CNN Poll: A record share of Americans want the government to get more done. Few trust either party to do itNew Foto - CNN Poll: A record share of Americans want the government to get more done. Few trust either party to do it

Neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party has consolidated a majority of the public behind its approach, with more than 4 in 10 saying that neither party can get things done or has strong leadership, anew CNN surveyconducted by SSRS finds. Despite those widespread doubts, Americans increasingly say they see meaningful differences between the two parties. The poll, taken as public opinion resettles in the first months of Donald Trump's second administration, also finds a record-high share of the public saying that the government should be doing more to solve problems. Americans are evenly split on which party best reflects their views on the role of the federal government, with one-third of respondents saying neither party does. Amid a wave of skepticism among Democrats about their own party's effectiveness, the GOP currently holds the advantage across several key attributes — though with a shrinking advantage on the economy, which regularly polls as Americans' top concern. Americans see Republicans and Democrats as offering vastly contrasting visions of the country. An 81% majority say they see important differences between the two parties, marking an increase from two years ago across political, age and educational lines. Just 18% say the parties are "pretty much the same," down from 28% in 2023 and roughly one-third in CNN and Gallup polling dating back to 2002. But even among those who say there are critical differences between the two major parties, a sizable minority say neither reflects their vision across a range of issues: Nearly 20% who see such differences still say neither party reflects their perspective on at least 5 out of 9 issues they were asked about in the poll. Asked to choose which of the parties they see as the "party that can get things done," "the party with strong leaders" or the "party of change," the lion's share of the public – more than 4 in 10 – say that neither party fits the bill. At the same time, most Americans, 58%, now say that the government should do more to solve the country's problems – a record high in more than 30 years of CNN's polling. While Democratic views on the role of government have remained largely unchanged over the past two years, the shares of Republicans and independents who say that the government is doing too many things have both fallen since the White House changed hands. While neither political party is viewed as especially strong or effective, skepticism weighs particularly heavily on the Democratic Party. Americans are far more likely to see Republicans than Democrats as the party with strong leaders: 40% say this descriptor applies more to the GOP, with just 16% saying it applies to the Democrats. They're also more likely to call Republicans the party that can get things done by 36% to 19%, and the party of change, by 32% to 25%. That's in large part because of relatively anemic support for Democrats among their own partisans. GOP-aligned adults are 50 points likelier than Democratic-aligned adults to say their own party has strong leaders, and 36 points likelier to view their party as able to get things done. True independents, those who don't lean toward either party, are particularly grim in their views of the parties on these issues: 76% say neither party has strong leaders or can get things done, and 72% that they view neither as the party of change. While the public as a whole sees the GOP as relatively effective, they also say, 41% to 30%, that it's better described as the party of extremism, the only attribute tested that fewer than 30% said applied to neither party. Roughly one-sixth of Republican-aligned adults say they view the GOP as representing extremism, compared with roughly one-tenth of Democratic-aligned adults who say the same of their own party. Beyond Americans' shifting views of government, the survey also finds ebbing belief in the achievability of the American Dream. A 54% majority says that most people who want to get ahead can make it if they're willing to work hard, down from 67% in 2016, and lower thanother polling on the same questiondating back to the 1990s. Nearly half, 45%, say they don't view hard work and determination as any guarantee of success for most people. That rises to a 52% majority of Black Americans and 53% among those younger than 30, as well as 53% of those who don't agree with either party on the economy, 