What exactly makes SALT regressive? Does the tax table have more more moral authority than the deductions? Or is the tax table also regressive, since it contains marginal rates less than 100% at upper income levels?
If the sense in which it’s regressive is “allows upper income people to pay less taxes than in some counterfactual” then what makes it interestingly regressive relative to other features of the tax code?
"the SALT deduction, like all tax deductions, gives people a tax break while doing nothing to lower their marginal tax rate."
I don't think this is true. If you have a 10% state income tax and a 30% federal tax, then your total marginal tax rate without a SALT deduction is 40%. With a SALT deduction, your total marginal tax rate is 37% (30% federal + 10% state - 10% * 30% for SALT deduction).
Repealing the SALT deduction increased marginal rates.
Yes, you're right but it's complicated by the standard deduction. How many people, and for how much, would benefit from more than $10,000 of SALT if the standard deduction halved back down to where it was before? Like if the family's SALT + other deductions were $15k SALT + $10k other=$25k, but now the standard deduction is $24k, they lose out on $1k deduction, not $5k. I imagine quite a few may benefit more from a higher standard deduction.
'“Should we expand or shrink the welfare state” is a left/right ideological conflict, but “should the deficit be higher or lower” is a pragmatic, conditions-based assessment.'
I'm not sure this distinction matters if a political coalition's platform is far beyond the same coalition's pay fors. The story of why the left became more influential in the Democratic party has a lot less to do with buying into a particular idea like MMT or "overthrowing economic orthodoxy" and a lot more to do with the belief that any new popular spending idea would be good for stimulating the slow drudgery of recovery post-2008. Insufficient stimulus became a blank check for adding new platform ideas. Perhaps the federally backed loan system we've built for graduate education didn't help. (We can thank President Bush and Speaker Pelosi for that.)
So operationally, liberals concerned with the labor market meshed with leftists concerned with big ideas to the point that when the bipartisan CARES Act happened, few could recall the key premise of left-wing entry was an insufficient stimulus. Therefore, few realized a Republican presidency had already corrected for this with CARES. President Biden entered office with 10 trillion in promises, which to be fair nobody thought would all happen. But to also be fair, this sets the bar a lot higher for the inevitable "we'll end up getting 30% of what we want." When a political party's promises become this large, it is inevitable they will have to deny inflation as a possibility. Quickly punching leftists for bad ideas is cute, but it ignores how parties negotiate these things.
Will the IRA address inflation? Almost certainly not. But it will do something on climate, and in turn provide liberals a victory and thus reason to not be thrown overboard once the November midterms happen. That might be the best a moderate can hope for in the Democratic party. The part where the bill kicks the can three more years on the failed ACA individual market by stuffing more poorly targeted cash, bad but not really much of a story at this point.
In the future I would like to see a more detailed look at the stupidity of ignoring Manchin's July 2021 statement signed by him and Schumer and the weird, quixotic attempt to force Manchin to support a progressive bill with historically high spending numbers. It's really remarkable that in the rush to paint Manchin as this uniquely bad politician, that Schumer and others have avoided criticism.
Also a comment on deficit reduction. Let's be honest that this will have pretty much no effect. First, the deficit reduction is $300 billion over 10 years. That's $30 billion a year which is very little considering annual deficits are well above a trillion dollars and growing. Even assuming we have inflation for the next two years, $60 billion is a drop in the bucket. And this won't actually reduce the budget deficit at all - it will just slightly decrease the growth of the deficit, even under rosy economic assumptions.
Sure, but it's a good bill on the merits, and the deficit language allows to market it very well. 300b reduction looks really impressive for 99% of people who don't read the fine print and understand how budget works like you do :)
There's a rule of large numbers. Most of us would know very well if a price tag of 100$ or 1000$ for something makes sense and what it means, but 10m, 10b and 10t. These are just words for most of us (Certainly the latter two)
Prioritization: I'd like to see Progressives prioritize more equitable growth. Higher incomes for low income people is good and higher incomes for high income people is also good (just not AS good) and it can be taxed. Fighting over a static pie is Trumpism.
I'd like to see a breakdown of the horrible progressive tactics and their justifications for it. What stands out most was the refrain that "Manchin was never going to agree to a bill anyway." Wasn't AOC one of those who said that? That's a pretty huge thing to get wrong, considering you might as well not even try to get this bill done if you believe that.
