Tax Credits, Deductions and Exemptions

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      A Georgia Town Basks in Bountiful Filming. The State Pays.

      by

      When movies are made in Thomasville, Ga., it welcomes celebrities and an infusion of cash. But the financial incentives that attract studios have cost the state billions.It is no wonder that moviemakers saw potential in Thomasville, Ga., as a stand-in for Main Street U.S.A. Cobblestone streets and mom-and-pop stores speckle the downtown of this city of 18,000 that is caked in red clay soil and nestled among rolling hills.Just as attractive to some of those producers are Georgia’s lavish filming incentives, which have made Thomasville a cost-effective place to make modest pictures with major stars. Dustin Hoffman came for the rom-com “Sam & Kate.” A children’s book adaptation, “The Tiger Rising,” brought Dennis Quaid and Queen Latifah to town.But what is good on the ground for local economies — Thomasville says each of the six movies filmed there has provided an economic boost of about $1 million — can simultaneously be a drain on state coffers.Some Georgia lawmakers wondered whether it might be wise to put some limits on an uncapped tax incentive program that has given billions of dollars to Hollywood studios, scrambling this week in hopes of passing a bill that would modify the program. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Meet the Diplomat Who Shaped Biden’s Global Economic Policy

      by

      Mike Pyle, who will leave the administration later this month, helped broker agreement with Europe and other allies over clean energy, China and Russian sanctions.In the fall of 2022, two top Biden administration officials met in New York with a key European diplomat. Over dinner outdoors, they strategized about how best to throttle Russia’s oil revenues in retaliation for its invasion of Ukraine.Near the end of what had been a collegial meal, the European official, Bjoern Seibert, dropped a bombshell on his hosts, Mike Pyle of the National Security Council and Wally Adeyemo, the deputy Treasury secretary. Europe, Mr. Seibert said, had big problems with President Biden’s sweeping new climate law.Mr. Seibert, the head of cabinet for the president of the European Commission, said top officials among European Union member states feared Mr. Biden was trying to drive a competitive wedge between their countries and the United States, by lavishing subsidies on made-in-America clean energy technology. They were worried the president was trying to ensure the future of U.S. manufacturing at the expense of some of America’s closest allies.The exchange set off months of behind-the-scenes talks, a major regulatory concession from the Treasury Department and high-level negotiations between Mr. Biden and fellow world leaders, all meant to soothe those concerns.The officials at that dinner worked to pull together a harmonized industrial strategy between wealthy nations. It seeks to boost technology that reduces greenhouse gas emissions, limit global warming and counter China’s manufacturing might in global markets.That effort appears to have partly repaired a trans-Atlantic rift over what Europe sees as America’s increasingly protectionist economic policies.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Money in College Savings Accounts Can Now Go Toward Retirement

      by

      But there are caveats to moving the money into Roth I.R.A.s, and the government still has to issue guidelines about the option.Starting this year, some of the money in 529 college savings accounts can be used for retirement if it’s not needed for education.New rules under the federal law known as Secure 2.0 allow up to $35,000 in a 529 account to be rolled over to a Roth individual retirement account for the beneficiary of the 529 account if certain conditions are met.State-sponsored 529 accounts, named for a section of the tax code, are used to pay for education expenses — mainly college costs. Money deposited in the accounts grows tax free and can be withdrawn tax free to pay for eligible expenses like tuition, housing, food and books.The new Roth option is aimed at parents who may be reluctant to save in a 529 because they worry about having to pay income taxes and a penalty if for some reason the funds aren’t needed for college and they want to withdraw the money.“It is parents’ No. 1 objection to opening a 529,” said Vivian Tsai, chair emeritus of the College Savings Foundation, a group that includes big financial firms that run the state college savings programs. “The barrier is really psychological.” (Ms. Tsai is also senior director and head of relationship management for the education savings unit at TIAA, a large investment firm that manages 529 plans in seven states.)Many families struggle to save for college, and accumulating “too much” money is usually not a problem. “The vast majority of account holders do not save enough,” Ms. Tsai said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 63 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Couples Therapy,’ but for Politics

