The Democrats Finally Have a Plan to Attack Trump. Sort Of.
These first six months have also featured a Democratic Party that has done what it does best: kept its stockpile of powder nice and dry. While some Democratic electeds have broken from the herd (often to the disdain of Democratic leadership) to confront Trump and his Republican minions, the party's age-old theory of how political change happens—wait for the GOP to screw up—has remained in effect. Though now, with the passage of Trump's big new 'kick people off health care and funnel the money into an American Gestapo Act of 2025,' it looks like Democrats finally have their quarry right where they want them.
Or … almost? As it turns out, Democrats are planning to take on the GOP—in a few weeks, anyway. 'House Democrats are plotting to turn the August recess into the opening salvo of the midterms, including through town halls and organizing programs,' reports Politico, as the party is experiencing 'renewed bravado after months in the political wilderness.' And to think that all it took for Democrats to exit this self-imposed exile was Trump getting everything he wanted.
But come on, feel the bravado, folks. Maine's centrist weirdo Representative Jared Golden, who is part of a group of Democrats who've lately decided that swearing more often makes them look edgy, shows up in the same Politico piece, bragging, 'There's almost nothing about this bill that I'm going [to] have a hard time explaining to the district. This is a giant tax giveaway to wealthy people. Everyone fucking knows it.' Can confirm! The New Republic has been covering this bill rather relentlessly over the past few months, which raises an uncomfortable question: What was stopping Golden from explaining this to his district at any point during the legislative meanderings of this bill? (Perhaps Golden, the most Trump-curious member of the Democratic caucus, was weighing whether to vote with the Republicans, as he has in the past.)
If there's one thing that Democrats do seem committed to, it's their August timetable for finally unleashing the spittin', cussin', new-look party to officially open the midterm election campaign. Over the past weekend, as Texans faced the now-familiar tragedy of mass casualties from devastating floods, House minority leader and energy vampire Hakeem Jeffries found it premature to go on an attack. Instead, he joined the Sunday morning talk show idiot parade to express his firm hope that Democrats might work productively with the party that's hell-bent on destroying the government and wiping climate change from our brains: 'I think we are going to have to figure out what happened, why did it happen, and how do we prevent this type of tragedy from ever happening again? And so the question of readiness is certainly something that Congress should be able to explore in a bipartisan way, particularly as we head into a summer where we can expect intensifying extreme weather events.'
It's hard to fathom a Democratic leader speaking these words aloud in July of 2025. In the first place, the hows and whys of this flood should be glitteringly apparent: Trump's executive branch misrule has led to cuts in the programs and personnel that keep people safe from these disasters, his shell of a disaster-response agency was slowed by Kristi Noem's penny-pinching and is (as of this writing) 'slow-walking the response,' and the federal government's weather resources are being sold to his cronies. There is also ample evidence of Republican misrule closer to home, from a Republican governor who keeps presiding over these needless disasters to local officials who passed on funding a more robust emergency system so they could score partisan political points. Meanwhile, the GOP's commitment to the promulgation of deranged conspiracy theories has the MAGA faithful engaging in the sorts of crimes that might cause the next disaster.
Therefore, the question of 'How do we stop this tragedy from happening again?' has a pretty clear and obvious answer: Drive Republicans out of office. And that, I'm sorry to say, precludes the possibility of working arm-in-arm with the members of this criminal syndicate to solve the problems of the world. The scores who perished in these Texas floods deserve the finest politicization-of-their-deaths that the Democrats can muster: Take the cheapest shot, force Trump and his lackeys to defend themselves, shred their defense to pieces by demanding more and better, and then reload for the next disaster, which under Trump, as we know, will always be soon in arriving.
