Tag: election

“Did You See That” – March 2024

Federal Outlook

America is Having a Severe Case of Déjà Vu

As we know, history tends to repeat its self-time and time again. Many of you may have heard about the weird parallels between Lincoln and JFK, such as that both presidents were shot in the back of the head, on the Friday before a major holiday, while seated beside their wives, who both married socially prominent twenty-four-year-old woman who spoke French fluently, the list goes on and on. The same may be happening for 2020 and 2024. The Super Bowl in 2020 was between the 49ers and the Chiefs, same as in 2024, where the Chiefs won both games, Taylor Swift won Grammy awards in both 2020 and 2024, both years were leap years, and just like in 2020, we will see the same two candidates face off during the presidential election.

I am going to take a second to say, to be crystal clear, that I do not care who you vote for. That is your business, and it is your right as an American to believe what you want and vote how you want. Okay now back to the mess at hand

President Joe Biden, who was born before the invention of duct tape, penicillin, and the color TV, will once again face off against former President Donald Trump, whose skin looks like what happens if you eat too many carrots. I think we can all agree that this was the last matchup that we wanted to see, but here we are. This is the first presidential election rematch since 1956, which saw then President Dwight Eisenhower defeat for a second time in a row Democratic candidate, Adlai Stevenson, who could put a rock to sleep.

While it may be the same matchup, the sentiment around the election is very different. For one, we are no longer experiencing life as it was during COVID, where we saw state by state lockdowns, high unemployment numbers and a dire lack of live sports to watch. Contrast to the current climate we are living in, a world of high interest rates, unaffordable housing, and multiple military conflicts across the globe, and more sports betting than ever before.

The candidates, their political parties, the media, and really everyone are really focusing on one aspect when it comes to electability of the candidate, who is more “fit” to hold the office. I put fit in quotations because how that word is defined is different depending on who you ask. When it comes to President Biden “fitness” for office, people argue that he is too old to be president. Biden is 82 years old, which already makes him the oldest president in our history. If Biden were to win the election, he would be 86 when his term is over, which is even high for a golf score for a professional. Many have questioned his mental fitness at his current age, and are doubly concern that it will get worse as time goes on. Even the special counselor assigned to a case involving Biden’s storing classified documents after he was VP, expressing concern for his memory. Saying that he could not convict Biden beyond a reasonable doubt because “Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” That report also comes after 4 years of President Biden mis-saying names of countries and people, on a weekly basis. There are countless examples of Biden having mental gaffes. It shows something that people were genuinely happy to hear that Biden got it right at a town hall when he said he was president of the U.S. and not another country. people are also worried that with his “advanced age” he can’t relate with younger populations and their concerns. I mean we come from two different times, Biden grew up when a fun activity as a kid was playing with string and skipping rocks, while my generations and people younger than me idea of fun is killing zombies in a video games and catfishing people online.

When it comes to former President Donald Trumps “fitness” for office, the considerations are less around his mental state, but more around his actions as president and his belief on the power of presidency. People especially his actions surrounding the January 6th insurrection and potential election interference. The former president has been indicted by a special counsel on felony charges for working to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the violent riot by his supporters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The four-count indictment includes charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States government and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding: the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory. by saying that the election was stolen and trying to persuade state officials, then-Vice President Mike Pence and finally Congress to overturn the legitimate results. He was also indicted in Georgia along with 18 others, for violating the state’s anti-racketeering law (RICO) by scheming to illegally overturn his 2020 election loss. RICO charges are better known for being used by law enforcement to down the Mafia in the 80s and 90s. It is important to note that the former President is yet to be convicted of any charges. People are also concerned because Trump has shared his belief publicly that a president should have immunity from any actions they take as president, which many believe goes against the original intent of the constitution and the separation of powers. Trump said on Truth Social in all-caps “A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM/HER TO PROPERLY FUNCTION”. Trump is effectively arguing that a president can do whatever he wants while president and cannot be held liable. This is response to charges that were filed against him for illegally holding onto classified documents and allegedly trying to move/destroy evidence. People are concerned that a candidate that has allegedly worked to fix and overturn an election, as well as believes that a president should have full immunity to do whatever they want while president, is not “fit” to hold the country’s highest office.