      by

      Growing political polarization is a problem that keeps me up at night. Not because I think it’s bad to have strong opinions, but because of what social scientists call affective polarization: polarization beyond political disagreement, when “ordinary Americans increasingly dislike and distrust those from the other party.” At its worst, affective polarization can lead to hate and dehumanization.When my colleague Thomas Edsall wrote about affective polarization earlier this year, he quoted Sean Westwood, an associate professor of government at Dartmouth, who said that part of what’s behind today’s intense partisan divide is that “Politicians, instead of focusing on the large list of issues where there is broad agreement in the American public, endlessly re-litigate social divides like gay rights and abortion to mobilize a base they fear will stay home if they focus on the mundane details of pragmatic governance.”I see this play out when I hear activists suggest that you can’t talk to them about climate change if you don’t agree with their stance on the Israel-Hamas war, or when I see politicians tying approval of military appointments to abortion access. The attitude seems to be: You have to agree with me about everything or you’re my enemy and we can’t work together on anything. It leads to a whole lot of nothing.Because I cover family policy, the lack of movement on areas of “pragmatic governance” where there is “broad agreement” drives me bonkers. A prime example is federal paid leave, which is popular among voters across the spectrum, yet remains in legislative purgatory, and has for decades. Though there’s a bipartisan working group in Congress on the issue, we’re still a long way from any change, leaving us out of step with most wealthy nations and creating a lot of stress and economic hardship for people just trying to make ends meet while also caring for children or sick family members.But there’s a group of people of all ideological backgrounds — social conservatives, progressive activists, budget wonks and lots of people in between — that’s been convening over the past year, and that gives me a bit of hope for family policy’s future. It also offers a road map for people who disagree vehemently on issues to have productive conversations and find points of connection. If nothing else, the group’s participants agree that too many American families are struggling, that families should be more of a political priority and that something needs to be done to help them.The convocation has the somewhat jargony name Convergence Collaborative on Supports for Working Families, and its members let me sit in on one of their guided discussions with the understanding that I would follow the Chatham House Rule — I can report on what was said during the session but not reveal “the identity nor the affiliation” of any speaker.The group consists of around 30 people and it has met monthly since April. It is directed by Abby McCloskey, who runs a research and consulting firm and was a policy adviser for Jeb Bush’s and Rick Perry’s 2016 presidential campaigns and Howard Schultz’s exploratory 2020 presidential run. The collaborative is funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. With permission, after the meeting I reached out to some of the individuals involved to see if they’d be comfortable talking in general terms about their experiences in the group.During the initial meetings, the members came up with set of family policy principles they could mostly agree on. The discussion I observed involved them delivering feedback on a draft of a report outlining those principles. At first, I feared this was going to be an absolutely mind-numbing way to spend three hours of my life and that I would have to gently pinch myself to stay awake while listening to a discussion of the budgetary implications of the earned-income tax credit.Instead, the conversation was spicy while still being respectful, and full of fundamental disagreements that did not seem completely papered over simply for the sake of congeniality. McCloskey described it to me more than once as feeling like “couples therapy,” and it did.For example, a few people objected to wording in the report about center-based child care that they felt put a thumb on the scale against stay-at-home parents. Others disagreed with that objection, and there was an impassioned back-and-forth about it. Ultimately, the moderator stepped in, restated everyone’s point of view in a neutral way and advised that everyone needn’t agree on every detail to move forward.I give a lot of credit to that moderator, the aptly named David Fairman, who is a senior mediator at the Consensus Building Institute, for the structure and tone of the discussion. When we spoke on the phone afterward, he explained that C.B.I. is one of “roughly a dozen” similar organizations that help conduct mediation on public issues. His job is to help find common ground among people with different backgrounds and belief systems.There are three main things Fairman does to facilitate these discussions. The first is to build relationships among participants, so that “they discover that there’s more to them than the battle of tweets that they’ve had or the countering publications or testimony and the identities that they carry with their businesses, with their advocacy groups or whoever.” That kind of humanizing is done partly through guided conversations in breakout groups, and some of it is done more organically through events like in-person cocktail hours.The second is by getting people to “listen openly” during discussions, which means calming down their “rebuttal minds, the hamster wheel that is almost always turning as we listen to someone with whom we disagree, coming up with the counterarguments,” Fairman explained. Instead, he urges people to ask “clarifying questions, not rhetorical questions, not debating questions.” And he gave this example: “What do you mean by saying that ‘you really feel strongly that the child tax credit should remain universal’? Is it that the most important thing about it is that it’s for everyone? Or is it that you are worried that the political support for it will not be there if it is not universal, or is it something else? I just want to know.”The third, and I would argue the most difficult component, is trying to get beyond people’s stated positions to their underlying interests, values and principles, to create space “to explore new ways of thinking about the options,” Fairman said. He referred to a disagreement over how generous a child care tax credit or other allowance could be. The group was at an impasse. While they couldn’t agree on the appropriate size of the credit, a new idea emerged: that more flexibility for parents to choose how to spend the credit “over the life cycle of their child would be a win, even if it doesn’t address the question of the absolute amount of funding.”I also interviewed several members of the group about their experiences. My takeaway was that overall, people were happy to be in conversation with one another, to meet basically agreeable people with totally different ways of framing the problems at hand and to think hard about their own biases. “I think the level of candor was surprising,” said Patrick Brown, a fellow at the right-leaning Ethics and Public Policy Center. “I think everybody committed to coming in with a willingness to critique their own side where necessary and to say frankly where their red lines were.”But the process was certainly not a cure-all. Many said that they wished they had even more time to work through the document they were creating. Some felt that some fundamental concerns — particularly with regard to race and immigration — weren’t aired thoroughly enough before moving on to the particulars of policymaking. More than one person expressed frustration that systemic racism was not more explicitly addressed and that barriers to accessing currently available benefits weren’t fully interrogated.While all the participants thought they would have a document at the end of the process that they would be willing to put their names to, some wondered if it would wind up being so watered down that it wouldn’t have “truly moved the needle,” as Lina Guzman, the chief strategy officer at Child Trends, put it, to get more people fired up about these issues.Even if they come up with something that isn’t earth-shattering, every person I spoke to felt that the process was worthwhile because of the relationships they built. “I think that having created the space to do this is valuable in and of itself, even if what we come out with falls short of what some people might have hoped,” said Katharine Stevens, the founder and chief executive of the Center on Child and Family Policy.We don’t know what unexpected alliances and priorities might arise in national politics in the coming years. But because these professionals have spent a lot of hours together talking about their deepest values, giving and getting clarity about their beliefs, they may find unexpected sources of support for specific ideas that aren’t yet mainstream.I came out of observing the discussion mostly wishing that we could all have mediators like Fairman at our holiday tables. We can’t simply wish away the profound disagreements many of us have. But I’ll certainly be trying to ask more clarifying questions of people I don’t agree with. Quieting my rebuttal mind, as a professional opinion haver, will be a rough one, but I’m going to do my best, and I’m going to try to maintain as much good faith as I can muster. We’ll need it in 2024. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Biden ha cumplido con las promesas que hizo en su campaña de 2020?