Manchin is like a broken clock who is right twice a day and sorta right some of the time. Manchin opposed BBB for small government/libertarian reasons. I doubt he knew that this time the federal government had finally distributed enough borrowed money broadly enough to actually cause inflation. But inflation happened and so Manchin looks statesmanlike. It’s kind of like Pelosi handing all the CARES act sugar to Trump or Obama lucking into a uniquely weak opponent in his 2004 Sensate campaign and then contesting the presidential election during a deep financial panic.
SALT is the wrong hill to die on, but what we really want to do is to progressively tax the consumption -- of rich people more than the non-rich -- and SALT is not consumption. Allow the SALT deduction (and higher deductions for retirement savings) and make up the revenues with higher tax rates, shifting from deductions to partial tax credits for favored kids of consumption (charitable deductions and mortgage interest if it must exist) and all the other ways that personal income taxation should be made fairer and more progressive.
"bill includes tax credits for buying electric cars but not for buying e-bikes."
In what universe is subsidizing EV a sensible way to reduce CO2 emissions? Will it be popular in even one marginal voter in even one Congressional district? Who ordered that?
To be fair, I don't think there were even the votes for Manchin's original $1.5 trillion bill. Sinema never supported any of the tax hikes in there (which is why Sinema is bad and Manchin is good).
Something I'm curious about is that the Republican's who supported the CHIPs act feel like they got the bait and switch. They are saying they were told there would be no further reconciliation bills which is why they supported the CHIPs act. As soon as that passed the Senate, Manchin and Schumer announce this.
Perhaps this is all misinformation from Republicans. But if its not, and there was an "understanding" that there wouldn't be additional reconciliation legislation on this front after CHIPs then I'd be surprised if there is further legislation outside this bill passed.
Well bringing the Respect for Marriage act to the floor before the Midterms seems like a political must for the Dems as it is a win-win for Dems. If it passes it's an obvious win. If GOP blocks it it's a great talking point and hence a political win too.
I don't know what they believed. I've been somewhat pleasantly surprised by the amount of bipartisan legislation that has been passed so far. In large part I think because Biden has mostly stayed out of direct negotiations and as mentioned in other comments has not received very much public benefit from it passing. In the world of zero sum politics in which we live, Biden not getting credit gives Republicans more room to agree to things (secret Congress and all that). Something I think Biden is much better at understanding than Obama or maybe he learned from being VP.
That being said, regardless of if this is just posturing (and it might be!) or not, it will lessen that potential going forward. Biden, Schumer and Manchin might have decided that with Republicans likelihood of taking back the House that the odds of more bipartisan legislation were dead anyway, so it was worth it.
The GOP's elimination of the SALT deduction was a direct attack on what it perceived as the "coastal elites" -- people who were rich but not super-wealthy, and making their money from salaries rather than investments. Tech workers living in blue states with high taxes.
It might be regressive, but it is double-taxation, and was calibrated to inflict maximum pain on rich Democrats. There was no good justification beyond that.
If people don't take itemized deductions because the tax code is so difficult, we should fix the tax code.
I don't mind paying my taxes, enormous as they are. I do mind when billionaires and fake billionaires pay nothing, or when my tax burden is significant but the burden those with comparable incomes isn't, because they happen to live in a low- or no-tax red state (which of course receives my tax dollars).
This was all particularly grating because of what those dollars were spent on in the Trump years.
If you pay state taxes, you pay for the benefits and responsibilities for living in that state. Why should that reduce your federal taxes? Should living in an expensive HOA discount your state/federal taxes as well?
Because it is double-taxation. HOA isn't government and is obviously different. However, there are similar deductions people have little or no problem with.
Put another way, plenty of people benefit California that don't live in California. Why aren't they paying for it, too?
Generally you pay taxes for the place you live because you receive direct benefits from living there AND have a voice in deciding what you should pay/receive (e.g. you get to vote in California elections).
Would you also advocate for raising all the income taxes in California so the people who live in Atherton can deduct their higher property taxes from the state income tax?
I didn't parse your comment at first, I think what you are asking is:
"Why should it arbitrarily just be at the state->Federal level?".
If my school district charges me taxes, should the county deduct those? Should the state deduct those county and school district taxes? Should the Federal government deduct all of those taxes?