In the end, we can all agree that this election season is going to be exhausting. Thank god we have the Olympics to distract us for parts of it.

Federal Recap

Biden Unveils Budget Proposal for FY25

On Monday, President Biden unveiled his proposed budget for FY25, which looks to cut the deficit by $3 trillion over a decade, by increasing taxes for companies and the wealthy. The proposals calls for raising the corporate tax rate to 28 percent from 21 percent, which is the level that was set by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. It also calls for increasing what’s known as the corporate minimum tax to 21 percent from 15 percent. That tax, which was passed by Democrats in 2022, applies to corporations that report annual income of more than $1 billion to shareholders on their financial statements but use deductions, credits and other preferential tax treatments to reduce their effective tax rates well below the statutory 21 percent. In addition to quadrupling a 1 percent surcharge on corporate stock buybacks to 4 percent. White House economists estimate increasing the tax could yield $137 billion in new tax revenue over a decade.

For taxing the wealthy, the proposal includes language that would raise the capital gains tax rate for earner who make more than $400,000 a year to 39.6 percent, and close the so-called carried interest loophole that allows wealthy hedge fund managers and private equity executives to pay lower tax rates than entry-level employees. The most progressive policy included in the proposal would create a 25 percent “billionaire tax” on individuals with wealth, defined as the total value of their assets, of more than $100 million, with the goal is to prevent the wealthiest Americans from employing tax strategies that allow them pay lower tax rates than those of middle-class households.

Last Thursday, before the President’s State of the Union Address, House Republicans advanced their FY25 budget proposal, which would take a vastly different approach to balancing the budget, by cutting over $14 trillion in federal spending in such areas as green energy subsides and student loan forgiveness while reducing taxes. The House Budget Committee adopted the blueprint in a 19-15 party line vote last Thursday, with Budget committee chairman Jodey Arrington saying that the budget plan would reduce the federal debt, which stands at over $34 trillion, create a $44 billion budget surplus in fiscal 2034 and stir economic growth by lowering taxes. The budget postpones severe spending cuts until fiscal 2026, after the November election that will determine control of the White House and Congress. Committee documents show 2026 basic discretionary spending falling by more than $100 billion to $1.5 trillion.

To put it mildly, FY25 budget negotiations are expected to be turbulent, like a flight trying to fly through a hurricane. HCA will be watching the budget process closely as it unfolds.

Government Avoids Partial Government Shutdown, Still More to Do

Late on Friday, the Senate passed a government funding bill, funding roughly 30 percent of the federal government for the next six months, mere hours before the deadline. The legislation — which passed by a 75 to 22 vote — devotes $459 billion to the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration, for the rest of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. President Biden signed the packaged shortly after it cleared the Senate. Biden thanked Congressional leadership for working together to avoid a partial shutdown. The passing of the funding package came more than five months into the current budget year after congressional leaders relied on a series of stopgap bills to keep federal agencies funded for a few more weeks or months at a time while they struggled to reach agreement on full-year spending.

Through the funding package, non-defense spending will remain relatively flat compared with the previous year. Supporters say that’s progress in an era when annual federal deficits exceeding $1 trillion have become the norm. But many Republican lawmakers were seeking much steeper cuts and more policy victories. The funding packaged also includes over 6,000 earmarks requested by individual lawmakers with a price tag of about $12.7 billion. Earmarks, which were previously banned in 2011, but was recently voted to reinstate earmarks in 2021 by Democrats, with Republicans soon following suit.

Congress still needs to tackle tricker funding packages for remaining departments, including the Departments of Defense, Financial Services and General Government, Homeland Security, Labor-HHS, Legislative Branch, and State and Foreign Operations. Those bills are typically much more controversial and are at greater risk of failure than the bills that passed this week.

State Outlook

Where The Money At?

For the 9th straight month, state tax collections fell short once again in February. This extends what was already the longest streak of below-benchmark months in more than two decades, tax revenue remains down compared to a year ago. State House News reported that the Department of Revenue reported Tuesday that it collected $2.007 billion last month — $27 million or 1.3 percent more than actual collections in February 2023 but still $11 million or a slim 0.6 percent shy of the administration’s revised monthly benchmark of $2.018 billion. The Healey administration in January lowered the monthly benchmark for February from the $2.137 billion it originally projected for the month prior to the governor’s fiscal year 2024 revenue downgrade. The last time tax collections came in at or above the administration’s monthly benchmark was June 2023, nine months ago. The Healey administration didn’t establish fiscal 2024 benchmarks until August last year, so there was no official expectation set for July 2023. But each month since — now seven in a row — has seen collections fall short of the administration’s projections.