      by

      Detener la construcción del muro fronterizo, permitir que Medicare negocie el precio de los medicamentos y acabar con la pena de muerte fueron algunos de sus compromisos para llegar a la Casa Blanca.En plena campaña de reelección del presidente Joe Biden, los demócratas han proclamado una serie de logros durante su mandato. En ocasiones, Biden ha recordado que su predecesor, Donald Trump, no cumplió del todo sus promesas.Pero, como todos los políticos, se ha enfrentado a la realidad de que hacer campaña y gobernar son dos cosas muy distintas, sobre todo en un gobierno dividido. Aunque Biden ha cumplido algunas de las promesas que hizo en 2020, no todas se han materializado a tres años de su elección.Por un lado, Biden ratificó el compromiso de Estados Unidos con el Acuerdo de París, un pacto internacional destinado a reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero; revocó el permiso para el oleoducto Keystone XL, que habría transportado petróleo de Canadá a Nebraska, y aumentó los subsidios federales para las personas que compran planes conforme a la Ley de Atención Médica Accesible. Por otra parte, ha sido incapaz de impulsar en el Congreso estadounidense una legislación sobre el derecho al voto o la prohibición de las armas de asalto y su ambicioso plan de condonar la deuda a los estudiantes fue rechazado por completo por la Corte Suprema.A continuación, una muestra de algunos de los compromisos de la campaña presidencial de Biden de 2020 y en qué punto se encuentran.Algunas de las promesas de Biden en 2020:InmigraciónImpuestosAtención médicaEducaciónCambio climáticoJusticia penalPolítica exteriorInmigraciónLO QUE SE DIJO“No se construirá ni un metro más de muro en mi gobierno”.—En una entrevista de 2020 en NPRAl postularse a la presidencia, Biden hizo del muro fronterizo de Trump una parte central de su campaña. En su primer día en el cargo, anunció que ponía fin a la declaración de emergencia nacional que se había utilizado para destinar recursos a la construcción del muro.Pero en las últimas semanas, el gobierno de Biden ha manejado con ligereza una serie de leyes para permitir la construcción de nuevas barreras en Texas, a lo largo de la frontera suroeste. La medida se produce en el contexto de un aumento en el número de migrantes que cruzan la frontera sin autorización, lo que altera de manera drástica las presiones políticas sobre Biden.Biden ha sostenido la postura de que un muro fronterizo es ineficaz. Pero declaró que el financiamiento se consignó para el muro fronterizo en 2019 y que el Congreso no reasignaría esos fondos —a pesar de los pedidos públicos del gobierno para que lo hiciera— lo cual quiere decir que el financiamiento tenía que usarse para ese propósito. Una ley de 1974 obliga al presidente a gastar el dinero según las instrucciones del Congreso, y los funcionarios de la Casa Blanca han dicho que la única manera de evitarlo era presentar una demanda, algo que el gobierno de Biden decidió no hacer.Antes del anuncio reciente, el gobierno autorizó que se completen algunas brechas pequeñas en el muro.LO QUE SE DIJO“Poner fin a las políticas de asilo perjudiciales de Trump”.—Sitio web de la campaña de 2020.Durante su campaña de 2020, Biden criticó en público la estrategia migratoria del gobierno de Trump y argumentó que había desafiado la tradición estadounidense al tratar de “restringir drásticamente el acceso al asilo en Estados Unidos”. Pero su gobierno también ha intentado limitar el proceso de asilo para disminuir la migración no autorizada.En mayo, el gobierno promulgó una norma que presume que la mayoría de los migrantes que cruzan ilegalmente la frontera desde México entre los puertos de entrada no son elegibles para el asilo. La norma descalifica a la mayoría de los solicitantes si entraron a Estados Unidos sin cita previa en un punto de entrada oficial o no pueden demostrar que buscaron protección legal en otro país por el que cruzaron.Al igual que el gobierno de Trump, Biden ha tratado de limitar el proceso de asilo para desalentar la migración no autorizada.Verónica G. Cárdenas para The New York TimesLa norma tiene sus excepciones: no aplica a los menores no acompañados ni a migrantes que puedan demostrar que su vida estaba en peligro inminente, por ejemplo, pero los críticos dicen que el criterio es similar al de Trump.Respecto a la cuestión de la inmigración en general, los aliados de Biden en el Congreso propusieron un proyecto de ley en 2021 que habría transformado el sistema migratorio, pero en última instancia fracasó. Hasta principios de este año, también se mantuvo en vigor el Título 42, una regla sanitaria de la época de la pandemia que promulgó el gobierno de Trump para expulsar con rapidez a los inmigrantes que cruzaran ilegalmente al país.ImpuestosLO QUE SE DIJO“Les garantizo, palabra de un Biden, que ninguna persona que gane menos de 400.000 dólares pagará un solo centavo de impuestos. Ni un centavo”.—Durante un mitin de campaña en octubre de 2020Biden no les ha aumentado los impuestos a los contribuyentes dentro de ese umbral, como prometió. Pero sí se ha centrado en aumentar los impuestos a las empresas y a quienes ganan más de 400.000 dólares. Por ejemplo, el presupuesto que propuso para el año fiscal 2024, incluye un aumento a la tasa de impuesto para Medicare del 3,8 al 5 por ciento para los ingresos superiores a 400.000 dólares.No obstante, esa “no es la historia completa”, afirmó William McBride, vicepresidente de política fiscal federal de la Tax Foundation, un laboratorio de ideas derechista.McBride señaló que algunos análisis estiman que los aumentos de impuestos a las empresas podrían tener un efecto indirecto en toda la escala de ingresos, ya que la carga suele repercutir, al menos en parte, en los consumidores y los trabajadores, por ejemplo, a través de salarios o valores bursátiles más bajos. Aunque los cálculos difieren, un análisis de la Tax Foundation de 2022 llegó a la conclusión de que, a largo plazo, la Ley de Reducción de la Inflación podría reducir los ingresos después de impuestos en torno a un 0,2 por ciento para la mayoría de los grupos de ingresos, incluidos los que ganan menos de 400.000 dólares.Atención médicaLO QUE SE DIJO“El plan de Biden derogará la legislación existente que le prohíbe de manera explícita a Medicare negociar precios más bajos con las corporaciones farmacéuticas”.