I understand what taxes are for and how they work. I did not argue against paying taxes, or even paying a fair amount (quite the opposite). If I did not think where I live was worth the taxes I pay, I would move somewhere else.
I also understand that tax rates and deductions are completely arbitrary and that we tweak that code in all kinds of ways, giving people credits, taxing different kinds of income in different ways, excluding certain costs, and so forth.
I believe we should return to giving people a break on the money they use to pay their state taxes, just like we give them a tax break on money they use for medicine, having kids, paying a mortgage, and other completely arbitrary things.
People argue it is double taxation because gross income is first taxed by one government entity, which compels you to pay a fixed amount right off the top. That taxed amount is no longer available to you. You didn't spend it or see it or have any choice. It's gone. It might as well never have existed. Your available income is effectively reduced by the taxes you had to pay.
But the total gross is taxed again by a different government entity, compelling you to pay a fixed amount right off the top against that full amount you never saw.
I don't really understand what John E is getting at with his suggestion -- maybe he is proposing some kind of tax hike to offset revenue losses. But we're not talking about property tax deductions here, anyhow. We're talking SALT.
Your point is that people paying taxes deserve some type of benefit for paying the taxes. My point was that people in Atherton are often paying very large amounts of local taxes on their homes, should they get a benefit for doing that by being able to pay less state income tax. My answer would be no, if you're living in a town where the average property value is over 7 million, you don't get a income tax deduction even though your property taxes are quite high. Similarly, if you are paying over 10k in SALT, you're wealthy enough that you shouldn't get benefit for paying SALT taxes via additional federal tax deduction (you still get the 10k!).
Regarding your point about there being deductions on other items, I would support removing many of those - but keep
1) the medical because if you have medical expenses enough for that to matter, your life sucks enough you need a break
2) kids are the future tax payers we need to pay for social security, medicare, etc. Need to incentivize having lots of taxpayers.
I wonder how that SALT analysis changes as mortgage rates rise. For many people the question is whether SALT plus Mortgage Interest is greater than the standard deduction. If people are getting mortgages with 2-3% interest, then the likelihood of exceeding the standard deduction is low. With rates pushing above 5% though, you'll see the SALT benefits extend further down the income ladder.
Also, it drives me nuts that the SALT cap A) is the same for single filers and MFJ, and B) doesn't adjust with inflation.
"This deal is not only far short of progressives’ February 2021 hope of sweeping social change (which I think was never realistic given the vote count); it’s a significantly less progressive deal than the one Manchin and Schumer agreed to in July 2021. The decision to back out of that deal in the hopes of pressuring Manchin from the left was a strategic and tactical debacle for which there ought to be accountability."
At the risk of branding myself as the sites biggest Manchin-hater: this is not how I remember things happening. This like when you leave a theater with your friends, and you start talking about the movie, but it seems like you all watched different movies, so correct my version if I'm misremembering:
1. Spring 2021. Dems propose one huge spending bill. Manchin demands two bills: one for infrastructure, one for everything else. Dems agree, but put bills on same track to keep Manchin from yanking support at last minute.
2. Summer 2021. Bipartisan infrastructure bill passes Senate and goes to House. Negotiations on everything else continue. Manchin and Schumer reach secret deal and don't tell anybody.
3. Fall 2021: Infrastructure bill passed and signed over Squad concern that Manchin will scuttle negotiations on everything else.
4. Late fall 2021: Manchin scuttles negotiations on everything else. Secret deal revealed; everyone mad at Schumer even though Manchin could've spoke up about secret deal, too.
5. Winter 2021/22: Nothing much happens.
6. Spring/summer 2022: Tentative negotiations restart. In July, it seems like a deal has been reached, only for Manchin to pull out last minute. Everyone, including moderates, get real pissed at Manchin. The CHIPs Act passes, and then Manchin signed onto the present bill. And now everybody likes Manchin again and they're laughing at Mitch McConnell.
I don't see, in this, the debacle Matt is talking about; am I missing something?
This is a big deal. I hope it passes and I hope Dems get credit for this in the midterms. This is exactly why center-right folks need to be voting for Democrats right now.
What exactly makes SALT regressive? Does the tax table have more more moral authority than the deductions? Or is the tax table also regressive, since it contains marginal rates less than 100% at upper income levels?
If the sense in which it’s regressive is “allows upper income people to pay less taxes than in some counterfactual” then what makes it interestingly regressive relative to other features of the tax code?
