, are looking for ways to continue forward on a path for all Pennsylvanians to thrive, not just survive. We hope to see you at an event, or on zoom, soon!


TOMORROW!

JOIN US TOMORROW (1/16) at 1PM for our Policy Action meeting, which will feature Congressman Brendan Boyle (PA-02), Ranking Member of US House Budget Committee! Register here: https://bit.ly/PolicyAction01-16.

 

Congressman Boyle

In addition to Congressman Boyle, we will also be joined by Jeff Iseman, Public Policy & Outreach Coordinator, from the Pennsylvania Statewide Independent Living Council (PA SILC) www.pasilc.org. PA SILC is a nonprofit, cross-disability, consumer-controlled organization that uses collective power and legal mandate to advance public policies that ensure civil rights and expand options for all people with disabilities in all aspects of life.

Also joining the panel is Stuart Haniff, MHA, Executive Director, Hunger-Free Pennsylvania / PA Food Bankshttps://www.hungerfreepa.org/

HFPA is the state’s single largest nonprofit provider of food resources and meals to older Pennsylvanians and hungry families, working in partnership with state and federal governments and nonprofit organizations.

The focus of the meeting is on the upcoming Trump-GOP attacks on vital programs that make it possible for everyone to access affordable health care and food (Medicaid, SNAP, & other federal programs) in order to give tax handouts to billionaires & wealthy corporations — and what we can do to fight back.  RSVP today! https://bit.ly/PolicyAction01-16


What is Federal Fight Back?

 

Overview of the Issue

Donald Trump and Republican leaders in Congress want to extend and expand the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) – a tax giveaway to billionaires and wealthy corporations – which is set to expire at the end of 2025. They want to pay for this by making drastic cuts to federal spending for Medicaid, CHIP, and SNAP.

Medicaid provides critical health care support to millions of Pennsylvanians, including seniors, kids, students, and people seeking mental health care or treatment for substance use disorders. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as “food stamps”) helps more than two million Pennsylvanians put food on the table by helping to pay for their groceries.

 

What’s at risk?

 

In Pennsylvania, Medicaid provides health care to:

  • more than 2 million adults.
  • more than 1.4 million children (including 200,000 served by CHIP, the Children’s Health Progam).
  • more than 1.4 million people who need mental or behavioral health care.
  • more than 400,000 seniors who receive care in nursing homes, assisted living facilities or, in some cases, at home.
  • more than 300,000 Pennsylvanians in treatment for a substance use disorder.

 

And more than two million Pennsylvanians rely on SNAP to pay for their groceries.

Cuts to Medicaid and CHIP spending could pose a serious threat to the Pennsylvania state budget by creating a multi-billion-dollar shortfall, jeopardizing priorities like public education funding. Cuts like those proposed would reduce federal support for the Pennsylvania budget $2 billion to $5 billion each year. That would leave our state government with the difficult choice of trying to replace some federal dollars with funds raised from Pennsylvania taxpayers or drastically reducing eligibility for or coverage by Medicaid.

Reminder: What happened with the 2017 tax scam?

 

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) was unpopular in 2017. And it remains so today, for good reason.

  • The Trump tax scam did not pay for itself but increased the federal deficit by $2 trillion. An extension of the TCJA would be even worse! The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says it would increase deficits by about $7.5 trillion over 10 years.
  • The proponents of these tax cuts said big corporate tax cuts would trickle down, raising wages for workers; but the typical worker got nothing from it. Instead, the ultra-rich and corporate executives received huge stock buybacks, saving them even more in taxes.
  • They said the tax cuts would create new investment and jobs; but the evidence shows that didn’t happen.

The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that extending and expanding the TCJA would lead to “a tax cut for the wealthy multi-national corporations and richest 5 percent of Americans—much of which goes to the top .1%—and a tax increase for the other 95 percent.” Taxpayers like us would pay for the public investments that wealthy businesses need.

All while cutting funding for critical programs like Medicaid, CHIP, and SNAP to pay for the tax cuts!  What YOU can do- Click here to sign the petition!


 

Get to Know ... our PPC interns! We know this won’t be the last time we see them fighting for progressive policies in PA!

 

Bevin Greenwald: “As an intern for the Pennsylvania Policy Center, I have been fortunate to work alongside a team of passionate individuals seeking tax justice for hardworking Pennsylvanians. My interest in non-profit work was motivated by my degrees in Communications and Gender studies, where I learned about issues of systematic oppression. I have learned valuable skills about working collaboratively, producing social media content, and conducting research both about our government representatives, and our local resources which can be critical to connecting with our communities and organizing events.”

Anna Cham: “Hi my Name is Anna and I’m an Intern at PPC. I am extremely grateful for the chance to gain work experience while in undergrad. I would like to thank the PPC for creating such a great opportunity for young organizers such as myself. I’ve learned so much from social media communications [mainly concerning an infamous orange cat with a cigar] to more administrative work like database management. Thankful for everything I’ve learned here and I’m excited to take this experience away!”

Thank You to Our Amazing Interns! – Dwayne Heisler, Campaign Director, PPC

We extend our heartfelt gratitude to our two incredible 2024 interns Anna Cham and Bevin Greenwald, whose hard work and creativity made a lasting impact at the Pennsylvania Policy Center. They played a key role in advancing the Pennsylvanians Together Campaign and helped bring Mr. Riggs, our beloved inflatable fat cat mascot, to life for the Tax Justice campaign. Their efforts to update our legislative contact list ensured that our outreach remains strong, while their engaging social media posts reached a younger audience with our Tax Justice message. Additionally, they developed a comprehensive bookstore contact list in preparation for the early 2025 release of our upcoming Tax Justice book. Thank you both for your dedication and enthusiasm—you’ve been an integral part of our success this year!


 

Get Involved — and We’re In the News!

Last week the Pennsylvania Policy Center and its action arm, Pennsylvanians Together, in partnership with Action Together NEPA, held a Community Conversation at the UFCW 1776 Union Hall in Jenkins Township, PA. This was the first of our Federal Fight Back events.

The event focused on the proposed federal cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and other critical programs that could be addressed in the federal reconciliation bill as soon as this month. These cuts pose a serious threat to Pennsylvania and our state budget potentially creating a multi-billion dollar shortfall and jeopardizing priorities like public education. Discussions in Washington about extending and expanding the 2017 tax cuts only heightens these threats for working families in Pennsylvania.

The event was open to everyone and included a real conversation about policy proposals that could harm Pennsylvanians, and what we can do about them. For the full release, click here! To view the news story on the eventclick here!

Save the Date! Our Next Community Conversation – Healthcare & Federal Tax Changes: January 27, 2025, Time 6-730PM, Fowler Family Southside Center (Northampton Community College), 511 E. Third St., Bethlehem, PA 18015


We hope to see you tomorrow in our first Policy Action meeting of the year.

In solidarity, 

Marc Stier, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Policy Center and the Pennsylvania Policy Center Team of Adrienne, Castin, Dwayne, Erica, Jeff, Levana, and Kirstin

Comments Given at the PA Schools Work Press Event – January 2025

By Blog Post, Remarks

by Marc Stier

I’m here to call on the General Assembly to fill the remaining $4 billion gap needed to adequately fund our schools in four years. Let me explain why PA Schools Work believes this is a reasonable goal.

The education budget adopted for the current 2024–25 fiscal year accomplished three very important things. And, unusually for a state budget, the most important accomplishment may be less well known than the less important ones.

First, most people know that the state added more than $1 billion to the state’s support for K–12 education. This is the largest one-year investment in the state’s history.

Second, many people know that this budget shifted the paradigm for state funding of education. Instead of directing most of the new money through the fair funding formula benefitting all districts, the bulk of new funding was, for the first time, dedicated to school districts that were inadequately funded—and that had been for a long time.

And third, relatively few people recognize that the distribution of this adequacy funding was determined by a formula adopted by both Democrats and Republicans—and supported by education advocates like ourselves. The General Assembly and Governor have set clear standards for what adequate funding would be for every school district in the state. We now have a bipartisan political agreement that tells us how much each school district must spend to provide an adequate education and how much the state should provide of that funding.

The adequacy formula is based on state standards for an adequate education. It is derived from an analysis of how much successful schools in Pennsylvania spend. And that analysis is then applied to each school district, adjusting funding levels for the particular needs of the students in each district and the ability of each district to raise funds on its own.

Governor Shapiro and the General Assembly deserve a great deal of credit for this bipartisan achievement. But we also know that they reached this agreement, in part, because the Pennsylvania Courts demanded it. Judge Jubelirer’s decision in the education funding lawsuit made it clear that the way we fund schools was not only immoral, as our campaign has said for years, but unconstitutional. Judge Jubelirer’s profound decision set a constitutional goal—adequate and equitable funding for every school— but she left it up to the General Assembly to determine exactly what level of funding is needed to meet that goal.

That is what the General Assembly and Governor did in June. They determined that adequately and equitably funding schools in Pennsylvania required that the state spend an additional $4.5 billion and distribute that money by using the agreed-upon formula.

However, the budget for the current fiscal year only added about $500 million in adequacy funding. That means we need another $4 billion in state aid to our schools to meet the lawsuit’s requirements, as determined by the General Assembly itself.

We understand that the state cannot, and should not, add $4 billion in one fell swoop. School districts really don’t have the capacity to absorb and effectively spend that much so quickly.

But we also believe that the state cannot put off adding this new funding for too long. That’s why today we are calling on the state to add an additional billion dollars in adequacy funding to the state budget in each of the next four years. Or, as our slogan says, we are demanding that the state “fill it in four.”

Every year we fall short of the additional $4 billion in adequacy spending is one more year in which we fail to meet our moral and constitutional responsibility to the children of the state. Every year we fall short of providing a fully adequate education to our children, we leave more of them behind, making it more difficult for them to reach their full potential. Every year we fall short of filling the adequacy gap in four years, we shortchange our state of the huge benefits of our most precious resource, the talents and abilities of our children.

That’s why we must fill it in four.

 

The Barbarians Are at the Gate

By Blog Post

Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are about to seek major cuts in Medicaid to pay for deep cuts to the taxes of the ultra-rich and wealthy corporations.