—Sitio web de la campaña de 2020Como presidente, Biden sí promulgó una ley que autorizaba al gobierno federal a negociar precios más bajos de algunos medicamentos para los beneficiarios de Medicare, pero sin derogar la ley vigente, sino añadiendo una excepción.Esa medida formaba parte de la Ley de Reducción de la Inflación aprobada en 2022. La Oficina Presupuestaria del Congreso ha calculado que el programa podría ahorrarle al gobierno unos 100.000 millones de dólares en una década. Los fabricantes de medicamentos han presentado múltiples demandas en un intento por detener el programa de fijación de precios de medicamentos.LO QUE SE DIJO“Lo que voy a hacer es aprobar Obamacare con una opción pública, para convertirla en Bidencare”.—Durante un debate de octubre de 2020Desde que asumió el cargo, Biden no ha tomado medidas formales para hacer realidad esta propuesta. De hecho, desde entonces, ha mencionado muy pocas veces su promesa de una opción pública, lo cual le daría a los estadounidenses la posibilidad de inscribirse a un plan de salud administrado por el gobierno.“Es justo decir que el presidente Biden no ha impulsado con fuerza la idea de una opción pública desde que llegó al cargo”, comentó Larry Levitt, vicepresidente ejecutivo de política sanitaria de KFF, un grupo sin fines de lucro centrado en política sanitaria.La primera propuesta presupuestaria de Biden, para el año fiscal 2022, abordaba su deseo de una opción pública, aunque con pocos detalles. Conseguir que el Congreso apruebe una opción pública sería, como sucede con algunas otras propuestas de campaña, un gran desafío.EducaciónLO QUE SE DIJO“Invertir en nuestras escuelas para eliminar la brecha de financiamiento entre distritos blancos y no blancos, y distritos ricos y pobres”.—Sitio web de la campaña de 2020Para lograr este objetivo, Biden propuso triplicar la financiación del Título I, que proporciona ayuda a las escuelas locales para beneficiar a los estudiantes de bajos ingresos. Durante la presidencia de Biden, el financiamiento de las subvenciones del Título I ha aumentado, pero de manera más modesta: en torno a un 11 por ciento, aunque sus defensores afirman que el impulso se ha visto atenuado por la inflación y el aumento de las inscripciones. Las propuestas del gobierno de aumentos mucho mayores han fracasado en el Congreso.Dado el tamaño del programa Título I —18.400 millones de dólares en el año fiscal 2023— triplicar el financiamiento en tres años mediante el proceso de asignaciones “no es realista”, dijo Sarah Abernathy, directora ejecutiva de Committee for Education Funding.Mientras que la Casa Blanca ha propuesto un aumento adicional en la financiación del Título I, un plan de los republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes ha pedido recortes severos.Biden propuso triplicar la financiación del Título I, que proporciona ayuda a las escuelas locales para beneficiar a los estudiantes de bajos ingresos.Logan R. Cyrus para The New York TimesEn su promesa de subsanar las diferencias entre los distritos, la campaña de Biden para 2020 citó a un grupo educativo ya desaparecido, que había evaluado las discrepancias en ese momento. Los expertos no conocían ningún análisis actual que ofreciera una comparación directa.Pero la financiación del Título I por sí sola no puede resolver estas carencias, porque los distritos escolares se financian mayoritariamente a nivel estatal y local, según Noelle Ellerson Ng, directora ejecutiva adjunta de defensa y gobernanza de AASA, la Asociación de Superintendentes de Distritos Escolares.LO QUE SE DIJO“Como presidente, Biden tratará de avanzar en este tema con la promulgación de leyes que garanticen que todas las personas trabajadoras, incluidos los que asisten a la escuela medio tiempo y los ‘dreamers’ (los adultos jóvenes que llegaron a Estados Unidos en la infancia), puedan ir a la universidad comunitaria durante un máximo de dos años de manera gratuita”.“Hacer que los colegios y las universidades públicas sean gratuitas para todas las familias cuyos ingresos son inferiores a 125.000 dólares anuales”, sitio web de la campaña de 2020El gobierno de Biden no ha conseguido hacer realidad estas promesas, aunque sí ha propuesto dedicarles fondos.Por ejemplo, en su plan de presupuesto para el año fiscal 2024, el gobierno solicitó 90.000 millones de dólares a lo largo de 10 años para que los dos primeros años de la universidad comunitaria fueran gratuitos.Además, el gobierno pidió dos años de “matrícula subsidiada” para los estudiantes de familias con ingresos inferiores a 125.000 dólares y, en específico, para los estudiantes que asisten a universidades históricamente negras u otras universidades que reciben a estudiantes de minorías.Cambio climáticoLO QUE SE DIJO“Ya no se perforarán las tierras federales, punto”.