The Executive Office of Administration and Finance said the administration is not planning to make additional budget moves in connection with the below-benchmark February revenue report. A spokesman said the budget office’s outlook on fiscal 2024 has not changed. DOR is due to report revenue collections for March by Wednesday, April 3. The monthly benchmark for March, which DOR said is usually “a mid-size month for revenue collections, ranking sixth of the 12 months in eight of the last 10 years,” is set at $3.935 billion. That would be $52 million more than what was collected in March 2023.

State Recap

Massachusetts Health Care Costs Rose in 2022

The Center for Health Information and Analysis (CHIA), created under a 2012 cost containment law, released its annual report Wednesday examining health care spending trends in 2022. The detailed report covers a year that started with record-high reporting of COVID-19 cases, followed by gradual decline throughout the year.

CHIA’s annual report estimated total health care spending in Massachusetts at $71.7 billion in 2022, and a per capita health care expenditure of $10,264 per resident. Total health care spending was up $3.9 billion (up 5.8 percent on a per capita basis) over 2021’s level — well in excess of the state’s 3.1 percent benchmark for health care cost growth. CHIA said the 5.8 percent growth rate in 2022 represents the largest one-year jump since measurement began in 2012, aside from the “anomalous spending growth in 2021 driven by the pronounced effects of the pandemic.” Health care spending shot up 9 percent in 2021 after posting a 2.3 percent decline in 2020.

The 2022 growth in health care spending was below both the rate of growth in the Massachusetts economy broadly (7.2 percent) and regional inflation (7.1 percent), CHIA said, but outpaced growth in both national wages and salaries (5.1 percent) and national health care spending measured by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (4.1 percent). The largest contributors to the 2022 expenditure increases were pharmacy spending and non-claims payments, CHIA said.

Other medical services, which includes long term care and home health services, was the largest component of MassHealth spending, totaling $3.4 billion in 2022. Other medical services spending increased 10.1% overall, but only 0.8% on a PMPM basis. Its important to note that the CHIA report does not specifically mention how much was spent on home health services amongst the “other medical service” category.

MassHealth Proposes Significant Increase to CSN Rates

In February, MassHealth released their proposed rates for CSN services. In summary, MassHealth proposed a 32.4% increase to RN weekday rates, and an 11% increase to LPN rates. They have also added a high-tech rate for members with Trachs/Vents/Central lines, these rates have a $2/unit ($8/hr) add on/UA modifier, as well as increased the rate for the 60-day supervisory visit of CCA services by 32.4% as well. If these rates take effect, we will have realized nearly 100% rate increases to this program since 2017 when HCA’s members and CCM Families teamed together on advocacy efforts. An incredible feat.

HCA provided verbal testimony in favor of the rate increase at a public hearing last week, in addition to submitting written testimony.

Massachusetts Health Care Costs Rose in 2022

The Center for Health Information and Analysis (CHIA), created under a 2012 cost containment law, released its annual report Wednesday examining health care spending trends in 2022. The detailed report covers a year that started with record-high reporting of COVID-19 cases, followed by gradual decline throughout the year.

CHIA’s annual report estimated total health care spending in Massachusetts at $71.7 billion in 2022, and a per capita health care expenditure of $10,264 per resident. Total health care spending was up $3.9 billion (up 5.8 percent on a per capita basis) over 2021’s level — well in excess of the state’s 3.1 percent benchmark for health care cost growth. CHIA said the 5.8 percent growth rate in 2022 represents the largest one-year jump since measurement began in 2012, aside from the “anomalous spending growth in 2021 driven by the pronounced effects of the pandemic.” Health care spending shot up 9 percent in 2021 after posting a 2.3 percent decline in 2020. The 2022 growth in health care spending was below both the rate of growth in the Massachusetts economy broadly (7.2 percent) and regional inflation (7.1 percent), CHIA said, but outpaced growth in both national wages and salaries (5.1 percent) and national health care spending measured by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (4.1 percent).