We often talk, with pride, about our American civilization as a high mark of the West. Yet what makes for civilization?

Human history is full of great and powerful kingdoms and empires led by, and mostly serving the good of, kings, emperors, and monarchs. They weren’t civilized by our standards. The aim of most of those grandees was not to help those they ruled but to take from them to enrich and elevate themselves.

What makes the United States different and truly civilized is that we have attempted to create a government by and for the people, one in which the powerful are constrained by the people to serve the people. And that means everyone, including those who are, in the words of Matthew 25:40, “the least of these brothers and sisters.”

By that standard, one of our most important achievements as a civilization was the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

Ensuring everyone could afford health care meant little when doctors and hospitals couldn’t do much. But once the development of greater medical knowledge, techniques, and pharmaceuticals—much of it paid for by the federal government—gave medical care the power to save and extend lives, we recognized that it must be provided to all, not just those who could afford it. Health care is a right—not a privilege.

Medicaid was initially a small program designed to take a small share of our national income to serve those with very low incomes. It was expanded over time to cover a broad spectrum of the American public. And then it was expanded dramatically by the Affordable Care Act, which doubled the number of adults covered by the program by raising the eligibility level from 100% to 138% of the federal poverty level.

Now, more than any other government program, Medicaid helps people who are in trouble, who are suffering, who are in despair, and who desperately need the support of their fellow citizens. Few people receive Medicaid benefits for more than a few years of their lives. But almost two-thirds of Americans will, at one time or another, benefit from it.

In Pennsylvania, Medicaid provides health care for more than two million adults each year. It covers nearly half of all children in our state (1.4 million) and is not only the leading funder of birth control but also pays for more than 40 percent of births.

It is the largest funder of long-term care services for seniors in assisted living residences and nursing homes, covering more than 400,000 people.

It’s the largest funder of mental health services, serving 1.4 million, including 307,000 who need treatment for substance use disorder.

And Medicaid helps everyone indirectly. Few community hospitals in both rural and urban areas could survive without it. And in many states, including Pennsylvania, it partly funds school nurses for all.

While doing all this is costly—the total federal and state cost is $607 billion—it is still only a 2.2% share of our $27 trillion dollar economy. The federal government pays the largest share. In Pennsylvania, Medicaid costs $48 billion of which $31 billion comes from the federal government.

Yet despite the immense benefit of Medicaid, President-Elect Trump and the Republicans in Congress plan major reductions in the program. How much we don’t yet know. But even modest reductions could cost the state $4-$5 billion per year. We hope Pennsylvania and other states would make up for some cutbacks. But no state is capable of making up the whole difference. The result would be a sharp reduction in eligibility and coverage of the program.

Why do Trump and the Republicans want to cut Medicaid? Not because it is inefficient—Medicaid is beyond question the most efficient health insurance in America.

The reason is to pay for an extension and expansion of the Trump tax cuts of 2017, which went disproportionately to ultra-rich Americans and wealthy corporations.

The bottom 20% of families received a tax cut of $70 on average. The middle 20%, $910. But the top 1% received $61,090, on average, and the top .1% received an average cut of $252,300.

And our economy did not benefit much from the 2017 tax cuts. Investment barely increased. Economic and job growth did not grow faster. On average, workers’ wages went up less than $100. The tax cuts most certainly did not pay for themselves but instead led to a loss of revenues on the order of $250 billion per year.

The Trump / GOP tax plan is designed to take a big chunk of that small share of national income that goes to Medicaid and use it to reward the richest and most powerful people in our society. Doing that would undermine the federal program that relieves the most suffering, that helps the most people, and that is our boldest step in creating a civilized society.

The barbarians are at the gates. Medicaid is under attack by wealthy marauders who, if we let them, will enrich themselves by taking from the least among us and undermine our civilization in the process.

Policy Pulse – December 2024

By Blog Post, Newsletter

Many of us are still in shock, or worse, after the election. But here at the Penn Policy Center we are getting ready to fight back against some of the Trump administration’s legislative initiatives.

We are deeply concerned about plans to cut federal funding for Medicaid and SNAP (formerly “food stamps”), in order to extend and expand the 2017 tax cuts, which mainly benefit the ultra-rich and wealthy corporations. Medicaid and SNAP cuts would hurt Pennsylvanians with low -incomes and , substance use problems, as well as seniors who rely on the program to pay for care in assisted living facilities or nursing homes. Hospitals in both rural and urban areas are threatened as well because they rely on Medicaid to cover part of the care they provide. And the state budget — which is already facing a deficit — is likely to suffer a devastating reduction in revenue due to cutbacks in the federal spending.

We will be in touch with all of you soon to give you more information about these issues and to tell you how you can join us in fighting back against the devastating policies we foresee coming out of Washington.


And the award goes to….

This year, City & State Pennsylvania held its annual Impact event. Impact honorees aren’t just making a difference — they’re creating novel ways to effect change in the commonwealth. On this year’s list of Pennsylvania’s premier changemakers are labor leaders and bankers bringing diversity to traditionally homogeneous fields, engineers thinking differently about sustainability and health professionals taking on some very modern challenges, from opioids to the behavioral health workforce. And more than one honoree draws on cultural inspiration to champion political power for previously underrepresented groups. From education to law, real estate to telecommunications, there’s inspiration aplenty in these bold thinkers — and more than a little impact. Our own Marc Stier was part of this prestigious group. See his mention, below!

Scholar and activist Marc Stier directs the Pennsylvania Policy Center, where he worked to create the State Revenue Alliance and the PA Tax Justice Campaign to advocate for fairer state and national tax systems. He also guides the PA Schools Work campaign, helping secure $1 billion in new state funding for K-12 education. Stier, a former professor of political philosophy, previously directed the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center and has led grassroots issues campaigns to raise the minimum wage and broaden health care access.”


Please join us TOMORROW for our last Policy Action Zoom of the year!

With the holidays upon us and a new year just around the corner, the PPC team is working closely with allies in PA and across the country to gear up for the fight against the Scrooges, Grinches, and neofascists and their Project 2025 agenda to destroy America. While we recognize that they will undoubtedly advance as many of their pro-billionaire-anti-worker policies as they can in the years ahead — cutting benefits for kids and seniors, giving undeserved handouts to billionaires and greedy corporations, and trampling our fundamental rights — it will not be without a fight. Make no mistake: the Trump-GOP agenda will unleash devastation on Pennsylvania. And it WILL fail. Abysmally. And we invite you to join us in doing EVERYTHING we can to make it as difficult as possible for the Trumpers and their ilk to dump their garbage on us. Join us on Zoom at 1 PM on Thursday, December 19, for our monthly Policy Action to learn about Trump’s Project 2025 and how you can help defeat it! https://bit.ly/PolicyAction12-19.


Notable/Quotable: Castin Stone, Policy Analyst  

“Whether they’re hidden in web archives or plain sight, I have found that the most impactful data can also be the most obscure. Transforming information from spreadsheets, text documents, and PDFs into usable insights accessible to anyone is my favorite part of being a policy analyst. Data is one element that has united every topic I’ve worked on, from analyses of Costa Rican soil’s potential to sequester greenhouse gasses to breakdowns of Pennsylvania’s education funding system. While at work I analyze patterns, in my free time I create them; I spin poi, choreograph, and put together multimedia collages. I believe that understanding the patterns of power is the key to transforming small pushes into history changing results.”


Get to Know… Adrienne Standley, Deputy Design and Digital Director

Hi, all! I’m PPC’s deputy design and digital director, which has me working on various projects across the organization, including social media graphics and ad campaigns, persuasive writing, and virtual events.

I initially came into this work through volunteer advocacy on healthcare issues, and I’m an aspiring policy nerd with a particular interest in drug policy and harm reduction. I’m also a community organizer, and in 2017 I helped to co-found Philadelphia SOL Collective, a community organization for harm reduction education and supply distribution.

I have a fine art degree, and my career background has been a bit winding, but I think doing years in the trenches working retail and customer service really prepared me for….well…a LOT. If I can handle screaming customers on Black Friday, or a drive-thru line down the block in the summer with no AC, I can handle Harrisburg politicians

When not at work, you can find me sitting outside at a bar with heat lamps, attending a local drag show, making harm reduction kits to distribute, or at my neighborhood’s monthly free market.


Won’t You Join Us?

 

At Pennsylvania Policy Center, we are working for a brighter future for all Pennsylvanians: we work to ensure that policies crafted in Harrisburg promote fairness, transparency, and opportunity for families, workers, and communities across the Commonwealth. We are also the proud state affiliate of the nationally recognized Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBBP).

In 2024, we:

  • partnered with the PA Schools Work campaign, to add $1 BILLION unprecedented funding for historically underserved schools;
  • organized and took a cohort of over 20 citizens and activists from across the commonwealth to Washington DC to demand tax justice from our congressional representatives
  • released new reports on the economic contributions of immigrants in PA and across the country
  • held a budget summit at the state capitol with our partners and hundreds of activists to demand a budget that works for ALL Pennsylvanians- not just the wealthy and corporations

2025 will be a CRITICAL year for policies at the state level because we anticipate many challenges federal level. We are preparing to meet those next challenges and we need you now.

We can’t do this alone. We need your help! This year we will:

  • take up the fight to protect Medicaid and work to keep federal protections with grassroots organizations across PA.
  • continue our tax justice work by taking Mr. Riggs, our 12-foot inflatable “fat cat” around PA to demand the ultra-rich and corporations pay their fair share.
  • protect the billions in school funding so our kids get the K-12 public education they deserve.

By donating just $25, $50, or $100 today, you can help us continue our work to create a Pennsylvania where everyone has the opportunity to thrive.


As the year closes, we thank you for believing in the power of informed, principled advocacy. Together, we can build a stronger and fairer Pennsylvania.

With gratitude and until next year,

Marc Stier, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Policy Center and the Pennsylvania Policy Center Team of Adrienne, Castin, Dwayne, Erica, Jeff, Levana, and Kirstin

Senator Bob Casey: An Appreciation

By Blog Post

By Marc Stier, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Policy Center

While our organization does not endorse candidates, we do have our favorite elected officials. Bob Casey has always been on that list—so we are sad to lose him as our senior senator.