—Durante febrero de 2020 en un evento municipalContrario al compromiso de Biden en campaña, su gobierno aprobó formalmente en marzo un proyecto de perforación petrolera en Alaska conocido como Willow. El gobierno hizo hincapié en que limitó el proyecto, ya que rechazó dos de los cinco lugares de perforación propuestos e hizo que la empresa que lo promovía devolviera al gobierno unas 27.518 hectáreas de arrendamientos existentes.Desde entonces, Biden anunció una prohibición a la perforación de más de 5 millones de hectáreas de zonas naturales en la Reserva Nacional de Petróleo de Alaska y canceló los arrendamientos de perforación en el Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre del Ártico.En cuanto a otras medidas relacionadas con el cambio climático, la Ley de Reducción de la Inflación supuso una gran inversión en energías limpias, incluso mediante lucrativos incentivos fiscales que, según algunos datos, contribuyeron a estimular la inversión privada. Y el gobierno propuso normativas para limitar la contaminación de gases de efecto invernadero de las centrales eléctricas existentes.LO QUE SE DIJO“Como presidente, Biden trabajará con los gobernadores y alcaldes del país para apoyar el despliegue de más de 500.000 nuevos puntos de recarga públicos para finales de 2030”.—Sitio web de la campaña de 2020Con determinación, Biden ha presionado para ayudar a acelerar el cambio del país al uso de vehículos eléctricos, incluso mediante la propuesta de normas ambientales. También firmó leyes para invertir en estaciones de carga. Las leyes bipartidistas de infraestructura del 2021 incluyeron 7500 millones de dólares para construir esas estaciones.La Casa Blanca ha declarado que Estados Unidos está en vías de alcanzar 500.000 cargadores para 2030, aunque no especificó si esa estimación se refiere al total de cargadores públicos o a nuevos cargadores públicos, como decía el objetivo de la campaña.Con determinación, Biden ha presionado para ayudar a acelerar el cambio del país a los vehículos eléctricos.Gabby Jones para The New York TimesAlgunos expertos afirmaron que incluso alcanzar la meta de 500.000 estaciones de carga públicas será un desafío, aunque no imposible. “Es técnicamente factible alcanzar el objetivo, pero no será fácil”, comentó Kenneth Gillingham, profesor de Economía Medioambiental y Energética de la Universidad de Yale.Sin embargo, según algunas estimaciones, alcanzar los 500.000 cargadores públicos en 2030 no es suficiente. Un informe reciente de Alliance for Automotive Innovation, un grupo comercial, afirma que hoy se necesitan más de 530.000 cargadores, antes de que se produzca el aumento previsto en la adopción de vehículos eléctricos.Justicia penalLO QUE SE DIJO“Como no podemos tener la certeza que decidamos correctamente siempre en estos casos, debemos eliminar la pena de muerte”.—En X, plataforma antes conocida como Twitter, en julio de 2019Biden no ha eliminado la pena de muerte, para lo cual sería necesaria una ley. Su gobierno ha tomado algunas medidas para reducir el uso de la pena capital, pero algunos que se oponen a ella han dicho que Biden no ha actuado con suficiente agresividad.En 2021, el procurador general Merrick Garland impuso una moratoria a las ejecuciones federales después de que el gobierno de Trump reanudó la práctica tras un lapso de casi dos décadas sin ejecuciones. Durante la gestión de Garland, el Departamento de Justicia no ha solicitado la pena de muerte en nuevos casos.Dicho esto, los fiscales federales también se negaron a cambiar de rumbo en un caso iniciado en el gobierno de Trump que buscaba la pena de muerte para un hombre que mató a ocho personas en un ataque con camión en Manhattan en 2017. El sospechoso, Sayfullo Saipov, fue finalmente sentenciado este año a cadena perpetua después de que un jurado no se pusiera de acuerdo sobre si imponer la pena de muerte.El departamento también ha trabajado para mantener las penas de muerte existentes, como la impuesta a Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, condenado a muerte por su participación en los atentados del maratón de Boston de 2013.LO QUE SE DIJO“Usar el poder de clemencia del presidente para asegurar la liberación de individuos que enfrentan sentencias indebidamente largas por ciertos delitos no violentos y de drogas”, sitio web de la campaña de 2020Biden ha cumplido este compromiso, utilizando por primera vez el poder de clemencia en 2022, ya que conmutó las penas de 75 infractores por delitos de drogas y concedió tres indultos. Meses después, indultó a miles de personas condenadas por posesión de marihuana, según la ley federal.Política exteriorLO QUE SE DIJO“Regresaré a los soldados de combate en Afganistán a casa durante mi primer mandato”.—En respuesta a un cuestionario de 2020 de The New York TimesBiden cumplió este compromiso, ya que retiró a Estados Unidos de Afganistán en agosto de 2021 y dio por concluida la guerra más larga de la historia estadounidense, aunque el final fue caótico y mortal. La retirada ya se estaba gestando desde el gobierno de Trump.LO QUE SE DIJO“Si Teherán regresa al cumplimiento del acuerdo, el presidente Biden volverá a ratificar el acuerdo y utilizará una diplomacia dura y el apoyo de nuestros aliados para fortalecerlo y ampliarlo, al tiempo que presionaría con mayor eficacia contra las otras actividades desestabilizadoras de Irán”, sitio web de la campaña de 2020Biden se refería al acuerdo nuclear iraní de 2015, un acuerdo destinado a limitar el programa nuclear de Irán a cambio de la reducción de las sanciones. El gobierno de Trump se retiró del acuerdo en 2018. A pesar de más de un año de negociaciones tras la elección de Biden, Estados Unidos e Irán no lograron reincorporarse al acuerdo.Hace poco, el gobierno de Biden anunció nuevas sanciones contra Irán. La decisión se produjo al expirar una medida de las Naciones Unidas asociada al acuerdo nuclear, y también tras el ataque sorpresa del 7 de octubre contra Israel por parte de Hamás, que recibe apoyo de Irán. More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      The Climate Fight Will Be Won in the Appliance Aisle