65% among Democrats and 71% among those who describe themselves as liberal. Americans are closely split on which party represents the middle class, with a third saying neither does. The view that neither party stands for the middle class rises to 38% among those who say hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people. Asked which party best reflects their views on handling the economy more broadly – a perennial top issue that has frequently favored the GOP – the public gives the Republican Party an advantage, but a shrinking one. The party's 7-point margin on the issue now is down from 15 points in May 2022, and marks their narrowest advantage on the issue over that time. The Republican Party also sees a diminished edge on immigration, another typically strong topic for the Trump-led party: What was a 14-point lead in November 2023 now stands at just 6 points. Looking outward, Americans are now evenly divided on which party's views on world affairs more closely match their own, an issue where Republicans held a 6-point edge in 2023. Across issues tested in the poll, Republicans held the widest advantage – 13 points – on their approach to crime and policing, and that margin has largely held over time. The public also leans modestly toward the GOP when it comes to taxes (by a 7-point margin) and the federal budget (5 points). Support for legal abortion remains strong in CNN's polling, with a rising share of the public, 36%, now saying that abortion should be legal under any circumstances. Roughly 6 in 10 Democrats now say abortion should always be legal, up from 44% in 2016. Ina CNN survey last year, a roughly two-thirds majority of the public opposed the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade. By a 10-point margin, Americans say their views on abortion align more with the Democrats than the Republicans, although that's down from a 16-point advantage in fall 2023. Roughly two-thirds of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the GOP reflects their views on abortion – significantly lower than the share who side with their party on issues such as the economy or immigration. Amid internal Democratic arguments over the party's messaging on issues surrounding race and gender, the poll finds that Americans side with the Democratic Party over the Republican Party on the way society deals with LGBTQ issues by an 8-point margin and with racial issues and education by a 7-point margin each. By a wide margin, 72% to 27%, most Americans say that growing racial diversity does more to enrich than threaten American culture. That's slightly broader agreement than last fall, though it still falls short of the more than 8 in 10 who called diversity enriching during Trump's first term. The sense of diversity as a threat is largely concentrated among the GOP, particularly among Republican-aligned men. Currently, 45% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents call diversity a threat, up from just 20% who said the same in 2019, during Trump's first term in office. Democratic opinion has moved little in that time. Democrats held their widest advantage in the poll, 14 points, on handling climate change. A 58% majority of adults say they're at least somewhat worried about the risks of climate change in their community, down slightly from the 63% who said they were at least somewhat worried in the fall of 2023. About one-quarter in each poll said they were very worried. By a 5-point margin, Americans say their view of how to protect U.S. democracy aligns more with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party. Roughly half of Americans say that democracy in the U.S. today is under attack, with 36% saying it's being tested, and only about 13% that it's not in any danger. While these concerns have held roughly steady since 2021, partisan dynamics have shifted sharply in that time. In the latest poll, 72% of Democrats see democracy in crisis, compared with just 29% of Republicans. By contrast, during Joe Biden's presidency, concerns were either roughly balanced or higher among the GOP. The CNN poll was conducted among 2,539 adults nationwide by SSRS from May 5-26, using a combination of online and telephone interviews. The survey samples were originally drawn from two sources – an address-based sample and a random-digit dial sample of prepaid cell phone numbers – and combined. Respondents were initially contacted by mail or by phone. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points. CNN's Jennifer Agiesta and Edward Wu contributed to this report. For more CNN news and newsletters create an account atCNN.com

