A couple of days ago I wrote that Democrats have done little to help the middle class over the past few decades. The poor? Yes. The elderly? Yes. The disabled? Yes. But the middle class has been largely left out.
To illustrate this I listed the seven major programs in the $3.5 trillion omnibus spending bill. This provoked some questions on Twitter that deserve an answer. To refresh your memory, here are those programs:
- Funds various climate initiatives.
- Adds dental, hearing, and vision benefits to Medicare.
- Makes the increased child tax credit permanent.
- Provides two years of free community college.
- Provides funding for long-term care done at home.
- Provides universal pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds.
- Makes the increased Obamacare subsidies from January's coronavirus bill permanent.
How does the middle class make out in each of these? Let me make clear that I'm talking about concrete benefits that a middle-class voter would immediately recognize. Not "that would benefit the economy and eventually be good for the middle class." So let's go through them.
- Funds various climate initiatives. Nothing for the middle class.
- Adds dental, hearing, and vision benefits to Medicare. Nothing for the middle class.
- Makes the increased child tax credit permanent. This one is tricky. Ready? The CTC has been around for a while, bobbing up and down over the years. Before 2021 it was set at $2,000 per child, which means the Biden CTC expansion is not worth $3,000/$3,600 per child, but $1,000/$1,600.
..
But wait! There's more. The pre-2021 CTC provides nothing at very low incomes and slowly increases, so it's not very generous to the poor. The Biden expansion makes it fully available at all incomes, which means the bulk of the benefit goes to the poor. A middle-class family is likely to see an increase of only $100 per month or so. - Provides two years of free community college. The provision creates a federal-state partnership grant to eliminate the cost of tuition. In other words, the money goes to community colleges, not to people. Also, its main effect is to allow students greater choice in which school to attend, since local community colleges tend to be nearly tuition free already.
- Provides funding for long-term care done at home. The middle class likes this as an idea, but the Biden plan is a state partnership that boosts pay for home health workers and reduces the waiting list for home care. In other words, it mostly benefits the poor and tops up state Medicaid coffers.
- Provides universal pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds. This is genuinely a middle-class program, though it helps the poor even more.
- Makes the increased Obamacare subsidies from January's coronavirus bill permanent. In its original form, Obamacare subsidies ended at about $80,000 for a family of three. In reality, though, the subsidies declined so fast with income that they were negligible for families making more than about $65,000. It was mainly a program for the poor and working class.
..
However, Obamacare did raise the cost of individual premiums by thousands of dollars, thanks to its regulations that required insurers to provide more comprehensive coverage. As a result, middle-class families found themselves paying more for coverage but getting no subsidies. Obamacare was essentially anti-middle class.
..
The increased subsidies in the spending bill would help the poor a bit, but mainly they help the middle class. Subsidies would be available at much higher incomes, and no one would have to pay more than 8.5% of their income for coverage. This is a huge deal for the middle class.
In the end, two of the programs are aimed at the middle class in a significant way, with a couple of others providing modest benefits that are largely hidden. In other words, it's not that the omnibus bill literally ignores the middle class so much as it provides limited benefits and does so in a form that hides even those. And Obamacare expansion, which is clearly the biggest middle-class program, appears to have very little support in the Democratic caucus.
It's worth saying a bit more on this subject. First off is presentation. It's not enough just to do something that benefits the middle class. It needs to be visible. That could mean clear dollar amounts that are obvious to everyone. Or it could simply mean a card. For example, in addition to Medicare cards, Biden could issue "Long Term Care" cards that make it clear you qualify for a new benefit. Don't scoff at this: politically, new benefits only work if people know they're getting them. And most people don't pay enough attention to the news to know they're getting something unless you make it absolutely clear. Remember all those folks who never realized that TennCare or KentuckyCare were actually Obamacare?
Second, any benefit that works through the tax code is problematic, and not just because it obscures the source of the benefit. The problem for Democrats is that Republicans own tax cuts as an issue. Any time you provide some kind of tax cut or tax refund, you're fundamentally playing in the Republican sandbox and you're unlikely to get full credit for it.
Third, there are other ways of making economic appeals to the middle class. Republicans use tax cuts, and Donald Trump added revenge against China to the list. This worked even though (a) job losses to China happened in the aughts and haven't been much of a factor since, and (b) Trump's tariffs were largely a hidden tax on the middle class.