I want to say a few words about why the Senator has been a truly wonderful representative of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Senator Casey has been a progressive champion of so many issues on which Pennsylvania Policy Center and our allies have worked. Unlike many legislators, he truly understands the importance of working with advocacy groups. He gets that building up our profile and influence enables us to help him accomplish his legislative goals. That, plus his commitment to progressive public policy, is why he is the legislator on whom we’ve most relied, whether it was around a relatively small effort such as our recent work to get Pennsylvania signed up for IRS Direct File or whether it was moving some of the most important legislation in history through the Senate, such as the Affordable Care Act.

And it’s not just Senator Casey himself who we’ve relied on. He has always had a staff that reflects him—approachable, decent, humble, smart, well-prepared, and effective.

I’ve done twenty or so events in person recently on Zoom with the Senator over the years starting with the fight for the ACA. Each one reflected all the qualities above.

Here are two quick stories about those experiences.

Some of you may remember that an issue that came up during the fight for the ACA was whether federal money could be used to pay for insurance coverage that would pay for abortions. An amendment by Representative Bart Stupak prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for an insurance plan that covers any abortion except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.

Senator Casey had long been an opponent of abortion. So, I knew he would vote for the Stupak amendment in the Senate. While I very much disagreed with his position, I understood it was based not on political convenience but his religious beliefs. But I wasn’t that concerned about his vote on the amendment because we thought we could get a final bill to the floor of the House and Senate that did not include it. The only question was whether he would vote for a health care reform bill without the Stupak amendment.

I traveled with a group of twenty Pennsylvanians, mostly women, to meet with him to discuss the issue. It was a long meeting, and Senator Casey said that he understood that someone of us might not support him in the future because of his support for the Stupak amendment. He patiently explained that this was a matter of principle for him.

As the meeting came to a close, I spoke up for the first time and asked him two questions. The first was whether he would vote for the ACA without the Stupak amendment. He said he would— that health care was a right—and he would not allow the abortion issue to stand in the way of meeting his long-held goal of providing quality and affordable health insurance to everyone.

Then I asked him if he would say that publicly, because I was pretty sure that if he said yes, he would give cover to three Catholic, pro-life Democratic members of the House from Pennsylvania to do so as well: Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney from NEPA and Kathy Dahlkemper from Erie. The three members of Congress were getting hammered by the Roman Catholic Church and many of their Catholic constituents on the issue. And their votes were absolutely critical to passing the ACA (which ultimately passed in the House the first time by a three-vote margin).

Casey immediately said yes, and he followed through. I thought he seemed a little relieved that I asked those questions so he could give this group, which was pretty frustrated with his answers, something positive to take from the meeting.

While many of those who attended the meeting left disappointed, Senator Casey had given us what I thought we needed to lock down three critical votes for what became the ACA. I left the meeting and, before getting back on the train, took the long walk over to the House side of the Capitol to talk to Representative Kanjorski’s legislative person on health. I told her what Casey said. And she told me that if “Casey says he is a yes vote on the ACA even without the Stupak amendment, then so is Representative Kanjorski.” Representatives Carney and Dahlkemper were as well.

Without Senator Casey’s leadership on the issue, the ACA would not have passed.

Of course, more recently, after the Dobbs v. JWHO case’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, Casey has come around on the abortion issue, reconciling his personal views with his public responsibility in the way Mario Cuomo once did, more or less. As far as we know, before Roe was overturned his stance against abortion never had any practical consequence in denying women an abortion.

Here’s one more quick story. At one point during the fight for the ACA, I got a call from his legislative person on health care. She said, “We’re getting overwhelmed by calls against the bill. Calls from your side have really dropped off.” At the time, we had been doing a massive amount of volunteer patch-through phone banking, mostly to the five Democrats in the House whose votes were uncertain. I said to her, “We know the Senator is on our side, so we haven’t been as focused on him lately.” She said, “I know, but Senator Casey has been saying in committee and on the floor, and wants to continue saying, that his constituents are demanding action on health care. He’s not really comfortable doing that if the calls are against the ACA.”

So, we made an agreement. We turned up the calls to his office and he agreed to do another state-wide tele-town hall with us (the second or third he had done on the issue), which helped us build our list of supporters of health care reform, which, in turn, we used to generate more calls to him and other members of Congress.

(Remember this story if anyone ever tells you that calling your legislator is a waste of time—it is not.)

Senator Casey helped enact the ACA through many other events we did with him. And he did much the same for many other critical legislative issues.

His defeat in the November election costs not just Pennsylvanians but the entire country the leadership of this decent, humble, and effective political leader.

Policy Pulse – November 2024

By Blog Post, Newsletter

The PA House—Our Ray of Electoral Sunshine

By Blog Post

We have one ray of really good election news. Even in the face of a red wave, Democrats remain in control of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, and Rep. Joanna McClinton remains speaker of the House. While, sadly, we didn’t pick up any seats, every Democratic incumbent won reelection.

Here is why I think it happened. Under the leadership of Speaker McClinton and Majority Leader Matt Bradford, the PA House Democrats have had an incredible record of achievement in working for the people of Pennsylvania, even while holding only a one-seat majority.

Most importantly, they took a huge step forward toward overcoming decades of inadequate and inequitable funding for education with the largest funding increase for our schools in history.

They then passed legislation that cuts taxes for working people and seniors, taxes corporations that pay nothing, protects the safety and pensions of workers, raises the minimum wage, helps make housing more affordable, and many other good things.

Not all of those bills passed the PA Senate, however—in fact, the House passed more than four hundred bills that the Senate refused to even consider.

We at the Penn Policy Center are looking forward to working with the House again to build on those achievements. And there are more steps needed to take us even further, like enacting bolder tax reform that cuts taxes for working people, while making the rich pay their fair share.

Looking to the work ahead, we are proud of what they have done and gratified that the voters of Pennsylvania recognized their achievements.

What Happened. What We Must Do to Resist. And What We Must Do to Move Forward.

By Blog Post

by Marc Stier, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Policy Center

Pennsylvania Policy Center doesn’t endorse candidates. But we can react to the results.

And we, like you who follow us, are hurting today. We are frustrated and scared.

While we need to take some time to deal with the emotional upheaval created by an election result that will no doubt undermine progress to our goals, it’s important that we understand where we are and what we can do to save our country and move it in a better direction.

You may not yet be ready to think about that. But here are some initial thoughts for when you are.

1. Thank you from the bottom of my heart to all of you who worked so hard over the last weeks and months to stop this from happening. It was truly impressive and inspiring. Please don’t think your work was in vain. As we will point out later, there is a way forward and we are going to need the same level of commitment and fervor to save our country and put it back on the right track.

2. It’s possible to both over-interpret and under-interpret the election results. Given what I have seen, both reactions are a mistake.

a. Do not over-interpret the results and conclude that this election shows a fundamental change in the country or a huge movement toward the Right and fascism. And don’t think that Democrats made fundamental errors in how they ran this race. Both Left and Center Democrats are going to make this claim. The Left is going to say that Harris should have embraced a much-further-left program. The Center is going to say that Democrats should have fled from our principles on cultural issues: opposing patriarchy and white supremacy, defending immigrants and transgender folks, etc. I am pretty certain both claims are wrong. While at the end of this essay, I do suggest that more progressive messaging is going to be necessary in the future, I have doubts that it would have made much of a difference this year.

Why? Well as I have been pointing out since we started talking about replacing Biden, every incumbent government in the developed world—left, center, and right—has been defeated in an election in the last 18 months. The reason is obvious: people really and truly hate inflation. And that’s reasonable. Higher prices have made life much harder for all of us. If we lived in a country where more people had a true understanding of politics and economics, things might be different today. Voters would understand that we’ve been facing world-wide inflation caused by the shift from a pandemic to a post-pandemic economy—not something caused by Biden’s policies. But that’s sadly just beyond most people.

And the second problem is immigration. Polls show that a majority of people don’t oppose immigration. But the idea of an out-of-control border is particularly scary to the half of us who are xenophobic. And the lies that the US spends huge sums of money supporting undocumented immigrants or that immigrants are taking native-born Americans’ jobs are too plausible to those people, especially when they are a looking for an explanation for their economic distress.

The border issue was a clearly a policy error on Biden’s watch. After some initial changes in policy, which led to little increase in the number of people crossing the border, undocumented immigration spiked. It’s not something I focus on, and I admit I really didn’t notice it at first. And when I did, I wasn’t that concerned because I know that immigration ultimately helps our country. But it did put a burden on some communities. And the huge number of border crossings gave Trump an opportunity to exploit the issue and falsely blame our economic problems on immigration. That we could, and did, rightly blame Trump for killing a bipartisan border control bill did not help much because that was too complicated an explanation for a public that pays little attention to legislative action.

And, of course, the third problem in this election is that Harris is a Black woman. That barrier, by itself, may account for the small difference in the popular vote.

I thought we could overcome these problems because our elections had increasingly come to look like late-nineteenth-century elections, with very few people switching sides. In elections during that period the parties mostly fought to mobilize their own voters. Those elections were very different from mid-twentieth-century elections in which the parties’ visions were more closely aligned and there was a large floating vote that swung with economic conditions. The problem this time is that because our country is so closely divided, a change in even the small floating vote could still lead to a major shift in who won. Democrats did not lose very much of the vote to Republicans. But even when the potential swing vote is no more than 5% to 6%, inflation and immigration issues convinced swing voters that we are living in bad times.

This small swing in the national vote cost Democrats all of the battleground states and possibly enough seats in both the House and Senate to give Trump a trifecta.

I’m not going to spend time here explaining in detail why a big move by Harris to the left or center would not have helped, but it should mostly be obvious from what I have written. Given that many swing voters were already lost to the Democrats because of inflation and immigration, and many Republicans were in fact scared by Trump’s fascism, it made sense for Harris to try to appeal to the latter group. It appears that folks on the Left supported Harris. Jill Stein’s support, especially in Pennsylvania, was half what it was in 2016. And Harris picked up some support from college-educated Republican women who were scared by Trump. But unfortunately, it was not enough to make up for the couple of points swing to Trump among those without a college education.