CNN Poll: A record share of Americans want the government to get more done. Few trust either party to do it

CNN Poll: A record share of Americans want the government to get more done. Few trust either party to do it Neither the Republican nor the D...
DHS removes list of 'sanctuary' cities after sheriffs push back on non-compliant labelNew Foto - DHS removes list of 'sanctuary' cities after sheriffs push back on non-compliant label

By Ted Hesson WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Department of Homeland Security removed a list of "sanctuary" states, cities and counties from its website following sharp criticism from a sheriffs' association that said a list of "non-compliant" sheriffs could damage the relationship between the Trump administration and law enforcement. DHS on Thursday published a list of what it called "sanctuary" jurisdictions that allegedly limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The list prompted a response from the National Sheriffs' Association, which represents more than 3,000 elected sheriffs across the U.S. and generally supports federal immigration enforcement. Sheriff Kieran Donahue, president of the association, said in a statement on Saturday that DHS published "a list of alleged noncompliant sheriffs in a manner that lacks transparency and accountability." Donahue said the list was created without input from sheriffs and "violated the core principles of trust, cooperation, and partnership with fellow law enforcement." President Donald Trump had called for his administration to tally alleged sanctuary jurisdictions in a late April executive order, saying the lack of cooperation amounted to "a lawless insurrection." The DHS website listing the jurisdictions was offline on Sunday, an issue that Fox News host Maria Bartiromo raised with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on "Sunday Morning Futures." "I saw that there was a list produced," Bartiromo said. "Now, the list I don't see anymore in the media. Do you have a list of the sanctuary cities that are actually hiding illegals right now?" Noem did not acknowledge the list being taken offline but said some localities had bristled. "Some of the cities have pushed back," Noem said. "They think because they don't have one law or another on the books that they don't qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals." Leaders of some cities publicly questioned the sanctuary label this week, including jurisdictions in Southern California, Colorado and Massachusetts. San Diego City Attorney Heather Ferbert told local outlets that San Diego - named on the DHS list - had never adopted a sanctuary policy and that the move appeared to be politically motivated. "We suspect this is going to be used as additional threats and fear tactics to threaten federal funding that the city relies on," she said. Immigrant advocates and some Democrats say sanctuary policies help build trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement so that residents will be more likely to report crimes. At a hearing before a U.S. House of Representatives committee in March, mayors from Boston, Chicago, Denver and New York City said sanctuary policies - generally affording migrants similar due process rights as those of citizens - made their cities safer and that they would always honor criminal arrest warrants. Noem, who shares Trump's hardline immigration views, said the department would continue to use the sanctuary tally. In response to a request for comment, a senior DHS official said the list is being constantly reviewed and will be updated regularly. The Internet Archive website Wayback Machine showed the list still online on Saturday. It was not clear when it went offline or whether it was related to pushback from sheriffs. In his statement on Saturday, Donahue specifically called out DHS. ""This is an unfortunate and unnecessary erosion of unity and collaboration with law enforcement and the enforcement of the rule of law at a time when that unity is needed most," he said. "This decision by DHS could create a vacuum of trust that may take years to overcome." Sheriffs play a key role in immigration enforcement and aid federal immigration officers by detaining people who allegedly violated immigration laws in local jails. The Trump administration last week pushed out two top U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials amid pressure for more arrests and deportations. Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump's immigration agenda, said ICE would be tasked with a goal of 3,000 arrests per day - 10 times the number last year under former President Joe Biden. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said Sunday on "Fox & Friends" that the agency hit 1,600 arrests several times last week, the highest levels since Trump took office. "ICE can do more," he said. "We will do more." (Reporting by Ted Hesson in Washington; Editing by Caitlin Webber and Aurora Ellis)

DHS removes list of 'sanctuary' cities after sheriffs push back on non-compliant label

DHS removes list of 'sanctuary' cities after sheriffs push back on non-compliant label By Ted Hesson WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. ...
Federal agents briefly detain aide at New York Rep. Jerry Nadler's office during nearby protests against migrant detentionsNew Foto - Federal agents briefly detain aide at New York Rep. Jerry Nadler's office during nearby protests against migrant detentions