      by

      More than a year after its passage, much about President Biden’s climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, is working.America is putting in more solar panels than ever before, with installations expected to be up 52 percent compared with last year. The law has helped lock in America’s transition to electric vehicles. Companies have announced more than $60 billion in E.V. manufacturing investments since the I.R.A. passed, and Hyundai is rushing to finish its new E.V. factory in Georgia because the law’s incentives are so good. Across the country, investment in all forms of clean-energy manufacturing has ramped up, with spending this spring five times the level of two years ago, according to a new tracker from M.I.T. and the Rhodium Group, a research firm.The law is supposed to do more than transform the economy, though. It’s also supposed to change how and even where Americans live. The I.R.A. contains nearly $9 billion in rebates meant to help people upgrade and decarbonize their homes — for example, install an induction stove, a heat pump or a new electrical or insulation system. Since the climate law passed last year, Mr. Biden and Democrats in Congress have hyped the savings on energy that these policies will bring to consumers; that is, after all, the inflation that the law is meant to be reducing.But I have grown worried about these efforts — and about the next phase of the I.R.A.’s implementation more broadly. The building sector accounts for about 13 percent of America’s climate pollution, so the success of these programs is essential to the country’s decarbonization efforts. Yet more important, the execution of these programs poses a political risk for the Biden administration. These rebate and tax credit programs are some of the law’s most visible provisions. Other than the law’s electric vehicle subsidies, these home-focused policies will be most Americans’ best opportunity to get I.R.A. money in their pockets.If the programs fail, they could seriously mar the I.R.A.’s public image. And right now, they are faltering.Perhaps the biggest problem is inherent to their design. The most successful federal programs are simple, straightforward and easy to use. Think of the U.S. Postal Service sending free at-home Covid tests to all Americans or the relative ease of signing up for and receiving Social Security benefits. These new home-upgrade programs, meanwhile, seem likely to be especially persnickety, complicated and onerous for many Americans.That’s because, first, there are a lot of programs in play. Although the I.R.A. streamlined some of the most important existing climate tax credits (for example, for greening the grid), it included four home-focused programs. Two of these programs are tax credits meant to give Americans a tax discount when they install a new rooftop solar system, a geothermal-powered heater, a heat pump or another technology that reduces demand for carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Unlike other tax credits in the law, these programs have no income cap, so they can be used by wealthy Americans who can presumably afford to pay upfront to install residential equipment like a water heater. But like other new tax credits in the law, they require Americans to have some federal tax liability in the first place. If you owe nothing on your taxes, then you can’t get a discount.These credits are likely to be generous in aggregate, but in some cases they will be too small to spur a serious change of behavior. Installing a whole-home heat-pump system, for instance, can cost tens of thousands of dollars, but the I.R.A.’s new tax credit will cover only $2,000 of that in one calendar year.That’s when another set of programs is supposed to come in. The I.R.A. introduced a pair of rebate programs meant to help working- and middle-class Americans afford to upgrade appliances and other features of their homes. These two programs, known as HOMES and HEEHRA, are important. When it’s finally put in place, HEEHRA will lower the cost of heat pumps and other climate-friendly appliances at the point of sale, making them more affordable to consumers, including those who are not even aware of the policy. More than perhaps any other programs in the law, these rebates are meant to allow low-income Americans to reduce their monthly energy costs. And because they involve direct cash grants, using the rebates will not require oweing any taxes to the federal government. That is huge for retirees and Social Security recipients, many of whom have no earned income and little to no federal tax liability.Regardless of how consumers are reimbursed, the programs are exceedingly — perhaps even fatally — complicated. The reason they have yet to take effect is that although these programs will be overseen by the Department of Energy, they will be administered separately by each state’s energy office. The department is still finalizing the last few rules that will govern how these programs work. When it finishes that process, then states will apply for their share of the money. Only then — after states receive their funding and set up their programs — will they be able to start disbursing it to their residents.So far, very few state offices have received any funds from the programs — not even the preliminary funds meant to help them hire more staff members and manage administration costs. This could directly hurt the programs’ chances of success in the next year. State energy offices employ anywhere from a handful of people to more than 100, and they have now been tasked with overseeing complicated, high-stakes federal programs.The experts and business leaders I’ve talked to think that these problems will push any serious efforts to carry out the programs well into next year. Montana has said that it doesn’t expect to make rebates available until the first half of 2024. Georgia’s energy office recently estimated that rebates would become available by Sept. 30, 2024, at the latest — barely a month before the presidential election.Even then, major questions remain about how the programs will work. Democratic lawmakers have called on the Energy Department to consider allowing the rebates to be used retroactively — meaning that someone who bought, say, a heat pump in late 2022 could get free money for it under the law. But that would sharply increase the program’s complexity, and it would more quickly deplete the limited funds allocated to the rebates. The programs draw from fixed pools of funding — about $250 million per state — and when that money runs out at the state level, the rebates will lapse in most cases.This is not the only place where the I.R.A.’s implementation is mired in confusion. The initial rules of the home energy rebates have left state officials unsure of whether they can use someone’s eligibility for other social welfare programs, such as food stamps, to gauge whether they qualify for a rebate. (The Energy Department has published guidelines about this, but they are not comprehensive.) That may force states to set up expensive processes that will duplicate work that’s already been done and make it even more burdensome for people to use these programs. It’s also unclear whether households can use several Energy Department programs at once — such as the new HOMES rebates and the longstanding weatherization-assistance program — to reduce the cost of a major project.Unless the Biden administration acts now, these consumer-facing programs could be a big mess by next fall. They will have confusing criteria, work differently in each state and may require applicants to go through time-sucking paperwork before receiving any funds. They will not showcase the nimble, modern government, fighting for working people, that Mr. Biden hopes to sell to voters.The I.R.A. is going to change people’s lives — I have little doubt of that. But only eventually. And for the next year, many of the law’s benefits for average Americans will remain largely theoretical. The M.I.T. and Rhodium tracker says that of the $137 billion in announced clean-energy investment, only $37 billion — just 27 percent — has started to flow. There is a growing risk that as the presidential election arrives, the law’s most world-changing programs to stimulate clean electricity and E.V.s will have yet to show their impact, and its smaller programs will be mired in public operation headaches.There is recent precedent for such a failure. Although most Americans now approve of the Affordable Care Act, the law was blamed for Democrats’ losses in the 2010 midterms, and it remained desperately unpopular for much of the following decade. Even when Donald Trump was elected, most independents still disapproved of the law and wanted to see it rolled back. Only in 2017, when Republicans repeatedly tried to repeal the law, did popular opinion swing in its favor. It has remained popular ever since.The I.R.A., like the Affordable Care Act, aims for a higher purpose than being politically popular. But the law’s survival depends on its — and Mr. Biden’s — ability to win a literal popularity contest next year. Mr. Trump and other Republicans are already cultivating a hatred of the clean-energy transition among voters; failing consumer-facing rebate programs would be a gift to them. And if Mr. Trump wins next year, his team will have plenty of opportunities to undermine the I.R.A.’s emission-cutting policies, even without repealing the whole law.The aspirations of 30 years of climate policies ride on the I.R.A. If this one law is successful, it will open up other ways of making policy for the environment and economy; if it fails, then lawmakers will shy away from tackling climate change for years. The law’s home-rebate programs will not be large enough to fully decarbonize America’s millions of buildings. But if they are successful, then they will allow the creation of future policy that is.The I.R.A., I believe, is still on track to be a success. But voters won’t see the new E.V. factories that it’s building or the sparkling new manufacturing hubs. They will see what’s at Home Depot or in the back of their contractor’s pickup truck. And if people have to fill out 20 pages of paperwork just to save less money on a heat pump than they initially hoped for, that’s what they’ll always remember about the I.R.A.The climate fight might be waged in the streets. But it will be won in the appliance aisle.Robinson Meyer is a contributing Opinion writer and the founding executive editor of Heatmap, a media company focused on climate change.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Here’s What the Other Republican Candidates Should Say to Trump