Other medical services, which includes long term care and home health services, was the largest component of MassHealth spending, totaling $3.4 billion in 2022. Other medical services spending increased 10.1% overall, but only 0.8% on a PMPM basis. It’s important to note that the CHIA report does not specifically mention how much was spent on home health services amongst the “other medical service” category.

The Rundown – November Midterm Election Edition

Federal Recap

Red wave!!!! More like a drizzle, just like meteorologist over-projecting rain fall during a summer storm, everyone over speculated how well Republicans would result in the midterm elections. While Massachusetts went the way everyone thought It would with Democrats holding onto every seat, nationally Republicans did not have the night that anyone could have expected. Republican pundit Ben Shapiro said it another way “from red wave to red wedding.”

Historically speaking a sitting president usually loses big during the midterm election, but that did not happen this election cycle. For the last 2 years pollsters, political pundits and politicians have called for Republicans to win big this midterm season, winning back control of the House and the Senate. Though Republicans are most likely going to win back control of the House, it was not by the margin that they expected nor as it as widespread as people thought. While all races have not been called it is looking like President Biden and the Democratic party lost the fewest number of House seats during a Democratic presidents first midterm election in over 40 years. Democrats went into the night with a large margin to overcome to hold control of the House and Senate. To keep control, Democrats needed to win at least 45 races in competitive districts, where Republicans had to win 19 to gain control. As of this morning, Republicans have only won 7 and Democrats have won 24 of those races.

In key swing states such as Pennsylvania, Georgia, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Arizona, there was massive Democratic voter turnout, largely made up of young voters, impeded the expected red wave. Democrats saw key wins in districts in these states where voters said that abortion rights were their top priority, knocking off some incumbents and far right competitors. Democrats were also able to flip the Senate seat in Pennsylvania where Democratic candidate John Fetterman won by a bigger margin than expected, keeping the Democrats chances of keeping control of the Senate alive. 3 states are yet to fully be decided, with one state (Georgia) going to a runoff election and Nevada and Arizona vote count not fully completed. Democrats are currently leading in the Senate race in Arizona and a closing the gap in the Nevada senate race. There is a chance where Democrats could go into the Georgia run-off election with a chance to take a 1 seat majority in the Senate.

It wasn’t all good bad news for Republicans though. Republicans went down to Florida and came back with a beautiful tan and great beach side condo. Republican Governor and suspected future Republican candidate for President, Ron DeSantis, dominated his competition by over 20 points. The fun in the sun didn’t stop their where republicans rode a red wave through Florida sweeping many house races and dominated in the one Senate race where incumbent Marco Rubio won by almost 18 points. Republicans were also able to defeat New York Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, a high-ranking Democrat who is the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and is responsible for getting other Democrats reelected. This is a major blow for Democrats who lost their high-ranking comrade in a state where they also just re-drew the district lines in favor of Democrats. Republicans are also still expected to win majority of the House which is nothing to gloss over. Republican control of the House kills any chance of significant democrat agenda items passing without large support from Republicans over Biden’s last 2 years in office. Such as key democratic agenda policy related to climate change and union growth (PRO Act).

It is not fully clear at this moment what caused the lack of a red wave across the country. It is most likely not because of one thing, but likely a collection of reason. Many believe that abortion rights played a large hand, in addition to, bad Republicans candidate chooses, and possibly Bidens policy achievements. When it comes to perceived bad Republican candidates, election day saw a lot of candidates that were vocal 2020 election deniers lose. Alabama was the only state where a governor candidate that was a 2020 election denier win their race. In Georgia, Republicans were not fans of the Republican senate candidate Herschel Walker. While the Republican Governor, Brian Kemp, won his election with over 2.1 million votes, Herschel Walker only received a little over 1.9 million votes, showing that even though Republicans went to the polls to vote for Kemp, they decided to stay out of the Senate race and not vote for either candidate. 

While the elections have not been finalized in many states and there is still much anxiety over what the final results will be, there is one thing that is finally done……. Political ads! All those tv ads, texts and emails that have overrun our lives over the last couple months are finally done. We can now breathe a sigh of relief and drop our anxiety for when-ever our phone buzzes dreading a text or email from a campaign trying to ask for our money or get us to vote. I personally received over 45 emails in the last month asking for political donations. Even my Alma Mater, James Madison University, only sent me 10 emails this last month about my tuition payments. So I can now open my email and not want to throw my phone across the room.