Finally, I have to acknowledge that Democrats don't actually have a lot of options here. Ideally they should be united around big programs that help the middle class, but there aren't many to choose from. Universal health care is the only big-ticket item left, along with a few medium-size programs like childcare and long-term care. This makes things harder. On the other hand, Republicans have a similar problem: decades of tax cuts have reduced middle-class income taxes nearly to zero, so there's not a lot more they can do on that front.
That said, politics is always messy. There are still things Democrats can do for the middle class, but it's critical that they be both sizeable and visible. Obamacare expansion is a good place to start.
$10000 a year (average cost of provate community college) is far from "nearly tuition free" jfc.
Well if you’re middle class it is “free” lol
Of course, there are about 35 times as many students at public community colleges as there are at private ones (5.35 million vs. 165,000), so your comment is about 97% irrelevant. jfc
$4000 instate
$7-8000 outstste
At non private. So fuck right off.
Uh, if it's "provate", it isn't "community".
There are things that would benefit the middle class that the middle class has decided it does not want:
universal health care not tied to employment or anything but being a human,
lower prescription drug prices,
tuition free state college, and
increase social security benefits.
Based on their voting, the white middle class does not want any benefit if that benefit is going to be shared with non-white people. This, more than any other factor, is the obstacle for Democrats.
Yeah. We could have nice things if not for the underlying racism.
The white middle class is not a monolith. Some members of that class might have intentionally voted against those benefits, but I doubt most of them did.
The vote like a monolith. They vote for Republicans who oppose the federal government doing nice things for anyone but rich people & corporations, especially polluters and military contractors.
No they don't. The college-educated component of the white middle class is increasingly loyal to the Democratic Party.
Nope.
I'd guess the college educated component is increasingly not middle class.
Yes, this and the people denying it below are either off their rockers or live in an alternate universe far, far away. I'm an example of a white, middle class guy who has not voted for a Republican at the national level for most of my life-- and Ipm hardly alone in that. Outside the South and many rural areas the white vote is very much split between the Democrats and the GOP, and that split reflects A) a gender gap with women coring more Democratic and B) college educated people voting more Democratic.
Some simply support supply sided economics. I would argue you see that in "variants" of progressice. Warren vs Brown in the Senate is a great example of demand side production based Brown vs supply sided Warren.
"Based on their voting, the white middle class does not want any benefit if that benefit is going to be shared with non-white people. This, more than any other factor, is the obstacle for Democrats."
That's part of the reason (for some people). I think for most outside the Stormfront contingent is the fact they believe that it's a zero-sum game. Even if you could offer such benefits to help the middle class they'll wind up paying for them anyways in increased tax rates and in the end they receive no benefit. This is what happens when Jeff Bezos of the world don't pay their fair share in taxes. People have come to believe the rich have gamed the whole system (which in many ways is true) and thus they gain nothing and have to pay everything for such benefits.
Republicans oppose Democratic efforts to change taxation so Bezos & others like him pay their fair share. White people vote for Republicans.
Nope, old white people. Your post is dead.
And to add on, old fundie whites in the south. Obama actually won the "electoral share" of white voters during the 2008 election. Total voters don't mean sheet. It's electoral share that matters.
Many white people do vote for Republicans. But many also vote for Democrats. Put away the broad tar brush. This is not a one-size-fits-all situation.
"Even if you could offer such benefits to help the middle class they'll wind up paying for them anyways in increased tax rates and in the end they receive no benefit."
Or we could just do what we did with Medicare Part D and dump it on the national debt. W didn't raise taxes on anyone when he added Part D... and I don't see many middle class retirees rejecting their Part D coverage at the pharmacy, insisting on paying full price so their taxes don't go up.
so if you're of middle class income but you hit a certain age, you're no longer middle class?
Exactly. And apparently, middle-class adults have no worries about how their parents are doing, either.
Well, yeah, you aren't 😉 Kids are out of the house and college is paid for, the menagerie has been downsized to three dogs and two cats, etc. looking back on it, I'd say the biggest monthly expenses were incurred during the prime child-rearing years, ages 13 - 22. The last four being out-of-house, of course.
> out-of-house
Wow, you're rich.