"the SALT deduction, like all tax deductions, gives people a tax break while doing nothing to lower their marginal tax rate."
I don't think this is true. If you have a 10% state income tax and a 30% federal tax, then your total marginal tax rate without a SALT deduction is 40%. With a SALT deduction, your total marginal tax rate is 37% (30% federal + 10% state - 10% * 30% for SALT deduction).
Repealing the SALT deduction increased marginal rates.
Yes, you're right but it's complicated by the standard deduction. How many people, and for how much, would benefit from more than $10,000 of SALT if the standard deduction halved back down to where it was before? Like if the family's SALT + other deductions were $15k SALT + $10k other=$25k, but now the standard deduction is $24k, they lose out on $1k deduction, not $5k. I imagine quite a few may benefit more from a higher standard deduction.
'“Should we expand or shrink the welfare state” is a left/right ideological conflict, but “should the deficit be higher or lower” is a pragmatic, conditions-based assessment.'
I'm not sure this distinction matters if a political coalition's platform is far beyond the same coalition's pay fors. The story of why the left became more influential in the Democratic party has a lot less to do with buying into a particular idea like MMT or "overthrowing economic orthodoxy" and a lot more to do with the belief that any new popular spending idea would be good for stimulating the slow drudgery of recovery post-2008. Insufficient stimulus became a blank check for adding new platform ideas. Perhaps the federally backed loan system we've built for graduate education didn't help. (We can thank President Bush and Speaker Pelosi for that.)
So operationally, liberals concerned with the labor market meshed with leftists concerned with big ideas to the point that when the bipartisan CARES Act happened, few could recall the key premise of left-wing entry was an insufficient stimulus. Therefore, few realized a Republican presidency had already corrected for this with CARES. President Biden entered office with 10 trillion in promises, which to be fair nobody thought would all happen. But to also be fair, this sets the bar a lot higher for the inevitable "we'll end up getting 30% of what we want." When a political party's promises become this large, it is inevitable they will have to deny inflation as a possibility. Quickly punching leftists for bad ideas is cute, but it ignores how parties negotiate these things.
Will the IRA address inflation? Almost certainly not. But it will do something on climate, and in turn provide liberals a victory and thus reason to not be thrown overboard once the November midterms happen. That might be the best a moderate can hope for in the Democratic party. The part where the bill kicks the can three more years on the failed ACA individual market by stuffing more poorly targeted cash, bad but not really much of a story at this point.
I think this is a great article.
In the future I would like to see a more detailed look at the stupidity of ignoring Manchin's July 2021 statement signed by him and Schumer and the weird, quixotic attempt to force Manchin to support a progressive bill with historically high spending numbers. It's really remarkable that in the rush to paint Manchin as this uniquely bad politician, that Schumer and others have avoided criticism.
Also a comment on deficit reduction. Let's be honest that this will have pretty much no effect. First, the deficit reduction is $300 billion over 10 years. That's $30 billion a year which is very little considering annual deficits are well above a trillion dollars and growing. Even assuming we have inflation for the next two years, $60 billion is a drop in the bucket. And this won't actually reduce the budget deficit at all - it will just slightly decrease the growth of the deficit, even under rosy economic assumptions.
Sure, but it's a good bill on the merits, and the deficit language allows to market it very well. 300b reduction looks really impressive for 99% of people who don't read the fine print and understand how budget works like you do :)
.... or that 300b over ten years is chump change in a 20 trillion dollar/year economy.
There's a rule of large numbers. Most of us would know very well if a price tag of 100$ or 1000$ for something makes sense and what it means, but 10m, 10b and 10t. These are just words for most of us (Certainly the latter two)
Yeah, I think it's a good bill on the merits - I just hope people don't take the deficit reduction thing too seriously.
Prioritization: I'd like to see Progressives prioritize more equitable growth. Higher incomes for low income people is good and higher incomes for high income people is also good (just not AS good) and it can be taxed. Fighting over a static pie is Trumpism.
I'd like to see a breakdown of the horrible progressive tactics and their justifications for it. What stands out most was the refrain that "Manchin was never going to agree to a bill anyway." Wasn't AOC one of those who said that? That's a pretty huge thing to get wrong, considering you might as well not even try to get this bill done if you believe that.