Federal agents with the Department of Homeland Security handcuffed and briefly detained a staff member in New York Rep. Jerry Nadler's Manhattan district office on Wednesday, according to a statement released by the congressman. Video taken by a person inside Nadler's office, obtained and reported byGothamist, shows one of his aides being handcuffed by an agent with the Federal Protective Service while another agent tries to access an area inside the office. In the footage, a second staffer stands in front of the agent and asks if he has a warrant. "You're harboring rioters in the office," the federal agent is heard telling her, before walking in. In the background, the handcuffed aide is heard crying while someone tries to comfort her. The agents allegedly entered Nadler's office because they were told protesters were present and the agents "were concerned about the safety" of employees in the office, the Department of Homeland Security told CNN in a statement on Saturday. Activists on Wednesday were protesting outside of Varick Immigration Court — located on a different floor of the same building as Nadler's office — in opposition to the detention of migrants at the courthouse by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Upon the officers' arrival, they identified themselves and said they were conducting a security check when "one individual became verbally confrontational and physically blocked access to the office," the statement said. "The officers then detained the individual in the hallway for the purpose of completing the security check. All were released without further incident," DHS said. Robert Gottheim, Nadler's chief of staff, told CNN on Sunday the Department of Homeland Security's version of events was a "total fabrication." The incident occurred as the Trump administration has taken extraordinary measures to crack down on immigration,aggressively pressuringImmigration and Customs Enforcement to pick up the pace of migrant arrests and touting mass deportation plans. Nadler called the incident "deeply troubling" ina Saturday statementand confirmed Department of Homeland Security officers "forcefully" entered his office and handcuffed the staff member. "President Trump and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are sowing chaos in our communities, using intimidation tactics against both citizens and non-citizens in a reckless and dangerous manner," he said, adding the incident showed a "deeply troubling disregard for proper legal boundaries." "If this can happen in a Member of Congress's office, it can happen to anyone – and it is happening," Nadler said. "I call on President Trump and DHS to halt the use of these dangerous tactics and to abandon use of the expedited removal process which denies due process to immigrants and citizens alike," the New York representative said. Gottheim said the agents appeared "upset" because members of Nadler's staff witnessed the officers detaining migrants inside the building, and because staffers had invited advocates who saw the detentions to the congressman's office. Court watchers, advocates and some members of Nadler's staff had gathered on the fifth floor, which houses the immigration court, to observe court activity following reports that immigration officers were detaining migrants after their immigration appointments. Staff members noticed ICE officers were in the lobby holding sheets of paper with pictures of asylum seekers who were coming in for their hearings, Gottheim said. "Really what happened is we have these ICE officers who are working with Federal Protective Services, upset that we are watching them, seeing what they're doing, and that we invited these other people who were observing back to our office," Gottheim told CNN. Officers ignored staffers' requests to see a warrant, he added. "They push their way into the office, even though my staff doesn't want them in," Gottheim said. "They had no right to be in the office, and there's no exigent circumstances of why they would have come: We didn't call them for assistance, there was no riot, there was no protest going on in the office." Nadler was not in the office at the time of the incident but arrived shortly after his staff called him to alert him to what was unfolding. The aide was still detained when he arrived, according to Gottheim, but Nadler spoke with the officers and helped defuse the situation so that the staffer could be released. Twenty-three people were taken into custody during Wednesday's protest, according to police, CNN affiliate CBS New Yorkreported. CNN has reached out to the New York Police Department for comment and additional information regarding the arrests. Protesters toldCBS New Yorkthey began demonstrating after witnesses reported that several people were taken into custody inside the ICE field office in SoHo. "I've never seen anything like this. I've been working here for a couple years and I've never seen this many agents, let alone agents dressed in plain clothes, wearing masks, pulling people out of line. It's totally out of the ordinary," a man named Ben told CBS New York. Videos taken at the protests showed how tensions escalated when officers and demonstrators clashed over the barricades. "People say, 'Oh, let them come in legally,' and when they try to come in legally and follow court proceedings they're being kidnapped," a woman named Mariposa told CBS New York. The White House is putting intense pressure on law enforcement agencies across the government to meet a goal of one million deportations per year,leading to a surgeof agents and officers across the federal government focusing their attention on arrests and deportation efforts. In New York City, activists have intensified their efforts to protest the rising number of migrant deportations, staging multiple demonstrations in opposition of the administration's controversial moves against immigrants. One of the latest incidents was the arrest of a 20-year-old New York City public school student named Dylan, a Venezuelan national who was detained by ICE on May 21 after a hearing in federal immigration court regarding his asylum request,CNN affiliate WABC reported. "Dylan is a 20-year-old student who followed our legal process and is trying to get an education and provide for his family," New York Attorney General Letitia Jamessaid on X. "ICE took advantage of his court date to arrest him. It's despicable." Bronx Borough President Vanessa Gibson released a statement on Wednesdaydemanding"accountability" for Dylan and slammed the Trump administration, who she said is unfairly targeting and exploiting immigrant families. "Dylan did everything right. He enrolled in school in our Borough and got his license to obtain a delivery job to take care of his younger siblings," Gibson wrote. "It is outrageous and horrible to learn he was detained by federal authorities last week during a court appearance. This is unacceptable and nothing short of an injustice." Advocates report that under the Trump administration, it's becoming more frequent for ICE to detain migrants at their immigration court appearances. "It's a catch-22. You don't show up for your court hearing then you could also be ordered removed from the country and deported," Murad Awawdeh, president and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition,told CBS New York. CNN's Sharif Paget contributed to this report. For more CNN news and newsletters create an account atCNN.com

Federal agents briefly detain aide at New York Rep. Jerry Nadler’s office during nearby protests against migrant detentions

Federal agents briefly detain aide at New York Rep. Jerry Nadler's office during nearby protests against migrant detentions Federal agen...
Welcoming Anti-Trump Liberals to the Free Trade ClubNew Foto - Welcoming Anti-Trump Liberals to the Free Trade Club