One year dorm, one year sorority, two years sharing a house with other girls.
College-educated voters already vote Democratic by a safe margin, and middle-class voters are increasingly college graduates over time.
Given the electoral college & gerrymandering & the construction of the senate, there is no safe margin.
Republicans don't care if they lose a couple of ball games if their plan is to burn down the stadium.
A democracy is the last thing active Republicans seem to want.
It too often conflicts with their psychotic egotism and general malice.
Lazy post considering Republicans catch fire, burn up and die. Republicans are con men. But your too stupid to get it.
Perhaps someone can explain to me how #2 does nothing for the middle class.
Kevin seems to be making a distinction between "middle class" and the "elderly" as separate categories.
I had no idea I had dropped out of the middle class when I turned 65. But wait. My wife isn’t 65 yet and it would certainly help us for those things to be covered by Medicare. So…
#2 could be huge for the middle class--taking care of your parents while the kids are in college is no mean feat. The current situation is a nightmare, especially if a parent has dementia.
I have a friend who is 50 something but married an older man who smoked and now has a muscle wasting disease similar to ALS and now a lung cancer diagnosis. She is an execute at her tech firm makes enough $$$$ to be upper class but the costs for home health aids and other things for her husband are bleeding them dry. Never mind kids, they never had kids.
You know it's really bad when even somewhat wealthy folks struggle to pay for long term care costs.
My heart goes out to your friend and her family. I hope she and her husband can still find time to laugh.
My friend can from time to time when she can escape but unfortunately her husband is embittered about life and everything so it's been a huge ordeal for her. Frankly it would be merciful if he didn't hang on for too much longer, he's boomeranging in and out of the hospital with the latest stay being when they figured out he had lung cancer.
The middle class can go fuck themselves tbh. If they who are already doing very well also need to be paid off, the country is fucked anyway.
👍👍👍👍
I think democrats should make this message part of their party platform.
Sincerely,
A Republican
How are you defining middle class? Vision, dental etc are all Medicare add-ons that cost money.. And $65,000 or even $80,000 might be poor or working class in California, but it is solidly middle class in many parts of the U.S.—think Cleveland Johnstown PA or dozens of small towns and cities with median incomes below $30,000 or even WV, AR, or MS where the state median income is less than $50,000. And there are 1000s of people struggling with student loan debt just from community college. This post is disappointing, just for it’s lack of effort.
Yeah, I was about to say, maybe I don't know what MC is these days, but there's a lot here that would really be helpful to me.
Kevin's starting to lose me with stuff like this.
Obamacare literally saved my life. Just saying.
There’s some implicit assumptions in Kevin’s arguments that strike me as deeply flawed. Kevin seems to be segmenting and compartmentalizing issues in a way that that denies any commonality between narrowly defined interest groups. The obvious but by no means only example is saying that addressing climate change isn’t a benefit for the midd class.
I think it’s actually more of a benefit for wealthy people than for poor people. The middle class lives in nice neighborhoods or in oceanfront areas that are particularly imperiled by climate. The recently collapsed building in Florida being a good example: the people who died or lost their homes were middle class and it’s clear that both climate change and corruption were causes.
Actually I disagree. Yes there are the wealthy with their beachfront homes but in my neck of the woods there are working class neighborhoods built on lowlands that flood in heavy rains, the rich have built their houses on higher ground, perhaps the only richies in vulnerable areas are in Maryland along the bay.
Clearly, everyone benefits from stopping climate change. That’s undeniable. All I’m saying is that the more you have, the more you stand to lose. And, if you’re middle class but your biggest asset is lost to climate change, you might not even still be middle class. So the middle class stands to gain the most from fighting climate change.
I think it varies from region to region who is most at risk. It's painfully apparent that the most at risk in the Northeast and Mid Atlantic are poorer folks who can only afford to live in flood prone areas or tragically illegal basement apartments. Houston apparently is similar. When we had a 1,000 year flood in my county a few years back my house was high and dry situated near the top of a hill but houses built in the 1950s/1960s in Belle Haven along Four Mile Run in eastern part of the county flooded out.