The important point I want to make here is that neither the election nor polling on economic issues shows a huge change in the mind of the public. There is actually majority support for the center–left economic policies Biden supported. And even on cultural issues, we remain ahead. A majority of people support abortion and reproductive healthcare rights, immigration through legal channels, and specific efforts to overcome white supremacy and patriarchy if framed properly. We are even making progress on transgender issues, the latest and somewhat effective Republican cultural dog whistle.

b. We should also not under-interpret the election results. Trump has taken advantage of inflation and immigration issues to win an election as the head of what is clearly a fascist movement. I believe that the last two weeks, in which he embraced fascism more clearly than ever, probably hurt him. But he still won. And even if his majority was a product of a “times are bad” shift in swing voters, a large part of our population embraced a fascist, racist, and sexist candidate for president. They did it with their eyes open, without any doubts about what Trump and his movement stands for and seeks to create.

And the base of that movement is just horrid. In the last few weeks, I’ve had to block more than four hundred people who have commented on our posts on the Penn Policy Center Facebook page with snarling, insulting, vicious, and horrifying comments about immigrants, women, and liberals. And those posts were accompanied by the most absurd ideas about public policy—ones utterly disconnected from reality. But Trump supporters believe them simply because Trump says so.

It is immensely difficult to have serious conversations with people who are part of a cult-like mass movement, let alone reduce the impact they have on the country and the rest of us. And, it is deeply frightening that so many of those people have utterly lost faith in our ideals of democracy and freedom.

While Trump’s slim victory is mainly driven by the immediate issues of inflation and immigration discussed above, the large Trump movement was created by deeper problems that we must learn how to better address. Most immediately, it is driven by patriarchy, white supremacy, and xenophobia as well as the backlash against the small steps toward progress we’ve made for women and Black and brown people. Racism, sexism, and distrust of immigrants have a very long history in the United States. But they have become even far more prominent among those on the Right in recent years. That’s not just because Trump’s vulgar embrace of them encourages people to express awful view. It’s also because his embrace of them gives people an explanation, however false, of troubles that are actually the result of a long-term economic crisis of our country, in which the rewards of our economy flow increasingly to wealth, not work.

3. Thus, the next four years are going to be scary and difficult. Trump, with the support of a Republican House and Senate, is likely to pursue horrible policies that threaten our democracy, our freedom, and our economy. Among them will be

– a movement to deport ten million undocumented immigrants, including those who have a right to be here as refugees, those who have been living in and contributing to our country for decades, and those who have children who are American citizens.

– tariffs that raise costs for Americans and a tax cut mainly for the ultra-rich and corporations.

– legislation to ban abortion nationwide.

– rollbacks of Biden’s bold climate change policies.

– a repeal in whole or part of the Affordable Care Act.

– cuts to Social Security and Medicare as the deficit increases due to Republican policies.

Our central political task in the next two years is to resist these initiatives. I do not want to sugar coat it: this will be a difficult task. My guess is that Republicans are not going to let the filibuster stand in their way to achieve their goals, and the economic ones can be attained through the reconciliation process, which means only a majority of senators will be needed to enact them. It will take vigorous organizing at both state and federal levels—from contacting legislators to taking to the streets at both the state and federal levels to win some victories. Fighting back effectively against deportations of immigrants may require emboldened state government action where Democrats are still in power, backed by direct citizen action, protest, and even blockades of the US Army. I very much fear that violence will result.

We will lose some battles. But if we can muster half the effort we put into this election, we will win many others. And most importantly, we will help Americans understand what is at stake. Our and our partners’ efforts made the 2017 tax cut deeply unpopular. We can do that again. And we can certainly do it against any legislation to eliminate the ACA, in whole or part, or to make cuts to Social Security and Medicare. We can do that for an abortion ban and the rollback of climate change policies as well. And we can do that against the effort to deport immigrants which, I believe, will also be deeply unpopular once people see it in action.

4. I believe that Trump and the right-wing radicals in Congress are likely to overreach and lead our country into economic disaster. And, given the usual midterm problems for the party in power, I believe that it is likely we can take back both houses of Congress in 2026.

The deficits caused by tax cuts, the tariffs, and the deportation of agricultural and construction workers is going to create serious inflation. Whether it happens by 2026 is in question, but it is likely. And that will mean that the swing vote in the next election will turn against the Republicans.

And the other radical right policies on abortion and climate change, adopted by Trump and the Republican Congress, will anger many people.

5. But to win those elections we are going to have to fight against efforts to diminish our democracy further. And we can’t count on the federal courts to help us. We will see movements in many states, including Pennsylvania, to make it harder to vote or to undermine the integrity of our elections. We will see movements in many states, including Pennsylvania, to make governments less responsible to the people. And perhaps even worse, we can expect Trump to use the federal government to reward his friends with economic benefits and harm his perceived enemies by denying them the benefits to which they are entitled or threatening them with investigation and jail. Already, we can see Democratic-leaning business people and editorial boards cowering in fear of retribution by Trump.

And unfortunately, with the Republican corruption of the US Supreme Court as well as courts in many states—but thankfully not yet Pennsylvania—it is going to be difficult to stop some of these things from happening.

But while our constitutional system is damaged, much of it still stands—most importantly federalism. Those of us who resist Trump can use our control of many state governments to limit the damage. Here in Pennsylvania, we still control the governor’s office and the Supreme Court, which, as it has done in the past, gives us leverage to stop some of the awful things the Republican General Assembly will try to do.

6. And finally, to win the future by winning elections and undermining fascism, we need your efforts to rebuild a genuine progressive movement and message while we are fighting back against Trump’s radical agenda.  

That means, first, we need you to stay involved and committed, not just to resisting and rebuffing Trump’s fascism but to helping us refine and spread a progressive message.

I never thought that changing candidates was enough. I feared that we could not overcome the difficult economic conditions without a stronger progressive economic message that addresses forty years of declining economic well-being for most of us, while the ultra-rich and wealthy corporations benefited.

As I wrote earlier this year, the Biden legislative record in addressing these problems was quite good. But the Biden messaging was insufficient. People had no idea that Biden recognized and understood the problems they face, let alone put forward ideas to address them. Frankly, I don’t think we on the left/center did enough to explain that. And, sadly, those on the far left were so busy rehearsing their attacks on Democrats that they barely noticed when Democrats came through for working people.

While Harris went some way towards addressing the issue, her campaign was perhaps too afraid of sounding overly “leftist” to address the problem thematically either. She didn’t have to break with Biden to say,

“We understand that inflation hurt. We understand that you have not seen your economic well-being increase for a long time. But our economic problems are not recent. They didn’t start in 2021. For forty years, our economic system has rewarded work too little and wealth too much. But we can reverse these developments, starting in January, if you give us your support.

“President Biden and I have already has presented some answers. Our administration got Congress to enact some of them, such as our huge infrastructure bill, which is creating tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. We got the inflation reduction bill through Congress, which is responsible for the major progress we’ve made in addressing climate change, reducing the cost of prescription drugs, and increasing subsidies that have made health insurance less expensive. Some we could do with administrative action—like supporting unions, which has led to higher wages. Others, like our plans to reduce taxes for working people, and especially those with children, were in place for a brief time, cutting child poverty in half. But, their extension, as well as other policies, such as an increase in the minimum wage, has been blocked by the Republicans.

“There is much more we can do to make our economy work for you, not the corporations and wealthy. We can reduce housing costs. We can further reduce the costs of health care and child care. We can better empower unions to raise wages. And we can pay for our plans by requiring billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes. But we need your support to do this. Most importantly we need you to reject the efforts of billionaires to divided us, so that Donald Trump can reward them with tax cuts for them and cuts in vital programs for you.”

Harris said some of these things a bit more boldly than Biden did. But she could have presented these ideas in a more thematic way. Again, her campaign team was most likely concerned that she might sound too left-wing in doing so, which would undermine her attempt to appeal to Republicans who were disgusted with Trump.

Harris was walking a tightrope. On the one hand she had to convince working-class voters that the Democratic party would look out for them, even though they were angry about inflation and too often embraced the cultural right on immigration, race, and gender issues. On the other hand, she needed to reach upper-middle-class women, some of whom are former Republicans (but also cultural liberals) and may be dubious about progressive economic ideas.

She might have been better off tilting a little in one direction or the other. But she made what seems to us the sensible choice to try to build as broad a coalition as possible. Had she not been running against the headwinds of inflation and immigration issues it would have worked. But it fell just a little short.

Two things would have helped.

One is if she’d had more time to build a campaign.

The other would have been using the progressive narrative put forward over the last few years by organizations like ours and by Democratic politicians. We need to refine the narrative, but some of its basic elements seem clear to me:

– recognition of forty years of increasing hardship for all but the ultra-rich with wages going up slowly while prices for vital goods like health care, child care, housing, and education increase

– criticism of a tax system that puts the burden of common goods on working people while allowing the wealthy to pay less and less

– explicit attention to the efforts of the Right, and the ultra-rich and corporate fat cats who pay for their campaigns, to divide us based on, gender, race, sexual orientation, and where we were born to win votes for politicians who undermine our economic well-being

– identification of an enemy, the billionaire members of the corporate elite who have twisted our economy and politics to serve themselves not the rest of us for the last forty years.

This kind of bold and progressive thematic campaign is going to be central to winning the next election and the one after that. The elections will continue to be close because the fascist narrative appeals to dark human emotions that, sadly, are sometimes more powerful than the appeals to the common humanity, interests, and goals that animated Harris’s campaign.

But if we combine a powerful narrative with the kind of organizing we saw during this election—and if Trump’s policies are as disastrous as we expect—we will win close elections in the near future. And if those electoral victories are followed by new policies that help working people, we will gradually reduce the appeal of fascism and save our country from ruin.

The October Surprise is a Booming Economy

By Blog Post

Election watchers are always waiting for the “October Surprise” that could have a last-minute effect on the election.