      by

      Bret Stephens: Hi, Gail. I know you’re keen to handicap — figuratively, but maybe also literally — the emerging field of Republican presidential hopefuls. First Donald Trump, now Nikki Haley, and soon, possibly, her fellow Palmetto State Republican, Senator Tim Scott. That’s on top of probable runs by Ron DeSantis, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, and possibly Brian Kemp of Georgia, Glenn Youngkin of Virginia, Kristi Noem of South Dakota and Chris Christie of … New Jersey.Who worries you the most — or repels you the least?Gail Collins: Well gee, Bret. Have to admit I have a tad of sympathy for Mike Pence, and maybe Brian Kemp, since they at least had the backbone to stand up for the idea that, um, this is a democracy where the winners of elections … win.Bret: With you on Kemp, who successfully fended off two election deniers: Trump and Stacey Abrams. Can’t say I feel much sympathy for Pence. You don’t get bonus points for doing the most basic part of your job, much less for standing up for democracy and the rule of law at the last possible minute.Gail: All of them are more or less opposed to abortion and sensible gun regulation, and many of them are in favor of tax cuts for the rich that would cut back on resources for the needy. And given Haley’s first campaign week, I’d predict that as we go along, all of them will be veering off to Crazy Town in order to compete with Trump.Hey, why are we worried about what I think? You’re in charge of Republicans. Tell me — which of these folks would you vote for against Joe Biden?Bret: A lot will depend on who is, or isn’t, willing to bend the knee to Trump. I’m waiting for one of them to say something along the following lines:“Donald, Republicans placed their faith in you when it seemed as if, for all of your flaws, you could still be a gust of fresh air for our party and the country. You turned out to be a Category 5 hurricane, leaving a wake of political destruction everywhere you went ….”Gail: Loving this scenario …Bret: “You destroyed our majority in the House of Representatives in 2018. You destroyed our hold on the White House in 2020. Your reckless, stupid, un-American and transparently false claims about the election helped cost us Georgia’s two Senate seats in 2021. Your garbage taste in primary candidates, based pretty much entirely on their willingness to suck up to you and regurgitate your lies, cost us the Senate again in the midterms along with the governorship of Arizona. You shame us with your dinner invitations to antisemites like Kanye West. And your petulant attacks on fellow Republicans — usually the ones who stand a chance of winning a general election — keep playing into the hands of Democrats.”Gail: Keep going!Bret: “Other than your usual lackeys, not to mention Lindsey Graham, there’s not a single Republican who has worked closely with you who has a good word to say about you in private, though some of them still flatter you in public. If, heaven forbid, you’re the Republican nominee next year, you’ll only be guaranteeing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris a second term. You’re a loser, Donald: a sore loser, a serial loser, a selfish loser. You’re the biggest loser — except, of course, when it comes to your waistline. As was once said to Neville Chamberlain after he had put Britain in mortal danger, so I say to you: ‘In the name of God, go.’”I’ll struggle to vote for a candidate who can’t say something along these lines. If they can’t stand up to a bully in their own house, how can we expect them to stand up to Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping?Gail: I believe I am hearing that you’re going to vote for Joe Biden.Bret: Hmm. Hopefully not. Most of my policy instincts are pretty much in line with people like Haley, Youngkin, Christie and even DeSantis, at least on his good days. I probably just won’t vote if no Republican can pass the decency test.Gail: Also trying to imagine the things that might happen on the Biden front that might reduce your openness to the Democratic option. Privately thinking: presidential health problems and Kamala Harris. But too early to talk about that now.Bret: Is it? OK, go on ….Gail: If we’re going to talk health, let’s go back to Senator John Fetterman, now hospitalized with depression. It seems at this point as if breaking in as a new senator and recovering from a stroke is too much of a to-do list. I remember recently, when we were on this topic, you were way more worried than I was about his condition. Did you have some advance knowledge he was in trouble or just a well-educated guess?Bret: Maybe a little bit of advance knowledge, plus personal experience. My father had a cerebral hemorrhage when he was 53, the same age Fetterman is now. He recovered physically but, like many survivors of brain injuries, suffered a crushing depression that was out of character with his sunny temperament. The book that helped him get through it was William Styron’s memoir of his own depression, “Darkness Visible.” The good news for my dad, who lived for 21 years after the hemorrhage, was that the darkness eventually lifted and he went on to better years, as I sincerely hope will be the case for the senator.Gail: Of course. Also hoping this will publicize the importance of getting professional treatment when depression strikes.Bret: Gail, returning to the Biden presidency again, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office just reported that the federal government will take on nearly $19 trillion in new debt over the next decade. Doesn’t that, er, alarm you?Gail: Sure, and I hear it as a clarion call for tax reform — raising rates on the people who can afford to pay more. Don’t see any reason, for instance, that someone making a million dollars a year is only paying Social Security tax on the first $160,200.I suspect you’re hearing a somewhat different trumpet.Bret: Just a tad different!First thing, we need to turbocharge economic growth so that the debt will be a smaller fraction of the overall economy. Top of my list would be immigration reform to ease labor shortages and regulatory reform to make life easier for small businesses, like doing away with needless permitting requirements. Second, spending restraint, particularly when it comes to dumb subsidies like the ones for ethanol or tax credits for buying Teslas. Third, entitlement reform by way of gradually pushing up the retirement age for today’s younger workers.What am I missing — I mean, other than one or two screws?Gail: Bret, I have never accused you of a screw shortage, although there are some issues on which I’ve suggested some tightening might be nice.Bret: My mother says the same.Gail: We’re in agreement on opening the door to more immigration, so let’s move on to the rest, one by one.Reducing permit requirements for new businesses — you’d certainly be able to come up with some examples of overregulation there, but I’ll bet if somebody decides your neighborhood would be a good place to open a distillery in an old warehouse, you’d want to make sure there were some serious controls in place.Bret: Only for quality ingredients, flavor, complexity, age and smoothness.Gail: Tax credits for electric vehicles help move the country away from carbon-emitting gas guzzlers, and that’s great for the environment. Yeah, I wish it didn’t mean more money for Elon Musk, but if we want to eliminate all laws that benefit irritating rich guys, there’d be a lot of better places to start.Bret: On your earlier point, Gail, do you know you are supposed to complete a 250-hour training program to become a licensed manicurist in New York? That’s the kind of enterprise-defeating regulation I had in mind. As for electric vehicles, I can’t wait for someone to start fully tallying the environmental impact of, say, the lithium mines needed to produce their batteries. There’s just no such thing as “clean” energy.Gail: Of course you’re right that nothing is easy and we’re going to have to come back to energy issues a lot. But in the meantime, your suggestion for entitlement reform: It’s basically about raising the age for Social Security eligibility, right? Currently 67 for most workers, although you can qualify for a more modest package at 62. There’s nothing magic about 67, but I can think of a lot of jobs that’d be tough for people that age to keep doing.Bret: True.Gail: Looking out my window right now I see a bunch of guys climbing around the 12th story outside wall of an apartment building, refurbishing the stones and concrete so nothing falls down and bops a pedestrian. I’m sure some people in their late-60s would be great at the job, but I wouldn’t want them forced to take it on.Bret: Agree, and there’s no reason we can’t put together a reform of Social Security that allows people who make their living in physically demanding jobs to retire on the earlier side. It’s those of us who sit at desks most of the day whom I mainly have in mind.By the way, Gail, before we go, I can’t fail to mention the exceptional reporting by our news-side colleagues Jeremy Peters and Katie Robertson. It concerns the lawsuit against Fox News by Dominion Voting Systems, and what it has uncovered — namely, that people like Tucker Carlson and other talking heads at the network knew perfectly well that Trump’s claims of a stolen election were bunk, but tried their damnedest to sow doubts about the election anyway. There’s a word for that: vile. There ought to be a circle in hell for it, too.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Dads in Government Create the Congressional Dads Caucus