After decades of shouting into the void that free trade is good, those of us in the "eliminate tariffs, embrace comparative advantage, and let me buy my haggis-flavored chips online without an import tax" crowd are experiencing something that hasn't happened in a while: new friends. Things have been especially lonely in recent years, as the right veered away from offering even lip service to free trade while the left coasted on the fumes of its union-driven protectionist past. But a recent poll from thePolarization Research Labshows those same lefties making a sudden and striking turn. At the start of 2024, liberals and conservatives were nearly identical in their lukewarm support for unrestricted trade—about 20 percent each in favor. Following President Donald Trump's electoral win and renewed protectionist rhetoric, liberal support has more than doubled to over 40 percent. Some analysts see this as classic negative partisanship: Democrats embracing trade mostly because Trump doesn't. Others—such as the lab's director, Sean Westwood—argue the shift is pragmatic rather than tribal: an economic reaction to market instability and broader uncertainty, not just a red vs. blue reflex. Either way, the political winds around trade are blowing harder than ever, and not always with reasoned consistency. In the same breath, Americans havetold Harvard CAPS/Harris pollstersthat they love free trade (84 percent support it!) and also that they think tariffs are necessary to protect U.S. jobs (66 percent agree). This cognitive dissonance is often rationalized by imagining tariffs as a clever bit of short-term gamesmanship—leverage to force other countries, particularly China, to lower their barriers. But Trump didn't run on a strategic, time- limited tariff plan; he ran on permanent economic nationalism. Despite the populist bluster, the same poll finds only 45 percent of Americans actually approve of his tariff agenda and just 41 percent back his inflation record. While tariffs may not look ruinous in the macro—imports amount to only about 11 percent of American GDP—their ripple effects are real, jacking up domestic prices and scrambling supply chains in ways that make the economy feel chaotic even when the top-line numbers don't scream crisis yet. This isn't the first time Americans have professed support for free trade while simultaneously endorsing protectionist measures. A2024 Cato Institute/YouGov surveyconducted while Joe Biden was still president highlighted this contradiction: While 63 percent of respondents favored increasing trade with other nations, a significant portion also supported tariffs on specific products, such as blue jeans, to boost domestic production. Yet this support waned when potential price increases were introduced into the poll questions: If the tariffs brought a $10 price hike, 66 percent were opposed. While the public may appreciate the abstract benefits of free trade, their support may be contingent on immediate economic impacts, particularly price sensitivity. Today's newfound support for free trade seems to be less about discovering Adam Smith and more about discovering that protectionism might cost you your job at the chip fab, your vacation to Cabo, or your sweet deal on Amazon Basics. AsThe Washington Postrecently reported, Republican primary voters seem increasingly wary of Trump's economic nationalism—not because they've seen the light on global economic cooperation, but because they're worried about the price tag. Meanwhile, Democrats are suddenly remembering thatglobalistwasn't always a slur. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, figures like Richard Cobden and Jane Addams championed free trade as a means to promote global harmony and social progress. But over time, this perspective shifted, with modern left-leaning factions viewing free trade with skepticism, often corresponding with the rise of labor politics in the modern era. National conservatism has pushed hostility to trade back into the conversation on the right, though Trump's degree of fondness for tariffs seems to be somewhatsui generis. This history underscores the fluidity of political alignments around trade—and the long-term importance of grounding support in consistent principles rather than transient political and economic conditions. Let's be clear: If you just decided that tariffs are bad because Trump is for them and you're against Trump, or because your 401(k) is being battered by the inflationary effects of the trade war you once half-heartedly supported, welcome! Hop in the back seat. We're glad you're here. But the reason American trade policy has strayed so dangerously off course is because too many people became pro-trade only when it became politically expedient—or emotionally satisfying—to be so. The real case for free trade is not "my enemies hate it" or "it's cheaper for me, personally" but "it makes the world richer, freer, and more peaceful." Tariffs are just taxes in sheep's clothing—dressed up as patriotism, but fundamentally designed to pick your pocket. They don't protect American workers; they protect politically favored industries from having to innovate, improve, or compete. Every time you pay more for a washing machine or a beer because of a tariff, you're experiencing crony capitalism with a red, white, and blue bow on top. Free trade, by contrast, is capitalism at its most honest: voluntary exchange across borders that leaves both parties better off. It doesn't require central planning, special favors, or a government agency to decide which industries are "strategic." It just works. And for those of us who never stopped saying so, even during the dark NAFTA-hating days of the Trump/Biden tariff continuum, the principle remains: The freer the trade, the better the world. If you're ready to get serious about dismantling the tariffs that strangle global exchange, grab a seat. (Or in the immortal words ofMean Girls: "Get in, loser. We're going shopping.") But if you're just here to score points in the tribal partisan war of the moment, don't expect us to hand over the aux cord. You can sit with us and listen—but the playlist is Milton Friedman, Frédéric Bastiat, and David Ricardo. And we're playing it on repeat. The postWelcoming Anti-Trump Liberals to the Free Trade Clubappeared first onReason.com.