Manchin is like a broken clock who is right twice a day and sorta right some of the time. Manchin opposed BBB for small government/libertarian reasons. I doubt he knew that this time the federal government had finally distributed enough borrowed money broadly enough to actually cause inflation. But inflation happened and so Manchin looks statesmanlike. It’s kind of like Pelosi handing all the CARES act sugar to Trump or Obama lucking into a uniquely weak opponent in his 2004 Sensate campaign and then contesting the presidential election during a deep financial panic.
SALT is the wrong hill to die on, but what we really want to do is to progressively tax the consumption -- of rich people more than the non-rich -- and SALT is not consumption. Allow the SALT deduction (and higher deductions for retirement savings) and make up the revenues with higher tax rates, shifting from deductions to partial tax credits for favored kids of consumption (charitable deductions and mortgage interest if it must exist) and all the other ways that personal income taxation should be made fairer and more progressive.
"bill includes tax credits for buying electric cars but not for buying e-bikes."
In what universe is subsidizing EV a sensible way to reduce CO2 emissions? Will it be popular in even one marginal voter in even one Congressional district? Who ordered that?
To be fair, I don't think there were even the votes for Manchin's original $1.5 trillion bill. Sinema never supported any of the tax hikes in there (which is why Sinema is bad and Manchin is good).
Something I'm curious about is that the Republican's who supported the CHIPs act feel like they got the bait and switch. They are saying they were told there would be no further reconciliation bills which is why they supported the CHIPs act. As soon as that passed the Senate, Manchin and Schumer announce this.
Perhaps this is all misinformation from Republicans. But if its not, and there was an "understanding" that there wouldn't be additional reconciliation legislation on this front after CHIPs then I'd be surprised if there is further legislation outside this bill passed.
Well bringing the Respect for Marriage act to the floor before the Midterms seems like a political must for the Dems as it is a win-win for Dems. If it passes it's an obvious win. If GOP blocks it it's a great talking point and hence a political win too.
I don't know what they believed. I've been somewhat pleasantly surprised by the amount of bipartisan legislation that has been passed so far. In large part I think because Biden has mostly stayed out of direct negotiations and as mentioned in other comments has not received very much public benefit from it passing. In the world of zero sum politics in which we live, Biden not getting credit gives Republicans more room to agree to things (secret Congress and all that). Something I think Biden is much better at understanding than Obama or maybe he learned from being VP.
That being said, regardless of if this is just posturing (and it might be!) or not, it will lessen that potential going forward. Biden, Schumer and Manchin might have decided that with Republicans likelihood of taking back the House that the odds of more bipartisan legislation were dead anyway, so it was worth it.
*If* they take back the senate. Hopefully that’s not yet settled.
The GOP's elimination of the SALT deduction was a direct attack on what it perceived as the "coastal elites" -- people who were rich but not super-wealthy, and making their money from salaries rather than investments. Tech workers living in blue states with high taxes.
It might be regressive, but it is double-taxation, and was calibrated to inflict maximum pain on rich Democrats. There was no good justification beyond that.
If people don't take itemized deductions because the tax code is so difficult, we should fix the tax code.
I don't mind paying my taxes, enormous as they are. I do mind when billionaires and fake billionaires pay nothing, or when my tax burden is significant but the burden those with comparable incomes isn't, because they happen to live in a low- or no-tax red state (which of course receives my tax dollars).
This was all particularly grating because of what those dollars were spent on in the Trump years.
I don't think any European Social Democratic state gives you a rebate for other taxes paid on your income tax, unless you're very poor.
If you pay state taxes, you pay for the benefits and responsibilities for living in that state. Why should that reduce your federal taxes? Should living in an expensive HOA discount your state/federal taxes as well?
Because it is double-taxation. HOA isn't government and is obviously different. However, there are similar deductions people have little or no problem with.
Put another way, plenty of people benefit California that don't live in California. Why aren't they paying for it, too?
Generally you pay taxes for the place you live because you receive direct benefits from living there AND have a voice in deciding what you should pay/receive (e.g. you get to vote in California elections).
Would you also advocate for raising all the income taxes in California so the people who live in Atherton can deduct their higher property taxes from the state income tax?
I didn't parse your comment at first, I think what you are asking is:
"Why should it arbitrarily just be at the state->Federal level?".
If my school district charges me taxes, should the county deduct those? Should the state deduct those county and school district taxes? Should the Federal government deduct all of those taxes?