I agree with The New Republic's editor Michael Tomasky that Trump's murderous new piece of legislation will reveal how cruel and stupid the Republicans have become; how could it not? But the GOP has a distinct advantage over Democrats not just because they, as Tomasky correctly points out, have 'a multibillion-dollar propaganda machine that will see to it that [their] vast audience never learns the truth about the impacts of this bill'; they are also vastly better at playing the media game with outlets outside their immediate control, where they are quicker to the punch and more relentless in bringing controversy and conflict to market. It would be a good idea to follow Delaware Representative Sarah McBride's lead and start referring to the future Medicaid cuts as 'Trumpcare.'
Until these widening strategic gaps start to close, I wouldn't put my faith behind the belief that Trumpism will discredit itself. It's not enough to simply vote against Trump's bad ideas—though that is mandatory. You have to engage in full-frontal war with the GOP, relentlessly force them to defend themselves, find a way to blame them for everything that goes wrong, and use your available resources and expertise to help those who will be harmed by the GOP's policies. This is the time for Democrats to get a lot less civil.
To bide one's time in the hopes that a more favorable political environment might emerge is malpractice—because while you're waiting, people are getting crushed economically and snatched off the street by masked paramilitary thugs. And to pretend that you have a productive relationship with the GOP on any level, as Jeffries asserted in the wake of more deaths by Republican hands, is simply brain-dead. I'm pleased as punch to know that in a few weeks' time, the Democrats will supposedly be firing their powder. I hope to see some real pyrotechnics at last.
This article first appeared in Power Mad, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by deputy editor Jason Linkins. Sign up here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class
There are many questions that don't have simple answers, either because they're too complex or they're hypothetical. One such question is what it might mean for billionaires to pay taxes at the same rate as the upper middle class, whose income starts, on average, at around $168,000, depending on where you live. Find Out: Read Next: ChatGPT may not be an oracle, but it can analyze information and offer trends and patterns, so I asked it what would happen if billionaires were required to pay anywhere near as much as the upper middle class. Here's what it said. A Fatter Government Larder For starters, ChatGPT said that if billionaires paid taxes like the upper middle class, the government would bring in a lot more money — potentially hundreds of billions of dollars more every year. 'That's because most billionaires don't make their money from salaries like upper-middle-class workers do. Instead, they grow their wealth through investments–stocks, real estate, and businesses–which are often taxed at much lower rates or not taxed at all until the assets are sold,' ChatGPT told me. Billionaire income is largely derived from capital appreciation, not wages. In other words, they make money on their money through interest. And as of yet, the U.S. tax code doesn't tax 'unrealized capital gains' so until you sell your assets, you could amass millions in appreciation and not pay a dime on it, ChatGPT shared. Learn More: What Do Billionaires Pay in Taxes? Right now, many billionaires pay an effective tax rate of around 8% or less, thanks to loopholes and tax strategies. Meanwhile, upper-middle-class households earning, say, $250,000 might pay around 20% to 24% of their income in taxes. (Keep in mind that the government doesn't apply one tax bracket to all income. You pay tax in layers, according to the IRS. As your income goes up, the tax rate on the next layer of income is higher. So you pay 12% on the first $47,150, then 22% on $47,151 to $100,525 and so on). So, if billionaires were taxed at the same rate as those upper-middle-class wage earners, 'it would level the playing field–and raise a ton of revenue that could be used for things like infrastructure, education or healthcare,' ChatGPT said. The Impact on Wealth Equality I wondered if taxing billionaires could have any kind of impact on wealth equality, as well. While it wouldn't put more money in other people's pockets, 'it could increase trust in the tax system, showing that the wealthiest aren't playing by a different set of rules,' ChatGPT said. It would also help curb 'the accumulation of dynastic wealth,' where the richest families essentially hoard wealth for generations without contributing proportionally to the system. But it's not a magic bullet. 'Wealth inequality is rooted in more than just taxes–wages, education access, housing costs, and corporate ownership all play a role,' ChatGPT said. Billionaires paying taxes doesn't stop them from being billionaires, either, it pointed out. Taxing Billionaires Is Not That Simple While in theory billionaires paying higher taxes 'would shift a much bigger share of the tax burden onto the very wealthy,' ChatGPT wrote, billionaires are not as liquid as they may seem. 