      by

      Male politicians who are parents of young children wearing their fatherhood on their sleeves and their babies on their chests.Several members of Congress, mostly men, held a news conference outside the Capitol last week — a typical sight in Washington. But these men were not just any men: They were dads — men who serve in the U.S. House of Representatives while also raising children. (If “father” is a catchall, “dad” seems to connote a father of young children, too busy even to expend an extra syllable.) The dads were announcing the Congressional Dads Caucus, a group of 20 Democrats aiming to push policies like paid family and medical leave and an expanded child tax credit. Spearheaded by Representative Jimmy Gomez, Democrat of California, who gained attention last month when he voted against Kevin McCarthy for Speaker of the House with his son Hodge, then 4 months, strapped to his chest, the caucus also hopes to speak for a demographic that, in the halls of power, is well represented yet historically has not cast itself as an identity bloc.But times are changing. Fathers in heterosexual partnerships in the United States increasingly wish to split child rearing equitably. (Or, at least, to talk about splitting it: The data shows women still do significantly more. And there is evidence that fathers do more than they used to, but less than they say they do.) Some men, being men, have even managed to turn the dirty work of parenting into an implicit competition: Witness the peacocking dad — catch him in his natural habitat, his own Instagram grid — with a kid on his shoulders and a Boogie Wipes packet in his rear pocket, claiming the duty of caretaking but also its glory.This trend, perhaps most visible in the upscale and progressive milieu that dominates blue states, has flowed into politics. Democrats have pushed to make family leave available to all genders. Pete Buttigieg, a rising star, took several weeks’ parental leave in 2021 from his job as U.S. Secretary of Transportation. Politicians wear their fatherhood on their sleeves and their babies on their chests.“Family leave and affordable child care until very recently were considered women’s issues — ‘the moms are mad about this,’” said Kathryn Jezer-Morton, a parenting columnist for The Cut who wrote her doctoral dissertation on mom influencers. “It’s becoming a family issue, a dad issue. It feels significant.”But a curious lag has opened between societal hopes for dads and baseline expectations. Dads who assume their proper share of parenting and homemaking, according to this emerging worldview, should not accrue psychic bonus points anymore. However, they still do. In 2023, a father feeding his child in the park or touring a prospective school is admired and complimented to a degree a mother is not.“When the dads do or say something, they get the kind of attention I wish we would,” said Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, the only woman who is a member of the Dads Caucus — and a mother of two boys, 17 and 11.Spearheaded by Mr. Gomez, the Congressional Dads Caucus is a group of 20 Democrats aiming to push policies like paid family and medical leave and an expanded child tax credit.Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post, via Getty ImagesMs. Tlaib credited Mr. Gomez for pointing out this double standard at last week’s news conference. “He acknowledged that people were like, ‘Wow, this is so great,’” Ms. Tlaib said. “And it’s like, ‘What are you talking about? A lot of us moms have done this.’”For dads, the present state of affairs can be pretty sweet. Who doesn’t want to do 40 percent of the work for 80 percent of the credit? (Especially when it’s good politics.) But being a good ally may mean flaunting fatherhood and exploiting the ease with which fathers can draw attention to parents’ issues while not making it all about them, as men have occasionally been known to do.Because the attention is part of the point. “We know dads exist, but they can bring a spotlight to this issue,” said Gayle Kaufman, a professor of sociology at Davidson College and the author of “Superdads: How Fathers Balance Work and Family in the 21st Century.” “Just being realistic, when men think it’s important, it’s likely to get more attention.”One caucus member, Andy Kim of New Jersey, said that part of the caucus’s project was to shift the automatic association of family concerns away from being “mom” problems. He recalled someone asking his wife if she wished to be a stay-at-home mother, when it was in fact he who used comp time and then left his job at the State Department in order to care for their first of two sons, who are now 7 and 5. “She said, ‘You should talk to my husband,’” he said. The Dads Caucus’s inciting incident illustrated how novel it felt to see a dad dadding hard in Washington. Like many Congressional mothers and fathers, Mr. Gomez brought his family to Washington for his swearing-in ceremony, which typically would have followed a pro forma vote for the House Speaker. But this year, the body required an extraordinary 15 ballots over five days to select Mr. McCarthy. Families stayed in town; babies fussed.During an early voting round, Mr. Gomez and his wife, Mary Hodge (for whom Hodge Gomez is named — Ms. Hodge rejected a hyphenated last name, Mr. Gomez said), decided in the Democratic cloakroom to strap Hodge into a chest carrier to calm him. Which is how the 48-year-old congressman came to stride the House floor and cast his vote, as he put it then, “on behalf of my son, Hodge, and all the working families,” while Hodge politely squirmed and received a coochie-coo tickle from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Ms. Hodge, who is the deputy mayor of city services in Los Angeles, returned to the West Coast before the voting marathon was complete. Hodge stayed with Mr. Gomez, who tweeted myriad baby shots. Mr. Gomez said in an interview that a mother in the identical situation likely would not have received such glowing coverage, like a “CBS Weekend News” feature with the caption “Congressman Pulls Double Duty.”“The praise I was getting for doing what any mother would do was out of proportion,” he said, adding, “if a woman did that, people would question her commitment to her job.”Mr. Gomez said the caucus had been formed with only Democrats in order to get it off the ground, given the disagreements between Democrats and Republicans over many economic family policies (to say nothing of related ones like abortion).Patrick T. Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center who studies family economics, said some Republicans — he cited Senators Mitt Romney and J.D. Vance, among others — might co-sign some Democratic economic proposals for families. “There’s a growing recognition that not all the pressures facing families are cultural in nature,” Mr. Brown said. “It’s not all Hollywood elites making family life harder, it’s the pressures of the modern economy. If you’re concerned about people getting married later or not having kids, you need to orient policy in a more pro-family direction.”The caucus has already called for expanding child care access and universal family medical leave. But its most immediate achievement may be its members’ open reckoning with how prevailing conversations about care-taking shortchange everyone. Mothers are often ignored for what they do and made to feel guilt‌y for what they don’t. Fathers are frustrated by the limited public imagination for what they can do and evince a palpable, wistful anxiety of influence when speaking about motherhood. (“We talk about our kids like any moms do,” said Dan Goldman, a Caucus member and father of five who was elected to Congress from the Brooklyn district that includes the dad stronghold Park Slope.)Last year, before founding the Dads Caucus, Mr. Gomez went so far as to join the Congressional Mamas Caucus. “I had always advocated for all these issues,” he said.Because yes, of course, the Mamas Caucus — founded by Ms. Tlaib to push for many of the same policies the Dads Caucus backs — predates the Dads Caucus by several months.No matter: Ms. Tlaib was equanimous.“If it took Jimmy Gomez starting a Dads Caucus to get The New York Times to call me to talk about the Mamas Caucus,” she said, “then I’m all in.” More