State Recap

Governor/High Office Positions

History was made this election cycle as Massachusetts as state attorney general (AG) Maura Healey was elected governor, becoming Massachusetts first elected female governor and the first openly lesbian women elected governor in the nation. Healey dominated her Republican competitor, former state Rep. Geoff Diehl, beating him by almost 30 points. The result comes as no shock to residents as Healey never trailed in the polls and held huge advantages in fundraising and name recognition. Healey, whose stepfather was president of a local teachers’ union, has been vocal about her support for unions. Healey received and endorsement from multiple union groups including SEIU State Council, one of the largest union groups in Massachusetts. In 2016, as AG, Healey lead a multi-state brief in support of federal efforts to provide greater transparency, fairness in union elections. While campaigning, Healey said that she would invest in workforce development and support to help improve behavioral health access, promote the use of community health workers to meet the needs of underserved communities, and expand access to telehealth services.

In addition to the governor race, Democrats swept the elections for attorney general, auditor, secretary of state and treasurer, continuing Republicans’ drought of holding any of those offices. Former Boston City Council president Andrea Campbell, was elected to replace Muara Healey as attorney general, making her the first black women to be elected to the position. Campbell defeated second time nominee Jay McMahon, a Bourne attorney who has a background in law enforcement. Campbell, who previously served as deputy legal counsel under Governor Deval Patrick, received endorsements from the SEIU State Council and said that she is committed to advancing labor rights for residents of the Commonwealth.

Legislature

Democrats rode the coat-tails of Maura Healey’s massive win all the way down the ballot on Tuesday, resulting in Democrats flipping a couple of state House seats and holding on to win highly contested races in the state House and Senate. Democrats will now hold the most seats in House in over 10 years. In what many called “the most competitive race statewide,” incumbent Sen. Becca Rausch of Needham fended off a serious challenge from Republican Rep. Shawn Dooley. Rausch’s district that has historically flipped back and forth between the two parties.

Tuesday’s election will restore both chambers of the Legislature to full strength after seven different House districts sat vacant after representatives resigned partway through their two-year terms. House legislative leaders decided not to call special elections to fill those seats, citing the complexity of hosting contests for the existing district lines just a few months before the midterm elections. At least 21 winners of House races and five winners of Senate races in Tuesday’s general elections will be newcomers to the Legislature, most of whom emerged victorious in contests for open seats with no incumbent on the ballot.

Ballot Questions

This election included 4 ballot questions for voter to decide on, covering controversial topics including taxes to immigration policy. The 2 most contested ballot questions were Question 1 and Question 4. Question 1 asked voters to decide if the state should impose a “millionaire tax”, a 4% surtax on annual personal income above $1 million, while question 4 tried to repeal a new law that would allow undocumented immigrants to apply for Massachusetts driver’s licenses. Residents of the Commonwealth, in a somewhat shocking occurrence, voted in favor of imposing the millionaire tax and to keep in place the driver’s license bill. Question 1 passed with 52% of the vote, while Question 4 passed with a little over 53%. Campaigners on both sides for question spent ABSURDS amount of money to garner support from residents. The opposition spent nearly $13,518,519.82, which is chump change compared to the supportive campaign who spent OVER $27 MILLION DOLLARS. That over $43 million dollars on one ballot question. I wonder if any of that money would be taxed now.

The other two ballot questions, Question 2 and 3, covered dental insurance and liquor licenses. Question 2, which would require dental insurance companies to spend at least 83 percent of premiums on member dental expenses and quality improvements, instead of administrative expenses, received an overwhelming support with 73% of “yes” votes. And lastly, Question 3, which would increase the number of alcohol licenses a single company could hold while gradually reducing the number of licenses specifically allowing the sale of all alcoholic beverages including liquor, did not pass, as a 55% majority voted against the ballot initiative. What does Massachusetts have against alcohol? I think it has something to do with having successful sports teams, if your teams win a lot there is less of thought to drown your sorrows with happy hour alcohol sales.