'A lot of billionaire wealth is tied up in things like stocks they don't sell, so taxing that would require big changes to how the tax code works.' Also, billionaires are good at finding loopholes and account strategies — it might be hard to enforce. What's a Good Middle Ground? We don't live in a black and white world, however. There's got to be a middle ground, so I asked ChatGPT if there is a way to tax billionaires more, even if it's not quite how the upper middle class are taxed. A likely compromise would come from a policy decision, which isn't likely to be forthcoming anytime soon. President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill only offered more tax breaks to the wealthiest. However, policy proposals that have been floated, include: A minimum tax on billionaires where they might pay around 20% of their overall income Limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes that allow them to significantly reduce taxable income Tax unrealized gains (those assets that have only earned but not yet been sold), gradually. ChatGPT agreed that billionaires could pay more than they currently do, even if they don't pay exactly what upper-middle-class workers pay in percentage terms. 'The key is to design policies that are fair, enforceable, and politically feasible.' I asked how realistic such policy proposals are, and ChatGPT told me what I already knew: They're 'moderately realistic' but only with the 'right political alignment.' More From GOBankingRates 9 Downsizing Tips for the Middle Class To Save on Monthly Expenses This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New poll finds 96% Idaho voters say public lands should remain in public hands
More than 60% of the land in Idaho is public land, including this high altitude lake at the base of Thompson Peak in the Sawtooth Wilderness. (Photo by Clark Corbin/Idaho Capital Sun) Ninety-six percent of all registered voters in Idaho believe that public lands should remain in public hands, according to a new poll paid for by Conservation Voters for Idaho. The poll was conducted in the aftermath of a federal proposal from U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, to make millions of acres of public land in the U.S., including in Idaho, available to be sold off. The poll specifically asked Idaho voters questions about Idaho public lands and who they support in Idaho's 2026 U.S. Senate race. Alexis Pickering, executive director of Conservation Voters for Idaho, said she has never in her career seen Idahoans from all sides of the political spectrum unite behind a single issue like they have behind public lands this year. 'It really is clear that voters are unified in keeping public lands in public hands,' Pickering said in a phone interview Wednesday. 'It demonstrates that Idaho voters are very cognizant of this fight right now,' Pickering said. 'They are very engaged, and they are not going to sit this out.' More than 60% of the land in Idaho is public land of some form. The polling firm Change Research conducted the poll among 1,027 registered Idaho voters from July 15-17. The margin of error was 3.2%, according to Change Research. One poll question asked voters, 'Did you support or oppose the amendment to sell off over 3 million acres of public land across 11 Western states, including Idaho?' – with 87% of respondents saying they opposed it. Battles over public lands loom even after sell-off proposal fails Another poll question asked voters which statement came closest to their opinion: Public lands in Idaho, where people enjoy outdoor activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and biking, should remain public and be protected so that everyone can keep enjoying them. Public lands in Idaho, where people enjoy outdoor activities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and biking, should be made available for purchase and private ownership. Ninety-six percent of Idaho registered voters said public lands should remain public, including 97% of registered Democrats and 95% of registered Republicans, the poll found. Lee withdrew his amendment to sell public lands after a public backlash and three of Idaho's four members of Congress provided public opposition from within the Republican Party to selling public lands. Even though the public lands amendment was withdrawn, Pickering said the issue isn't going away. She said Conservation Voters for Idaho plans to highlight public lands as a central issue and continue to hold elected officials accountable for keeping public lands public. Pickering also said the public is deeply invested in the issue and knows Lee could file another proposal to sell public lands. She compared the proposal to sell public lands to waking a sleeping bear. 