A lot of Trump voters will be hurt by a lot of Trump’s policies

December 16th, 2016 at 11:38 am

Over at WaPo on jobs and tax cuts.

And here’s a new CBPP piece showing who, by income class, benefits from repealing Obamacare.

Republican plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would provide large, lopsided tax cuts to households with annual incomes over $1 million, just-released data from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC) show. TPC also finds ACA repeal would significantly raise taxes on about 7 million low- and moderate-income families due to the loss of their premium tax credits to buy health coverage through the marketplace. These tax increases would compound the harm to lowand moderate-income families from repealing the ACA’s other coverage provisions — cost-sharing assistance and the Medicaid expansion — and would add tens of millions of people to the ranks of the uninsured.

The standard response–and I’m not saying at all that this is wrong–is that none of this matters and I’m making the pointy-headed mistake of bringing facts to a fantasy show. But as I’ve written in many places under the rubric of finding the path back to Factville, we in the policy community must track these outcomes and the media must report on them. I cannot speak to their impact, but I can tell you that said impact will be a function of their exposure.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 comments in reply to "A lot of Trump voters will be hurt by a lot of Trump’s policies"

  1. Robert Salzberg says:

    You’re right JB, some facts, like rich people getting a huge tax break, don’t matter but stories do. The old story of the young mom who died because she didn’t get a pap smear because she didn’t have medical insurance was ubiquitous but wasn’t covered. A young mom who’s insurance is ripped away by the Republicans and then dies from a treatable illness will explode thousands of times over all over the country if the replacement for the ACA doesn’t happen or is predictably worse than the ACA.

    People don’t revolt just because things are bad, people revolt because something essential was taken away. While the media was sorely lacking covering the success stories of people saved by the ACA, if it bleeds it leads, so the coming body count should have a much bigger impact.

  2. MikeT says:

    The article ends with “Basically, people in below-average-income states haven’t gotten the jobs, and they’re not likely to get the tax cuts. They’re also, if Trump and the congressional Republicans have their way with the Affordable Care Act, at risk of losing recently acquired health coverage. What happens then, I don’t know, but perhaps they’ll be more open to an agenda that actually meets their interests.”

    To me nothing illustrates the Democrats problems better than this. It is wishful thinking. Do you think the Republicans are just going to throw up their hands and say in effect “You’ve got us. Our policies helped our friends, too bad they aren’t you.” ?

    No, they’re not. They are going to blame somebody and, if previous experience is any guide (or current experience in much of the South) they will succeed handsomely. They will blame Democratic policies for killing jobs and stringent regulations from tying the hands of all those benevolent billionaires that really want to help the poor but can’t because they are forced to spend money on things like safety, pollution abatement, etc. Throw in some more of the veiled racism, that the Democratic policies are mainly to benefit “those” people, and you’re going to find that people in below-average-income states will actually be *stronger* backers of the Republicans.

    To think otherwise illustrates the gap between what’s really happening and how the Democrats believe the world to behave.

  3. Smith says:

    Pennsylvania reduced it’s uninsured by 6% of the population cutting the uninsured by half.
    That’s .06 x 12.79 million = 767,400 insured due to ACA (Obamacare).
    While 5,897,174 cast votes in Pennsylvania, surveys show voter participation around 50% in the general, even at low income levels. Count 50% of 767,400 = 383,700
    If they all went to Hillary, that accounted for only 13% of her 2,926,441 Pennsylvania total. But in that case Trump and Republicans can repeal ACA with impunity. They’ll still win Pennsylvania.
    If she split them less then 90% 10% for for Trump, then the 10%-plus-ACA voters might desert Trump for taking away their coverage and he’d lose Pennsylvania.
    This is a simplified example, but proves a point worth exploring. What are the potential electoral consequences of repealing Obamacare? What might the data indicate? What was the split of ACA-covered Clinton vs. Trump? Was it more than Trump’s margin?

    Keep in mind a large number of states have much less ACA participation due to state governments’ refusal to participate in medicaid expansion. Nearly all of those states are red Trump states, Florida included.

    Again, no one seems to have given the slightest thought to this. But it’s telling that Clinton never said, “If you like Obamacare, if you want to keep Obamacare, vote for me. If you think Donald and the Republicans can come up with something better, vote for Trump.” She never said that. That’s not what the campaign was about. In the primary of course, she had no trouble telling voters Sanders would take away their Obamacare.

    How many Trump voters in swing states are covered by Obamacare? It’s a simple question. Getting the answer and giving it wide publicity might have an important effect on actual legislation. No?

    • Smith says:

      Equally important to know is the opposite conclusion. If Republicans can repeal Obamacare without losing elections, then Democrats need to know that before it comes up for a vote. It matters as to how they frame the repeal. how they appeal to voters losing coverage, thrown to the wolves. Are they appealing to Trump voters who’ve been betrayed, or motivating their own supporters to boost turnout next election.