It could be that the hateful attack on Puerto Rico and Latinos that was the worst of many examples of bigotry in Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally will be the October Surprise of this election. As 8% of the Pennsylvania electorate is Latino and the majority of them are of Puerto Rican descent, this event may cost Trump Pennsylvania. A shift of only 5% of the Puerto Rican vote from Trump to Harris could add up to 30,000 votes which could be her margin of victory.

But there is another October Surprise that has been gradually brewing and is likely to get some attention the weekend before the election: we are in the midst of an economic boom.

Tomorrow, on October 30th, gross domestic product numbers for the third quarter were released today and show that the economy is growing at an annual rate of 2.8%. This rate of growth is extraordinarily good, especially after so many economists feared that getting inflation under control would lead to a recession. It’s a higher rate than we have seen in some time.

And inflation is under control. The last monthly report showed it increasing at an annual rate of only 2.4% on an annual basis, almost at the Fed’s target of 2%.

With the growing economy and inflation under control, after-tax income per person has risen at a pace of about 2.6% in the last few months, back to where it was before the pandemic.

And, even better, this growth rate in after tax income is higher than what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office expected before the pandemic we would achieve in 2024. They expected that real incomes per person would be about $51,000 now. But it is above $52,000.

Higher income has led to higher consumption. In the past six months, consumption adjusted for inflation is 2.8% above what it was last year. Consumers appear to be confident about the economy.

And that consumption is not driven by higher debt. Revised figures show that the personal savings rate is now about 5%, twice what it was in early 2022.

All this good economic news is supported by a strong labor market. The unemployment rate has dropped for two months and is now at an historically low 4.1%. Even more impressive, the labor-force-participation rate for prime age workers, between 25 and 54, is about 84%, almost a record high.

 

So, the economy is not only strong, but is also likely to stay strong. Americans are benefiting from it. And they will hear how good it is right before the election.

Now this won’t change the mind of Trump acolytes who believe his doom-and-gloom-filled lies. And, frankly, it won’t end the difficulties low income working people have in meeting the high costs of housing and child care, or the high costs faced by those going to college. It won’t necessarily overcome the memory of lower prices before the post-pandemic recession.

Nor will it overcome forty years of an economy that has increasingly benefited wealth, not work. Fixing THAT problem is a long-term effort, one we wish Kamala Harris had been talking about more during her campaign and that she should address if she is elected president.

But in a close election, some good economic news could make the difference in the seven battleground states.  And that’s an October surprise that could help Kamala Harris be elected.

P.S.  One of the sad things about the timing of our elections and our economy—and the inability of most voters to distinguish between things that our presidents are and aren’t responsible for—is this.

If Trump is elected, he will get credit for the really good economy Biden’s policies created.

Just like he got credit for the really good economy Obama’s policies created.

And Biden got the blame for the post-pandemic inflation, which was actually lower in the US than in any other advanced country, even as the US economic recovery from the pandemic recession was faster and stronger.

Amazingly, enough people don’t blame Trump for the pandemic recession. That’s mostly fair as it was a worldwide problem even though he probably made things worse with his denial of the seriousness of COVID and crazy medical advice.

But life and politics are not fair. If it were, the American people would be giving Biden credit for this economic recovery and giving Obama credit for the good economy under Trump.

.

Fasicism Is Not a Threat. It’s Already Here.

By Blog Post

 

I’ve been warning about the dangers of Donald Trump’s fascism since he announced his first bid for president in June of 2015. Few people took that warning, or my escalating concern about the fascist features of Trump’s politics throughout his presidency, seriously. Even after January 6, people said my warnings were exaggerated or even hysterical.

Now, calling Trump a fascist and talking about the threat of fascism is commonplace. But it still understates the danger. For fascism is no longer a threat. It’s here. Fascism is a major force in our politics.

Fascism is a set of ideas that are entirely contrary to the foundations of the American Republic, which is why it is dangerous. It’s also a set of political practices that is already found in our country and threaten to destroy it.

That Trump and Trumpism embrace fascist ideas is so obvious that it is striking there has even been a debate about this. Like the fascists of the 1930s, Trumpism presents itself as a nationalist movement, one that seeks to restore or “lift up” our nation by calling on us to “Put America First” and “Make America Great Again.” Like the fascists of the 1930s, Trumpism insists, against all evidence, that our nation is in both economic and moral decline and is under attack. Like the fascists of the 1930s, Trumpism seeks to raise up the common people against the elites who are said to have betrayed our traditional ideals. Like the fascists of the 1930s, Trumpism blames the influence of minority groups, who he refers to as sick, sub-human, or “vermin,” for undermining those ideals and weakening our country. Like the fascists of the 1930s, Trumpism seeks to divide citizens and voters into those who support his cause and those who oppose it. He calls them “internal enemies.” Like the fascists of the 1930s Trumpism embraces repeated lies—like the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen. And like the fascists of the 1930s, Trumpism seeks to rally people behind a strong leader who pledges to overcome the divisions and corruption of the politicians, even if that means breaking with long-established political practice and constitutional norms.

Most of these ideas can be found in Trump’s earliest campaign speeches. But he has become more strident in his expression of them throughout his political life. For a time, he used code to express his bigotry. Now it is on full display. For a time, he sought to appeal broadly to Americans. Now he makes every effort to divide us and turn his supporters against his opponents. He describes the candidates he is running against and their supporters in harsh and increasingly vulgar terms.

The nature of Trump’s appeal in 2015 was clear to those who were paying attention. I initially thought he would win the Republican nomination because he was the only candidate running on extreme ideas, while the other Republican ideological lanes had multiple candidates. That was exactly what happened.

But I also expected that he would drive away 10% to 15% of the Republican vote, as Barry Goldwater did in 1964, and Clinton would win easily in November 2016. Obviously, I was wrong. While one can point to some failures of the Clinton campaign, which led to Trump’s victory, the willingness of so many Republicans to overlook Trump’s record of sexist and racist comments and actions was a major source of his success, and one too many of us did not expect.

That Republicans were willing to ignore Trump’s bad character shows that the Republican Party had already been pulled from its traditionally moderate center–right ideals in part by its expanding base among white voters in the South and Southwest, and also by Newt Gingrich’s aggressive efforts to attack not only Democrats but moderate Republicans.

In the years since his victory, Trump’s extreme rhetoric has been increasingly drawn from the fascist playbook. Even worse, he has embraced critical elements of fascist political practice.

Central to fascist political practice is building a highly mobilized popular base that embraces radical and extreme ideas. Trump’s nasty and bigoted rhetoric has given his supporters permission to mimic him and go even further. Racism, sexism, and bigotry against not just immigrants but both Republican moderates and Democrats is now the lingua franca of the Trump movement. Extreme, harsh, and angry rhetoric is a sign of leaders’ and followers’ devotion to the cause. It is central to the effort of Trump and his supporters to stoke up anger and fury among his base in an effort to turn people out at the polls. And the not entirely unintended outcome of that effort is a rash of armed and unarmed attacks on Jews, Black people, and others over the last eight years.

Nasty and brutish speech is not the only result of Trump’s mobilization of his angry supporters. The January 6th insurrection was a direct product of resentment and fury on the Right, carried out not just by random Trump followers but also by the organized movements of the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and other extremists whose leaders met with Trump’s lieutenants before and during the attack on the Capitol.

A popular movement’s embracing of fascist ideas is the defining feature of fascist political practice. And it leads to two other political practices that are increasingly evident in our politics.

One is the corruption of political leaders in the Republican Party. We have seen Republicans who have criticized or opposed Trump either turn 180 degrees and embrace him—as Kevin McCarthy, Lindsay Graham, and others have done. Others drew back from following their opposition to the logical conclusion, as Mitch McConnell and others who criticized Trump’s role in January 6 did when they refused to vote to impeach or convict him after the insurrection.

These political leaders genuflected to Trump out of opportunism and cowardice. They sought Trump’s support and feared that his mobilized supporters would vote against them in Republican primaries as even long-entrenched Republican members of Congress who opposed Trump, such as Liz Cheney, found out.

And corrupt Republican officials have not just offered Trump verbal support. In every state of this country, they are seeking to undermine fair elections by changing rules to make it harder for Democrats to vote or have their votes counted. Polling places have been shut down in Democratic areas. Lines at the polls in those communities have gotten longer. Registration lists have been purged of legitimate voters. Deadlines have been tightened as have rules for mail ballots.

The second is that fascist political practice is the breakdown of the rule of law, which enables the fascist leader to secure political support by promising to use public policy to reward his friends and hurt his enemies, no matter what the law requires.

During his presidency, we saw Trump violate the rule of law, mainly to enrich himself and his family. The constitutional barrier against foreign emoluments was violated as other countries made deals with the Trump organization and its representatives—as well as many American lobbyists—who made sure to stay at Trump-owned hotels or visit Mar-a-Lago hoping to meet with him. And Trump’s support of the Saudi regime led to a massive infusion of capital in his son-in-law’s finance company immediately after his term ended.

In the last year, Trump has repeatedly promised far worse. He has threatened to violate the law to use the armed forces to round up undocumented immigrants and jail his political enemies. And he has met with one industry after another—vaping, crypto, tobacco, marijuana, TikTok, and Elon Musk’s multiple interests—promising to reward those who give him campaign contributions.

Trump’s explicit promise to reward friends and harm enemies has so scared business people that many who have opposed him in the past, including the chair of JP Morgan Chase Jamie Dimon, have become afraid to make their political views known. And even worse, we have seen major newspapers The Washington Post and the LA Times withhold endorsements of Kamala Harris largely, it appears, because their owners fear Trump’s retribution against their other business interests.

I can understand the fear of these people and many others, though many of us are saddened by their cowardice. Trump has promised a very different second term, one in which his appointees would be chosen primarily for their loyalty—not to the Constitution but to him. Without the guardrails of the experienced, knowledgeable, and responsible cabinet and executive branch officials who blocked or stalled Trump’s illegal and immoral use of political power during his presidency, he would no doubt carry out his threats of retribution against those who oppose him and reward those who support him.