'Now that they have woken the bear, it will be really hard to get that bear back in hibernation mode,' Pickering said. Three of Idaho's four members of Congress, U.S. Sens. Jim Risch and Mike Crapo and U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, all R-Idaho, provided public Republican opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands, the Sun previously reported. On June 20, Risch and Crapo, both announced they were opposed to the provision in the budget reconciliation process to sell off public lands. Simpson co-sponsored the Public Lands in Public Hands Act. Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho, opposed the Public Lands in Public Hands Act, the Utah News Dispatch reported. In a phone interview with the Idaho Capital Sun earlier this month, Fulcher said, 'public land should remain public, but the control, management should be local stakeholders, not the federal government.' Polling data shows that Risch received a 10% bump in support among all registered voters after they learned Risch provided opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands, up from 41% to 51%. Among registered Republican voters only, Risch's support increased from 60% to 72% after voters learned Risch provided opposition to the proposal to sell off public lands. The poll only asked voters about Risch's upcoming U.S. Senate race, where he faces re-election in 2026. The poll did not ask about Crapo, Simpson or Fulcher, Pickering said. Idaho Capital Sun is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Idaho Capital Sun maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Christina Lords for questions: info@ Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
EU and US agree trade deal, with 15% tariffs for European exports to America
The United States and European Union have reached a trade deal, ending a months-long standoff between two of the world's key economic partners. After make-or-break negotiations between President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen in Scotland, the pair agreed on a blanket US tariff on all EU goods of 15%. That is half the 30% import tax rate Trump had threatened to implement starting on Friday. Trump said the 27-member bloc would open its markets to US exporters with zero per cent tariffs on certain products. Von der Leyen also hailed the deal, saying it would bring stability for both allies, who together account for almost a third of global trade. Trump has threatened tariffs against major US trade partners in a bid to reorder the global economy and trim the American trade deficit. As well as the EU, he has also struck tariff agreements with the UK, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, although he has not achieved his goal of "90 deals in 90 days". Sunday's deal was announced after private talks between Trump and Von der Leyen at his Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. Trump - who is on a five-day visit to Scotland - said following a brief meeting with the European Commission president: "We have reached a deal. It's a good deal for everybody." "It's going to bring us closer together," he added. Von der Leyen also hailed it as a "huge deal", after "tough negotiations". Under the agreement, Trump said the EU would boost its investment in the US by $600bn (£446bn), purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of American military equipment and spend $750bn on energy. That investment in American liquified natural gas, oil and nuclear fuels would, Von der Leyen said, help reduce European reliance on Russian power sources. "I want to thank President Trump personally for his personal commitment and his leadership to achieve this breakthrough," she said. "He is a tough negotiator, but he is also a dealmaker." The US president also said a 50% tariff he has implemented on steel and aluminium globally would stay in place. Both sides can paint this agreement as something of a victory. For the EU, the tariffs could have been worse: it is not as good as the UK's 10% tariff rate, but is the same as the 15% rate that Japan negotiated. For the US it equates to the expectation of roughly $90bn of tariff revenue into government coffers – based on last year's trade figures, plus there's hundreds of billions of dollars of investment now due to come into the US. How are trade deals actually negotiated? They made America's clothing. Now they are getting punished for it In pictures: President Trump's private visit to Scotland Trade in goods between the EU and US totalled about $975.9bn last year. Last year the US imported about $606bn in goods from the EU and exported around $370bn. That imbalance, or trade deficit, is a sticking point for Trump. He says trade relationships like this mean the US is "losing". If he had followed through on tariffs against Europe, import taxes would have been levied on products from Spanish pharmaceuticals to Italian leather, German electronics and French cheese. The EU had said it was prepared to retaliate with tariffs on US goods including car parts, Boeing planes and beef. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer plans his own meeting with Trump at Turnberry on Monday. Trump will be in Aberdeen on Tuesday, where his family has another golf course and is opening a third next month. The president and his sons plan to help cut the ribbon on the new fairway. Australia to lift import ban on US beef after Trump tariffs tiff