I understand what taxes are for and how they work. I did not argue against paying taxes, or even paying a fair amount (quite the opposite). If I did not think where I live was worth the taxes I pay, I would move somewhere else.
I also understand that tax rates and deductions are completely arbitrary and that we tweak that code in all kinds of ways, giving people credits, taxing different kinds of income in different ways, excluding certain costs, and so forth.
I believe we should return to giving people a break on the money they use to pay their state taxes, just like we give them a tax break on money they use for medicine, having kids, paying a mortgage, and other completely arbitrary things.
People argue it is double taxation because gross income is first taxed by one government entity, which compels you to pay a fixed amount right off the top. That taxed amount is no longer available to you. You didn't spend it or see it or have any choice. It's gone. It might as well never have existed. Your available income is effectively reduced by the taxes you had to pay.
But the total gross is taxed again by a different government entity, compelling you to pay a fixed amount right off the top against that full amount you never saw.
I don't really understand what John E is getting at with his suggestion -- maybe he is proposing some kind of tax hike to offset revenue losses. But we're not talking about property tax deductions here, anyhow. We're talking SALT.
Your point is that people paying taxes deserve some type of benefit for paying the taxes. My point was that people in Atherton are often paying very large amounts of local taxes on their homes, should they get a benefit for doing that by being able to pay less state income tax. My answer would be no, if you're living in a town where the average property value is over 7 million, you don't get a income tax deduction even though your property taxes are quite high. Similarly, if you are paying over 10k in SALT, you're wealthy enough that you shouldn't get benefit for paying SALT taxes via additional federal tax deduction (you still get the 10k!).
Regarding your point about there being deductions on other items, I would support removing many of those - but keep
1) the medical because if you have medical expenses enough for that to matter, your life sucks enough you need a break
2) kids are the future tax payers we need to pay for social security, medicare, etc. Need to incentivize having lots of taxpayers.
It's not double taxation., you are paying taxes to completely different entities for completely different purposes.
I wonder how that SALT analysis changes as mortgage rates rise. For many people the question is whether SALT plus Mortgage Interest is greater than the standard deduction. If people are getting mortgages with 2-3% interest, then the likelihood of exceeding the standard deduction is low. With rates pushing above 5% though, you'll see the SALT benefits extend further down the income ladder.
Also, it drives me nuts that the SALT cap A) is the same for single filers and MFJ, and B) doesn't adjust with inflation.
Excellent article, Matt. We are Joe Manchin boosters, so it is rewarding to read a piece that doesn’t vilify him.
"This deal is not only far short of progressives’ February 2021 hope of sweeping social change (which I think was never realistic given the vote count); it’s a significantly less progressive deal than the one Manchin and Schumer agreed to in July 2021. The decision to back out of that deal in the hopes of pressuring Manchin from the left was a strategic and tactical debacle for which there ought to be accountability."
At the risk of branding myself as the sites biggest Manchin-hater: this is not how I remember things happening. This like when you leave a theater with your friends, and you start talking about the movie, but it seems like you all watched different movies, so correct my version if I'm misremembering:
1. Spring 2021. Dems propose one huge spending bill. Manchin demands two bills: one for infrastructure, one for everything else. Dems agree, but put bills on same track to keep Manchin from yanking support at last minute.
2. Summer 2021. Bipartisan infrastructure bill passes Senate and goes to House. Negotiations on everything else continue. Manchin and Schumer reach secret deal and don't tell anybody.
3. Fall 2021: Infrastructure bill passed and signed over Squad concern that Manchin will scuttle negotiations on everything else.
4. Late fall 2021: Manchin scuttles negotiations on everything else. Secret deal revealed; everyone mad at Schumer even though Manchin could've spoke up about secret deal, too.
5. Winter 2021/22: Nothing much happens.
6. Spring/summer 2022: Tentative negotiations restart. In July, it seems like a deal has been reached, only for Manchin to pull out last minute. Everyone, including moderates, get real pissed at Manchin. The CHIPs Act passes, and then Manchin signed onto the present bill. And now everybody likes Manchin again and they're laughing at Mitch McConnell.
I don't see, in this, the debacle Matt is talking about; am I missing something?
This is a big deal. I hope it passes and I hope Dems get credit for this in the midterms. This is exactly why center-right folks need to be voting for Democrats right now.