This fascist–corporatist practice, together with the corruption of election officials, is exactly how the reality of democratic government ends even if institutions like elections and law-making in Congress continue. As strongmen Viktor Orban and Vladimir Putin have shown, democracy collapses when election rules tilt against the opponents and those with something to lose are afraid to speak out, organize, or devote their resources to opposing dictators because they fear economic losses, jail time, or worse. Even if opposition to the dictator continues, it become impossible to remove them from power. Elections become showcases of support for the dictator rather than a means of choosing political leaders.

This is exactly the kind of government Trump is promising during his current campaign. And it’s exactly the reason that more and more business people are refraining from opposing Trump publicly.

In addition to these threats to the rule of law, there is one more profoundly disturbing—the Supreme Court ruling that protects presidents from indictment after their term of office for violating the law in their official acts. That this ruling violates the fundamental precept of our government is obvious to everyone who understands what the rule of law and checks and balances mean. The rule of law means that government can only act by passing a law and that the law applies to everyone. When the president acts without legal authority or acts contrary to the law, he violates this principle. And when he cannot be held accountable for doing so, our Constitution is violated. With checks and balances each power of government—executive, legislative, and judicial—is divided among the three branches of government—the presidency, the Congress, and the courts. And the main purpose of checks and balances is to give two branches of government the power to limit the excesses of a third, and especially those excesses that violate the rule of law.

Under this principle, I believe that presidents should always be subject to criminal investigation if they violate the law, whether they are in or out of office and whether their actions are official or private. Indeed, official actions are especially worthy of investigation because it is those actions with which a president can violate the rule of law. Perhaps there are instances when giving the courts power to try presidents for violation of the law during their administration could interfere with their ability to carry out the duties of the office. But there are absolutely no grounds for failing to hold presidents responsible for what they do in office once they leave it.

It is hard to understand how the US Supreme Court made this ruling. Could they, too, be afraid of Trump’s mob? Or maybe the majority is already part of the mob, so caught up in the furious, partisan Trump movement that they care little about constitutional and legal reasoning or their historical reputations. At any rate, this decision, and the free rein it will give Trump should he be returned to office, is horribly frightening.

The conclusion is simple: fascism is not a distant threat. It’s not even a threat we have to worry about if Trump wins. It’s already here, influencing our political life.

The question in this election is not whether we become a fascist country. To a frightening extent, we already are. The question is what we do now. Do we fully embrace fascism and allow Trump and his mob to totally overturn our republic? Or do we begin to move away from it and rebuild a sense of unity among our people, returning political division to the moderate, respectful, and peaceful form it took before Trump (and Newt Gingrich) entered our lives.

NOTE:  This piece has been posted on the Pennsylvania Policy Center Facebook page. Our usual practice is to delete comments that are hateful, bigoted, rude, crude, or obnoxious and block those who make those comments. We are not going to do that with this post for a simple reason. Nothing would confirm our political analysis more than if the responses to this post echo the hundreds we have removed in the last six months.

The Penn Policy Pulse — October 2024

By Blog Post, Newsletter

Welcome to the inaugural edition of Pennsylvania Policy Center’s POLICY PULSE newsletter—we’re glad you’re here! As if this year isn’t busy enough with the approaching election, we’ve been hard at work behind the scenes helping to move forward progressive policies that work for all Pennsylvanians. Check out our work below, and stay tuned for the November edition, where we’ll do an election recap!

PPC had some big wins this year… Thanks in part to your support, we have blossomed into a team of eight people who punch far above our weight in Pennsylvania and national progressive politics. We are unique in that we combine sophisticated policy analysis, leading edge communications—and together with our partners in the Pennsylvanians Together (PAT) and PA Schools Work (PASW) campaigns, which we help lead—effective advocacy and organizing.

Together with our partners, we have had a dramatic impact on politics and policy in our state. Most importantly, we played a leading role in building support among political leaders and the public for taking a huge step forward in meeting our constitutional and moral requirement to fully and fairly fund our K–12 schools. For the first time ever, a majority of new K–12 funding went to historically underfunded schools.

Our priority for this year is ensuring that everyone is paying their fair share… PPC is taking the lead with our new federal–state Tax Justice campaign! Asking highly profitable corporations and billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes is critical to creating opportunity for all by raising the revenue necessary to support more funding for education at all levels, as well as affordable child care, health care, and housing. This campaign is taking off nationwide and if you have not yet seen our 12-foot, inflatable mascot Mr. Riggs, you will likely see him soon at an event near you. Sign our petition for tax justice!

Get to know the Pennsylvanians Together campaign! We saw the first fruits of our long years of policy and advocacy work and training of both legislators and advocates (through our Budget 101 events) to change the political narrative in Pennsylvania in support of economic justice. The Democrat-controlled House passed policy proposals we helped design, and our advocacy campaign, Pennsylvanians Together, long supported, including

  • an expansion of the property tax and rent rebate program for seniors.
  • a state child and dependent care tax credit.
  • new funding for county election boards.
  • an increase in the minimum wage.
  • a state earned income tax credit for working families.
  • an increase in the Whole-Home Repairs program.
  • safety protections for public sector workers.
  • an abortion shield law to protect women coming to Pennsylvania for reproductive health care.

We hope you’ll consider supporting this critical work by making a contribution today.

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO CONTRIBUTE.

PPC in the News!

Opinion: What would a second Trump term mean for our taxes? by Marc Stier, PPC Executive Director

Be sure to read our newest blog posts!

Infographic of the Month — Presidential Candidate Tax Plans!

 

Notable/Quotable

“If eliminating taxes for billionaires and powerful corporations benefited ALL of us, Pennsylvanians would be reaping the record-breaking productivity and unprecedented profits from five decades of “trickle-down”/supply-side economics. But a half century of rewarding greed and exploiting working people has demonstrated that the policy only makes the super-rich wealthier and keeps workers poor and desperate. We don’t have to accept this as “the way it is.” Virtually every other nation has figured out a way to make the super-rich pay the same tax rate as working families. It’s not that hard. There are less than two dozen billionaires in Pennsylvania. We know who they are. We know where they keep their money.” – Jeff Garis, Outreach and Partnerships Director, PPC

We’d be grateful if you would join us in our work by supporting the policy analysis, advocacy, and organizing work that can make a difference for generations to come.

Would you commit to a monthly contribution to sustain our work?

TO CONTRIBUTE, CLICK HERE.

The entire team at the Pennsylvania Policy Center sincerely appreciates your support. And thank you so much for your time. Now, GET OUT THERE AND VOTE!

–Marc Stier, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Policy Center; and the entire PPC team: Adrienne, Castin, Dwayne, Erica, Jeff, Kirstin, and Levana.

 

 

Who Runs Pennsylvania Makes a Difference

By Blog Post

 

This is the last week in which Pennsylvania’s 2023–24 General Assembly is likely to be in Harrisburg. And the pattern we have seen for the last two years is once again evident. The Democratic-controlled House passes legislation, with bipartisan support, that addresses serious problems in our commonwealth. And the Republican-controlled Senate once again sits on its hands and does nothing.

This week, the House passed HB 2565, sponsored by Representative Steve Samuelson, a bill that provides tax credits for clean hydrogen energy production, which would spur economic development and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while also providing tax credits for semi-conductor and biomedical manufacturing. Seventeen Republicans voted for it.

It passed HB 2625, sponsored by Representative Ed Neilson, to fund public transit systems in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and thirty other smaller cities. Ten Republicans voted for it.

It passed HB 2557, sponsored by Representative Lisa Borowski, a consumer protection bill that prohibits businesses from automatically renewing subscriptions to a service or subscription without consumers giving unambiguous affirmative action for the renewal. It also requires businesses to give clear notice of an upcoming renewal and a way to end automatic renewals that is similar to the way in which a subscription began and limits automatic renewal to twelve months. Fifty-one Republicans voted for the bill.

A companion bill, HB 116, sponsored by Representative Joe Ciresi, provides additional protections for consumers, including a requirement that businesses provide a clear and conspicuous explanation of the price charged after a free trial ends and the deadline for cancelling a subscription. This bill passed unanimously.

And the House Government Committee passed HB979, sponsored by Representative Jared Samuelson, to create open primaries, allowing independent voters to choose to vote in either Democratic or Republican primary elections. We support this bill with the hopes that it would bring some sanity to the Republican Party in our state. Perhaps that’s why the Republican members of the committee all voted against it, while Democratic members voted in favor. And the Republicans did this even though a similar bill passed the Senate five years ago with bipartisan support.

This has been the General Assembly’s pattern for the two years of the General Assembly. We have now lost count, but there are well over four hundred bills to serve the people of Pennsylvania that have passed the House, usually with some bipartisan support, but have been blocked by the Senate Republican leadership.

Among the legislation that passed the House but is waiting for the Senate to act are bills to

·      reform our corporate income tax to close the Delaware and Cayman Islands loopholes, which allow wealthy multinational corporations to avoid taxation in our state.

·      raise the state’s minimum wage to $15. (HB 1500, sponsored by Representatives Dawkins and Kim. Senate champion: Senator Tartaglione)

·      enact a working families’ tax cut, which includes a PA earned income tax credit and expanded tax forgiveness program to reduce taxes on low-income Pennsylvanians. (HB 1272, sponsored by Representative Sappey)

·      begin cyber charter school reform to stop wasteful spending that reduces funds for our public schools. (HB 1422, sponsored by Rep. Ciresi)

·      provide additional funding for the Whole-Home Repairs Program. This provides help for low- and moderate-income Pennsylvanians to repair their homes. (HB 1300, sponsored by Representative Harris. Senate champion: Senator Saval)

·      reform corporate taxes by closing the Delaware and Cayman Islands loopholes, which allow large multinational corporations to avoid paying taxes in Pennsylvania. (HB 1219, sponsored by Reps. Samuelson and Fiedler. Senate champions: Senators Tartaglione and Haywood)

·      provide an abortion shield law, which protects abortion providers and those coming from outside of the state to seek abortions in Pennsylvania. (HB 1786, sponsored by Representative Daley. Senate champions: Senators Schwank and Cappelletti)

·      create justice for survivors of sexual abuse by opening a window for them to sue their abusers. (HB 2, sponsored by Representative Rozzi. Senate champion: Senator Muth)

·      strengthen gun safety with background checks (HB 714, sponsored by Representative Warren) and a red flag law (HB 2018, sponsored by Representative O’Mara) to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.