Welcoming Anti-Trump Liberals to the Free Trade Club

Welcoming Anti-Trump Liberals to the Free Trade Club After decades of shouting into the void that free trade is good, those of us in the ...
Analysis-Trump tax bill poses limited benefits, higher costs for lower-income AmericansNew Foto - Analysis-Trump tax bill poses limited benefits, higher costs for lower-income Americans

By David Morgan WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. PresidentDonald Trump's signature tax break on tips promises relatively few upsides for low-income Americans, who face a net loss of income under his massive tax and spending bill in Congress, analysts say. The new tax break is one of several aimed at helping working-class Americans who are a key bloc in Trump's political coalition. But experts say it would reach only a fraction of the bartenders, hairdressers and other workers who rely on tips. And those who benefit could see gains outweighed by cuts to healthcare and food assistance. "If you're thinking about things that could help low-income workers, 'no taxes on tips' would not be high up on my list," said Martha Gimbel, director of the Budget Lab at Yale University. Several independent analyses conclude that the bill now before the Senate would effectively transfer money from poor Americans to the rich. The Penn Wharton Budget Model, for example, found it would reduce after-tax income by $1,500 for families earning less than $22,000 per year, and boost income by $104,000 for those earning more than $5.2 million. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reached a similar conclusion. Still, the idea of making tipped income tax-free has drawn wide support since Trump first floated it last year at a campaign stop in Nevada, a swing state with a large hospitality industry. The bill that passed the House of Representatives last month allows workers earning up to $160,000 a year to deduct tips from their gross income until 2029, though tips would remain subject to Social Security and Medicare taxes. House Republicans say the bill would provide the typical family with a $1,300 tax cut and that business tax breaks would lead to higher wages for workers. "Permanently lower tax rates and a doubled standard deduction, combined with President Trump's no tax on tips, overtime, and auto loan interest, will help workers afford the roof over their head, food for their families, and help build their financial security and wealth," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, a Republican, said in a recent statement. Senate Republicans are likely to seek considerable changes to the bill, which also would make Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent and implement other top priorities, like a crackdown on immigration. MANY WOULDN'T QUALIFY But the deduction for tip income would not help the 37% of tipped workers who already earn too little to pay any income tax, according to the Yale Budget Lab. Tipped employees account for only about 2.5% of all U.S. workers. The tax break would cost the U.S. government nearly $40 billion in lost revenue through 2028, according to the congressional Joint Tax Committee. Other benefits for working families face similar limits, including deductions on overtime pay and interest on auto loans. In each case, the greatest benefits accrue to people with higher incomes. "All of those will only benefit someone if they have enough income that they are paying a positive tax liability," said Brandon DeBot, policy director at New York University's Tax Law Center. The new tax breaks would be outweighed by higher costs from cuts to social safety-net programs and rising debt levels. At least 8.7 million lower-income Americans would lose health insurance coverage from new restrictions to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, according to CBO. Republicans have also added new restrictions to two bulwarks of support for low-income families: the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. The legislation would temporarily increase the $2,000 child tax credit to $2,500 through 2028 and adjust it for inflation after that. But it contains a new requirement that parents provide Social Security numbers to qualify. That would exclude 4.5 million eligible children, according to the nonpartisan Center for Migration Studies. Families would also have to meet tighter standards to qualify for the earned income tax credit, a major anti-poverty program that reached 23 million tax filers in 2022. And analysts warn that cuts to Internal Revenue Service funding and staff would leave the tax agency less able to help lower-income people navigate the new restrictions. The legislation would add $3.8 trillion to the national debt, which now stands at $36.2 trillion, according to CBO. Ultimately, the cost would weigh most heavily on poor Americans, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, which estimated that low-income households in the future would see a lifetime loss of $8,500 due to a weaker safety net and higher debt service. The model found that some high-income households would see a lifetime gain of $17,800. "You're inheriting this higher debt, this higher burden. Somebody has to pay for it," said the budget model's director, Kent Smetters. (Reporting by David Morgan; editing by Andy Sullivan and Alistair Bell)

Analysis-Trump tax bill poses limited benefits, higher costs for lower-income Americans

Analysis-Trump tax bill poses limited benefits, higher costs for lower-income Americans By David Morgan WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President...

 

VS POLITICS © 2015 | Distributed By My Blogger Themes | Designed By Templateism.com