I agree with you but in the context of Kevin’s belief that addressing climate change doesn’t especially benefit the middle I think it’s mistaken. The poor have a lot less to lose while the rich and middle classes stand to lose much more. Addressing climate change obviously benefits everyone but the people living in Palm Beach, Miami, and Malibu will benefit greatly from the Biden climate change proposals.
All I’m saying is that the more you have, the more you stand to lose.
Slightly off topic but it brings to mind something that puzzles me: why not more opposition to authoritarian MAGA among elites? They have it good. Even when Democrats are in power they have it good. Democratic (small "d") values and the rule of law are the main reason US elites enjoy much more comfortable and secure lives than Chinese elites.
Rich people in America on the surface are ruthless as a class. But they're also dumb as rocks and utterly fucking clueless.
It's a con. That's why.
I don’t know. But I don’t think it’s that the rich are stupid or evil. Outside of the politically well connected beltway types, I doubt if most rich people think they’d be better off under an authoritarian like Trump. My guess is that the media environment in which the Republicans, and especially Trump, are normalized and it’s all treated as a combination of entertainment and politics as usual is a big part of why people aren’t worried.
Another part of the equation is that it’s easy to dismiss what the Republicans are doing as just politics within the framework of traditional norms is the peculiar Democratic response. There’s been several years of whining by the Democratic leadership and scary fundraising messages from our savvy political consultants but absolutely no action on electoral reforms or voting rights or prosecutions of the people behind the 1/6 attempted coup.
I’m scared because I’m reading articles like the ones discussed (both of which should be essential reading for everyone) and I see trouble ahead but most people, including the leadership of the main opposition party, are pretty firmly convinced that everything is just fine.
How was climate change implicated in that building collapse? Florida has been miserably hot and humid since long before Ponce de Leon showed up looking for the Fountain of Youth. No, the problem was too many corners were cut when that building was built.
There is a strong possibility that the rising sea levels had at least something to do with this specific collapse (although corruption seems to have played a much larger role):
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/30/us/florida-building-collapse-sea-level-rise/index.html
And the danger to the middle class and even to all but the wealthiest people is long term and pervasive. Miami is just one example of a city with a huge amount of expense real estate that’s extremely screwed. Miami is deeply Republican but probably benefit from Biden’s climate proposals more than any other American city:
https://www.inverse.com/article/46169-florida-miami-housing-climate-change-report
Miami is not "deeply Republican". Google "Miami voting record". At least in presidential years Miami, like almost every big city, votes predominantly Democratic. Last year there was some movement toward Trump that surprised a lot of people, but it amounted a few percent of the total-- Biden still won Miami-Dade.
It’s always interesting to see what sorts of ideas get pushed out by lefty media. Do you want to help the middle class? Bike infrastructure!
“The overall funding for bike infrastructure is far from transformational and far from what’s needed to match the level of biking that’s growing across the country,” says Noa Banayan, the federal affairs director for PeopleForBikes, adding that she believes the federal funding required to properly expand biking infrastructure across the country is likely in the “hundreds of billions of dollars.”
https://www.vox.com/22671552/bike-infrastructure-funding
Politics today are completely divorced from reality. There nothing wrong with Nike lanes I suppose.
Bike lanes! Midnight basketball! Honeybee hive collapse! Hyuk hyuk.
Sure, all those ideas work, but no-minds can make fun of them in soundbites, so we can't mention them.
Yeah. It’s awful. But the point of Drums post was finding ways for democrats to make themselves more appealing to the middle class. It turns out you all just don’t know how to do it. I vote for Democrats because republicans are evil while democrats are merely useless. They should stop pretending to be anything other than mangers of the status quo.
I wonder if any of those programs that have helped the poor, eventually helped to get people out of the poor class and into the middle class.
Yes. I and many members of my fam would still be on govt assistance without the programs that allowed me to graduate from high school/college instead of continuing to work as a late-night busboy for $1.75 an hour. Yes, we are what I consider to be mid class.
Tom and Jerry through time,
https://i.redd.it/pihbwtshlup71.jpg
As with social conservatives I'm not seeing any huge evolution, they have their conflict routine, and without that what do they have?
"...since local community colleges tend to be nearly tuition free already."