·      protect public sector workers from dangerous work conditions with an extension of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. (HB 299, sponsored by Representative Harkins. Senate champion: Senator Kane)

·      protect striking workers by allowing those affected by a labor–management dispute to collect unemployment benefits after a one-week waiting period. (HB 1481, sponsored by Representative Steele. Senate champion: Senator Costa)

·      create retirement security for teachers and public servants. (HB 1416, sponsored by Representatives Malagari and Deasy. Senate champion: Senator Muth)

·      enact the Fairness Act, which extends Pennsylvania’s anti-discrimination law to LGBTQ+ people. (HB 300, sponsored by Representatives Kenyatta and Frankel. Senate champion: Senator Santarsiero)

We believe that all these bills would pass the Senate with bipartisan support if the Republican leadership of the Senate were to allow them to hold hearings and a vote. This was what consistently happened in the Pennsylvania House before Democrats secured their one-vote majority after the 2022 election.

We are a nonpartisan organization. We don’t encourage Pennsylvanians to vote one way or another. But it is simply a matter of fact that Republican control of the Senate is blocking progress on much legislation that we and, as polls show, the people of Pennsylvania support.

We saw last week, as we have for the last twenty-two months, that who runs Harrisburg makes a difference.

 

Fear Donald Trump — Not Immigrants

By Blog Post

Demonizing and stoking fear of immigrants is at the center of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign this year, as it was in 2016. Yet what Americans should really be afraid of is Trump’s opposition to immigration. For immigrants make a huge contribution to our economy and our well-being, as they have for our entire history.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t focus our attention on creating a better, fairer immigration system. We should want immigrants to enter but in a controlled way. President Biden and Vice President Harris worked closely with Republicans in Congress to frame legislation to create a well-funded and regulated immigration process. But Donald Trump demanded that Republicans reject the plan because he cares more about dividing and distracting us by blaming and shaming immigrants instead of solving problems.

The truth is that people who have come to this country seeking a better life for their families or seeking asylum—as my grandparents did a hundred years ago—have made, and continue to make, major contributions to our country. It’s not easy to move here. People who come here brave terrible hardships and often threats of violence to do so. They bring their energy and ambition to our country, one that has always made a place for such people.

To see this, just look at their contributions to our own state of Pennsylvania.

Right now, 10% of Pennsylvania workers are immigrants. It’s well known that many work on farms and in construction. But they have a wide range of jobs. About 24% of college professors are immigrants; 30% of software developers are immigrants; and 26% of doctors are immigrants as well. Moreover, the ambitions and talents of immigrants lead them to become entrepreneurs; they account for 14% of all business owners and about 20% of businesses on our main streets.

All told, immigrants generate $100 billion of economic output in Pennsylvania alone, which is about equal to their share of the labor force. And they all pay taxes. Even undocumented immigrants pay sales and property taxes as well as federal income and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. Undocumented immigrants pay these taxes even though, contrary to what their critics say, they are not eligible to receive Social Security or Medicare. The taxes they pay more than make up for the cost of educating their children, most of whom are U.S. citizens.

And no, immigrants don’t take jobs from native-born Americans—this should be obvious when our unemployment rate is at an historic low. Rather, their contribution to our economy as consumers increases the total amount of jobs.

Nor do immigrants generate higher crime rates. Of course, some immigrants commit violent crimes and those that do should be deported. But the crime rate for immigrants is actually below that for native-born Americans.

What is especially strange about the right-wing attack on immigrants is that they are contributing to the solution of a problem often mentioned by J.D. Vance.

Vance worries about a decline in our population. We agree that a vibrant economy not only needs more people but a balance between children and seniors. The willingness of ambitious young people to come to our country and have children, and our willingness to accept them, gives the United States a huge advantage over other advanced countries. It is one reason we are growing faster than all the others.

And immigrants are also well on their way to solving another problem—ensuring the future of Social Security and Medicare. Without immigration, our population will age and the proportion of workers to retirees will shrink, reducing funding for these programs. But when people move here, they provide the younger workers that will ensure that all of us who are aging will receive Social Security and Medicare benefits.

If we care about the future of the United States, we will reject Donald Trump’s divisive and hateful rhetoric. We will join together and take steps to control our border while providing a path to citizenship for immigrants who are already doing so much to make all of our lives better. And we will create a fair immigration system that welcomes those who seek refuge and opportunity in this country, as so many of our forebears did in the past.

 

The Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority (PEDA) Is Critical to Climate Infrastructure in PA

By Blog Post

The Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority (PEDA) is an independent public financing authority with a mission to finance clean, advanced energy projects in Pennsylvania. It could be an important and powerful tool for Pennsylvania, seeking to leverage millions of dollars that are available through the $550 billion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the $783 billion Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

The investments of the IIJA and IRA are creating once-in-a-generation opportunities to tackle some of the most significant challenges Pennsylvania is facing: an over-reliance on old, polluting energy sources; loss of jobs; a history of negative environmental and economic impacts on poorer communities, especially for Black and brown people; and the growing impact of climate change.

These problems are big and challenging—but they are all problems that can be addressed. PEDA can help create the economy of tomorrow in Pennsylvania with investments in creating good jobs for a more diverse workforce in the growing clean energy sector and in equitably helping communities prepare for climate change. But that is only if our agency is properly set up to play the role we need it to play.

Other states are creating similar agencies positioned to facilitate and support clean energy infrastructure projects and attract private investment. These entities will play a critical role in supporting communities and industry by helping to facilitate projects and communities that are applying for tax credits, providing bridge financing, providing support when private investments are slow, and more.

One of the key challenges of investing the billions of dollars available from the IIJA and IRA is securing “bridge funding.” Bridge funding is particularly critical to under-resourced communities that have been historically left out of large infrastructure investments in the past. It enables the creation of projects that would eventually be supported by utilization of “refunded” tax credits after the project is completed. That’s why we need a functional entity like PEDA that can facilitate the dispersal of bridge funding to all communities in the state and ensure equitable distribution of the tax credits that are available in the IIJA and IRA.

As of today, the agency does not have the necessary staffing level to ensure that Pennsylvania is positioned to fully leverage IIJA’s and IRA’s maximum potential. We must ensure that PEDA can support local communities and industries by initiating projects that could be funded by these new federal programs. PEDA was created in 1982 and is currently in danger of being shut down because of a provision in the law creating it that “sunsets” the agency. The current proposed legislation to reauthorize PEDA does not provide the needed foundation for the work that needs to happen.

With our immense natural gas reserves—and history when coal was “king”—Pennsylvania is a longtime “energy” state. With the right kinds of clean energy investment we can maintain our leading role in providing energy to people in our and other states but in a way that is not only safer and more equitable but also creates good jobs for people in a growth sector. That makes more sense for Pennsylvania than holding on to the jobs of yesterday, which are rapidly disappearing.

Legislators are considering changes. We’ll be watching.

 

As Fair Share America Launches, New Poll Shows Pennsylvanians Support Higher Taxes on the Ultra-Rich and Big Corporations

By Blog Post, Press Release

As Fair Share America Launches, New Poll Shows Pennsylvanians Support Higher Taxes on the Ultra-Rich and Big Corporations

As Pennsylvanians Together brought a group of 25 Pennsylvanians to Washington, D.C., this week to take part in the September 18th launch of “Fair Share America,” a new, national campaign for tax justice, the organization released the toplines of a new national / state poll carried out by Data for Progress.

Results for each of Pennsylvania’s congressional districts, state House districts, and state Senate districts will be released soon.

The campaign will work both nationally and within individual states to ensure that wealthy individuals and profitable, multinational corporations pay their fair share of taxes. If they do so, federal and state governments will have the revenue they need to take bold steps toward fully and fairly funding education, reducing the cost of health care and housing, and helping families that are struggling to take care of children.

Likely Voters in Pennsylvania Toplines

Profitable corporations are not paying enough in state taxes ………………..………………………. 76%

The wealthiest households are not paying enough in taxes ………………………………………….  76%

Taxes should be increased for households earning more than $400,000 per year ………….….….  77%

Child tax credits should be increased ……………………………………………………………………. 72%

Methodology

From August 6 to August 13, 2024, Data for Progress conducted a U.S. national survey of 8,017 likely voters using web panel respondents to gauge voter support for state and federal action to fund public programs and hold profitable corporations and the wealthy accountable to pay their fair share of taxes. The sample was weighted to be representative of likely voters by age, gender, education level, race, and geography. The survey was conducted in English.

By matching survey results to the list of registered voters in congressional districts, Data for Progress was able to create a model for every district in Pennsylvania using a statistical technique called MRP (multi-level regression with poststratification).

For a complete explanation of the methodology and more information about the data, please copy this link and paste into your browser’s search field: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://pennpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/dfp_sra_mrp_2024_release_tabs.pdf

###

New Census Data Shows Failure and Success of Pennsylvania Public Policy

By Blog Post, Press Statements

The annual release of census data is often a guide to policy success and failure at both the national and state levels. This year is no exception. The American Community Survey data released yesterday shows that Pennsylvania’s failure to raise the minimum wage has led to our state falling behind the rest of the nation in measures of poverty and household income. But our early participation in the Medicaid expansion, along with new federal subsidies in the health care insurance marketplace has led to a reduction in the percentage of people uninsured in our state.

Poverty data points to the continuing failure of Pennsylvania to raise the minimum wage. The standard poverty rate in the United States fell from 11.5% to 11.1% between 2022 and 2023. But it rose slightly in Pennsylvania from 11.8% to 12% although that increase was not quite outside the margin of error of .3%. It is troubling that poverty remains higher in Pennsylvania than in other states and that it increased in the last year during a time of tight labor markets. The most likely explanation of our higher-than-national poverty rate is the failure of the Pennsylvania General Assembly to raise the minimum wage above $7.25. Pennsylvania remains one of only 16 states not to raise its minimum wage above that federal level. (Sources: For national data, U.S. Census Bureau, Official Poverty Rates by Age: 2009 to 2023. For state data, U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1701, Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months for 2023 and 2022.)