According to Google, "For the academic year 2020-2021, the undergraduate tuition & fees at Montgomery County Community College is $10,350 for Pennsylvania residents and $14,970 for...[presumably out of state]"
At Montgomery Community College in Troy, NC, average annual cost before aid is $19,952. That doesn't seem nearly tuition free to me. Granted, it's quite a bit less than a lot of state universities these days. But it would be a real boon for a lot of middle class families, I'm very sure.
Indeed. And -- speaking to my own strengths -- you get nothing out of a Fr/Jr math class from Big Box U that you couldn't get more cheaply and with at least as much personal attention as you would get at a community college.
I'm not convinced that's true. The question is the extent to which one picks up interesting ideas talking to people while eating lunch before or after that math class.
Wowza. Here in High Price Silicon Valley, I sent my kid to Community College for *a lot less* than that.
You know what would help the middle class? In fact, get them solidly in your corner with a feral roar of approval?
Tax the wealthy.
Dude, the individual insurance market pre aca was a minefield of pre-existing-conditions, recission, too-complicated too compare benefit plans and soforth. The rates may have been lower for healthy young men, but that's not "the middle class".
The trend in employer insurance was for it to get worse and worse. The big innovation right before the ACA was plans with lifetime maximums like $10000.
ACA did many things for "the middle class".
The problem with the ACA is that subsidies phase out as the median income is approached. Older people above 400% above poverty got hit with the huge step-up (don't know the current status of this) A family at 100% of poverty pays virtually no premiums. Middle income people who know about this are envious, and envy can be a major motivation.
Most middle class people have workplace health plans, so increased subsidies for the ACA may help those few who are self employed, but that's only a small fraction of the middle class.
So, as regards the popular child tax credit, I’m sure it comes as no surprise that in his nonstop quest to make Joe Biden an, at most, one term president, Joe Manchin is gunning for that, too.
https://newrepublic.com/article/163785/manchin-child-tax-credit-extension
He is a one term President no matter what. He will be pushing 82 by the 2024 election. He is not running again. Your post is incorrect. The child tax credit is very unpopular. Compared to the ACA subs, end of life care and some of the conservation provisions, it's low on the approval scale. But you don't pay attention.
"The current expanded tax credit has proven popular, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found, supported by 59% of U.S. adults including 75% of people who identified themselves as Democrats and 41% of people who identified as Republicans. The poll was conducted online Sept. 9-10, based on responses from 1,003 adults and with a credibility interval of 4 percentage points." https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-s-child-tax-credit-pays-big-in-republican-states-popular-with-voters/ar-AAOsYpe
Why do you lie when it's so easy to find the facts? Why do they even let you post here?
Fraud poll. Follow its hedonics. Why do you lie? The "current" child tax credit is popular. Got it??
Hmmm... You know so many facts and yet can't seem to find references for any of them.
You got the issues. Drum has already given you evidence of the not so fan polls of the "expanded" child tax credit. But you continue to mutter dialectics.
Of course it comes as no surprise. Why would Joe Manchin be concerned about child poverty? Everybody knows child poverty has nearly been eradicated already in West Virginia.
Yes, we keep coming back to “what’s the matter with Kansas”. The tax credit and so much else in the “build back better” package would be of enormous benefit to the vast majority of his constituents. But they seem to value performative centrism instead. In a more rational country, Manchin would be under immense pressure from West Virginians and his party’s leadership but evidently both are content to see him preening and posturing as he denies his constituents anything that might make their lives better.
A middle-class family is likely to see an increase of only $100 per month or so.
So, about $1200/year? Seems like middle class families might like that.
Sounds like ACA subs, end of life care, some of the conservation/climate provisions are done deals. Child tax credit, community college are toast. That leaves Medicare expansion mess and expensive pre-k issues. I would fund pre-k due to white moms without a college degree voting bloc and slash dental off the Medicare provisions.
A carbon fee and dividend would put more money in the pockets of the middle class (assuming that's who is represented in the middle quintile) than it would cost them in increased energy costs. See H.R2307, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. A carbon fee along these lines is being considered in the reconciliation bill. So far, the dividend portion seems to be tailored for the lower quintiles only, with the rest of the money as a "pay-for". I sincerely hope that if they go with this (which will truly take a bite out of climate change), they decide to go with the universal dividend, which will be a money-maker for the third and fourth quintiles.
Dude, some states are fossil fuel states. The middle class is tied to the exports of fossil fuels, much less America using them. Got it yet??? I mean, ignorance is bliss.