Another data series also points to the same failure of public policy in Pennsylvania. While the nation saw a small, but statistically significant, drop in median household income, adjusted for inflation, of .2%, the decline in Pennsylvania was statistically significant and six times greater, -1.3%. It was also greater than the states that surround Pennsylvania. Again, the static minimum wage in Pennsylvania likely accounts for our state falling behind the national average. (Source: Katherin Engle and Kirby G. Posey, “Household Income in States and Metropolitan Areas: 2023,” American Community Survey Brief ACSBR-023, US Census, September 2024.)

Pennsylvania’s lower minimum wage reduces household income and directly increases poverty by holding down wages. More than 20% of workers in the state would see an increase in their wages if we were to institute a $15 per hour minimum wage. A low minimum wage also depresses consumption and economic activity in the state. Because minimum wage earners spend almost all they make, an increase in the minimum wage to $15 per hour would raise consumption in the state by more than $5 billion.

Census data on the share of the population that is uninsured points to a continued success of Pennsylvania policy—our early adoption of the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, as well as the increase in subsidies for health insurance in the marketplace under President Biden. The percentage of people without insurance fell both nationwide and in Pennsylvania. According to ACS data from 2019 to 2023, it fell from 9.2% to 7.9% nationwide and from 5.8% to 5.4% in Pennsylvania. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-year Estimates, Table S2701, Selected Characteristics of Health Insurance in the United States for 2023 and 2019.)

What Project 2025 Means for Pennsylvania Taxpayers

By Blog Post, Policy Briefs, Policy Report

If the federal government in Donald Trump’s potential second term were to adopt the tax proposals in Project 2025, low- and moderate-income Pennsylvanians would pay far more in taxes than they do now and the top 1% would pay much less.

That should worry Pennsylvanians. For, if we follow the letter of what Project 2025 proposes, a family of four at the state median family income level of $119,000 would pay an additional $7,167 in taxes. And a family of four with an annual income of $50,000 would pay an additional $7,031 in federal taxes. But a family of four that just breaks into the top 1% of Pennsylvania families, with $750,000 in income, would pay $12,675 less in federal taxes.

If, contrary to what Project 2025 explicitly says, we assume that earned income and child tax credits are not repealed, the increase in taxes for a family of four with $119,000 in income would be only $3,167, while the increase for a family of four with $50,000 in income would be $1,040. A family of four with an income of $750,000 would still receive a huge tax cut of $12,675.

And note that these changes in paid taxes do not include the proposed limit on the deductibility of employee benefits, including paid health care, discussed below. That limit would raise taxes for many middle-income Pennsylvanians. Also not included in the analysis are reductions in the tax rate on capital gains and corporate profits, which would reduce taxes for the top 1%.

Recognizing the danger of the extreme Project 2025 agenda on taxes and other issues for his political prospects, Donald Trump has disavowed knowledge of or support for Project 2025. But alumni of Trump’s first administration wrote much of it. If one looks at the connections between Trump and the authors of Project 2025, it’s likely that a second Trump administration would certainly be staffed and guided by those who wrote the plan.

More importantly, the tax proposals in Project 2025 are even worse than what Trump sought and achieved with his 2017 tax cuts. The 2017 tax cuts were heavily tilted to wealthy multinational corporations and to the rich, who received a disproportionate share of the benefits. The Project 2025 tax proposal would add additional tax cuts for those who already pay too little but would raise taxes on those with low and moderate incomes.

So, let’s take a closer look at why the Project 2025 tax proposals lead to results so harmful to low- and moderate-income Pennsylvanians, while helping those at the top, first with regard to individual taxes and then corporate taxes. Keep in mind that there are limitations to how precise our analysis can be, both because the Project 2025 proposal is not terribly detailed and because the precise implications of some of their proposals require a far more detailed analysis than we can do for this preliminary report.

Individual Taxes

Currently, there are seven marginal rates in the federal income tax: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35%, and 37%. These tax rates are tied to inflation-adjusted federal income tax brackets. And remember that a marginal tax rate means that a taxpayer pays that rate only for income above the threshold for their tax bracket. For example, for couples filing jointly, the 12% rate applies to annual income over $23,200 and below $94,301. The 32% rate applies to income above $383,900 but below $487,451. The 37% rate apples to income over $731,000.

Project 2025 proposes a reduction of our seven personal income tax rates to two, an initial one at 15% and a second one at 30% beginning at the “social security wage base,” which is currently $168,600 (Project 2025, p. 696.) It also proposes to “eliminate most deductions, credits and exclusions.” It’s not totally clear whether that means eliminating the standard deduction since the document also says that the goal of the plan is to create a “nearly flat tax on wage income beyond the standard deduction.”  For the purpose of this brief, we are assuming that the standard deduction would remain unchanged. And because Project 2025 is not as clear as it should be about whether the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit would be repealed, we are analyzing the impact of Project 2025 under both scenarios.

Just looking at the changes in tax rates it is clear that Project 2025 would place a greater burden on low-income families, making our tax system less fair. Raising the rate on the lowest two tax brackets from 10% and 12% to 15% raises taxes for everyone, but it disproportionately hurts families and individuals with income below $94,000. Meanwhile, setting the highest rate at 30% benefits households that currently pay marginal rates at 32% or above—that is those with income over $383,900.

There are other tax changes proposed by Project 2025 that would harm many low- and moderate-income households. The plan calls for capping tax-free employee benefits at $12,000 per family. That would raise taxes for families receiving a variety of employee benefits and especially health insurance benefits.

In 2022, 54.5% of the population had health insurance that was paid for in part by their employer. The percentage has historically been a little higher in Pennsylvania. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation Employer Health Benefits survey, in 2023 the average employer health plan for families cost $23,968 of which the employee paid $6,575 and the employer paid 17,303. If tax-free employee benefits were capped at $12,000, then the average employee would have to pay taxes on the difference between $17,303 and $12,000—that is, $5,393. At the 15% rate, that means an average additional tax burden of $809. Project 2025 says that capping tax-free employee benefits is justified to eliminate the tax preference for employees receiving benefits instead of wages. But it does not admit that any shift in compensation from tax-free benefits to wages will lead to higher taxes for working people.

Because not all families received employer-paid health insurance, this amount is not included in our estimates of the burden of the Project 2025 tax plan. But it would hurt roughly half of all Pennsylvania families and individuals.

Another change in individual taxes excluded from our calculations is a proposed reduction in the highest tax rate on capital gains from 20% to 15%. Of course, this change would overwhelmingly benefit families with the highest incomes.

Finally,  Project 2025 also calls for creating universal savings accounts, similar to Roth IRAs, that would allow all taxpayers to set aside up to $15,000 per year in income, which would accumulate tax-free. The plan would allow reduce taxes only for families that can afford to save some of what they earn. But low- and moderate-income families and individuals can afford to save very little of their income. Studies of household saving rates show that the bottom 90% of households by income typically save around 4% of their income. But people in the top 1% save about 38% of their income, while those in the 90th to 99th percentile save at roughly a 12% rate. So, a universal savings plan—like much lower marginal tax rates for high-income families—largely benefits the well off.

Corporate Taxes

When it comes to corporate taxes, the Project 2025 plan is also tilted heavily to wealthy corporations. And since the wealthiest 10% of Americans own 93% of corporate stock, they will be the main beneficiaries of the proposed reduction in the corporate tax rate from 21%—which is already far below the 35% it was before the Trump tax cuts of 2017—to 18%.

Project 2025 also calls for the United States to withdraw from the international agreement to create a minimum 15% tax on corporations. As the plan recognizes, this agreement was meant to stop countries from competing against one another to draw businesses—or at least shell companies that serve to hide corporate profits—to their shores. Most economists believe that this competition is a problem because this “race to the bottom” discourages countries from asking corporations to pay a reasonable share of taxes. Corporations benefit a great deal from government. They ship goods—and their workers arrive—on roads, bridges, and railroads and in planes that land at airports that are paid for with public dollars. Those workers secure the education and training they need to be productive at the public’s expense. They benefit from government research dollars that are responsible for new, productive processes and products, including the internet, which now plays such a critical role in business. Yet when corporations do not pay their share of the cost of those goods, then families—the same families that are already paying for the goods and services they purchase from those corporations—must pick up the slack. The result is that corporate profits increase, and that redounds to the benefit of the already rich people from the top 10% (and overwhelmingly from the top 1%) who are stockholders.

What for most economists is a bug of international competition is a feature in Project 2025. A race to the bottom is what they want, precisely because it will lead to greater rewards for corporations and those who own them.

Other Provisions

Finally, Project 2025 has two other important tax policy proposals.

The first is to roll back President Biden’s increase in funding for the IRS. Nothing shows the Project’s fundamental concern for the well-being of the wealthy than this action. New funding at the IRS has already collected more than $500 million in unpaid taxes from fewer than 2,000 delinquent millionaires. And at the same time, average taxpayers find that customer service at the IRS is much improved. A reduction of funding at the IRS would diminish its enforcement activity, which is almost always directed at millionaires and above—because that is where the money is.

The other general tax proposal is to enact by legislation, or possibly constitutional amendment, rules to prevent Congress from raising taxes without a three-fifths majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Creating this barrier to higher taxes would make it more difficult to meet the ongoing and future needs of the country and its people. We can’t always say today what our needs will be in the future. But we should not hamstring the ability of the federal government to meet those needs. And there are two future issues that we recognize today and that will require new taxes: making up for shortfalls in the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. If Congress can’t raise new revenue to extend the life of those trust funds, we will see cuts to both Social Security and Medicare in the not-too-distant future.

Conclusion

In sum then, we can see why former President Trump wants to disavow Project 2025. When it comes to taxes, as well as many other issues—including the right to reproductive health care and the checks and balances between the president and Congress—Project 2025 is a threat to the well-being of average Pennsylvanians.