I'd add in that to a significant number of people, "middle class" means what it meant a generation ago: a married couple with a house, medical insurance, and children - and one income.
Now look at the list again.
Hmmm... I'm married, own a home, have insurance, children, and one income. And I can afford to send my children to a 4-year state College or University without student loans. Am I middle class?
Well, one-and-half incomes for my household at the time. But it was easier to live in the middle of Missouri than it is in Chicago, which is where I be now.
I'd also note that I knew several couples who had 'one-and-a-half' incomes ... both of them 3/4 full-time employment. And no, they were not solid middle class, given the extra expenses they incurred as a result of the 29.5 hour rule.
Missouri also has less capital and income in general. Your stating nothing new since 1875. My great great grandfather said the same thing when he left Ohio for California in 1903-4. Capitalism definitely ponzi's in warmer climates.
I don't understand why you think expanded medicare benefits doesn't help the middle class. Are you claiming the elderly aren't middle class? Are you claiming the middle class doesn't subsidize health care for their elderly parents?
And why would we discount "benefit the economy"? E.g., spending to avoid climate change would seem likely to lower house insurance costs relative to what they will be.
The middle class relies on Medicare. Increasing Medicare benefits for dental, vision, and hearing should appeal to retired middle class voters who pay for these services out of pocket.
Nope.
Does Drum think middle class is the bourgeoisie?
Progressive tax structure means just that
The more you make the more you pay
The less you make the less you pay
The folks in the middle get harmed.
The folks below them pay nothing in taxes
The folks above them finds ways to avoid paying taxes
I worked in state government for years enforcing Federal regulations (along with some minor state regulations). We enforced two different code of federal regulations. Total number of pages in those two CFRs totaled like 1000 pages.
The tax code is 100 times worse than that. IIRC the tax code itself is contained in 49 different CFRs (?) - many of which are thousands of pages long.
It ls no wonder the middle class gets hammered. When we talk simplifying the tax code the rich get nervous because they claim to "need" the exemption to this or that rule because..........
One thing that has changed is the economy itself. Rich folks used to run manufacturing. They re-invested in their businesses. They hired poor and middle class folks in order to make money. The more money the rich made the more people they needed to employ. Everyone benefited
Now they can make MORE money investing in the stock market so they do whatever they can to hide their profits from taxation. The poor and middle class are left out of this scenario. They are not employed in stock/bond transactions. Very few benefit from it.
A reset of the tax code is needed to reflect this change.
Another problem I see on this thread is the obsession with consumption. It's why the 2008 crisis should have been allowed to move through. It's the obsession of consumption over production why DNC elites so wanted a bailout in 2008-9. They could never believe industrial policy and nationalization of investment were needed to rebuild production. I mean, never.
I feel bad for the idiots who post on this site who don't get it. I mean, a "liquidation" would suck. Not only would the fake ponzi wealth created since
1980 totally disappear. The collapse of rural society and debt driven jobs in the coasts disappear along with local and state governments. Eventually the monies elite would consolidate what's left of agribusiness and turn some of the burbs into "safezones" where running power still exists and food to get by. A heavily reduced existence though. States like West Virginia and Wyoming would completely collapse. Others may consolidate. New countries may form. Nothing the last 3000 of history have not seen. I could go into global changes. The 100 million in China of the elderly offing themselves Logan Run style so the young find nourishing diets will be interesting.
Middle Class need a purpose and production. Not frivolous consumption on a flawed economic system
Other people have already said it, but: Do middle class people not need dental/hearing/vision benefits after retiring? Or send children to community college? Or take care of aging parents in their homes? This is completely news to me, since I'm middle class and I had to pay for my retired mom's dental care and take care of her during cancer treatment before she passed away... I personally could've used #2 and #5 despite not being elderly myself.
Also, #1 apparently benefits nobody then if Kevin is going to rule that it doesn't benefit the middle class. It's not like the poor is helped any more directly by averting climate change than the middle class is.
'A couple of days ago I wrote that Democrats have done little to help the middle class over the past few decades. The poor? Yes. The elderly? Yes. The disabled? Yes. But the middle class has been largely left out.'
Who do you think ends up picking up the tab, if the government does not aid the poor and elderly?