Connect with us

Published

on

The escalating confrontation between the parties over the federal budget rests on a fundamental paradox: The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is now more likely than Democrats to represent districts filled with older and lower-income voters who rely on the social programs that the GOP wants to cut.

A much larger share of Republican than Democratic House members represent districts where seniors exceed their share of the national population, census data show. Republicans are also more likely to represent districts where the median income trails the national level, or the proportion of people without health insurance is greater than in the nation overall.

House Republicans, in their ongoing struggle with President Joe Biden over raising the debt ceiling, have signaled they will push for sweeping reductions in domestic social programs, likely including Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, the principal federal programs providing health care for working-age adults. And while House Republicans appear to have backed away from pursuing reductions in Social Security and Medicare, the conservative Republican Study Committee has set a long-term goal of cutting and partially privatizing both programs.

Ruy Teixeira: Democrats long goodbye to the working class

The fact that so many House Republicans feel safe advancing these proposals in districts with such extensive economic need testifies to the power of what Ive called the class inversion in American politics: the growing tendency of voters to divide between the parties based on cultural attitudes, rather than class interests. That dynamic has simultaneously allowed House Democrats to gain in more socially liberal, affluent, metropolitan areas and House Republicans to consolidate their hold over more culturally conservative, economically hardscrabble, nonurban areas.

Yesterday, Biden forcefully reiterated his charge that Republicans would shred the safety net at a White House ceremony commemorating the 13th anniversary of Barack Obama signing the ACA into law. An extended battle between House Republicans and Biden this spring and summer over the safety net may test whether any economic argument can allow Democrats to break through the cultural resistance that fortifies Republican control of these downscale districts.

While Republicans have gained in some areas primarily around culturally and racially infused disputes such as those over crime and immigration, a struggle over spending priorities will inevitably highlight that their policies on these bread-and-butter issues remain diametrically opposed to the economic interest of much of their base, Paul Pierson, a political scientist at UC Berkeley and a co-author of Let Them Eat Tweets, told me.

As I reported last week, to understand the social and economic characteristics of the House seats held by each party, Jeffer Giang and Justin Scoggins of the Equity Research Institute at the University of Southern California analyzed five-year summary results through 2020 from the Census Bureaus American Community Survey.

That analysis inverts many traditional assumptions, even within the parties themselves, about whose voters rely on the social safety net. There has been a massive transformation of the coalitions, Manuel Pastor, a sociology professor at USC and the director of the Equity Research Institute, told me.

Democrats, who led the legislative efforts to create Social Security under Franklin D. Roosevelt and Medicare under Lyndon B. Johnson, have long thought of themselves as the party of seniors. But today, Republicans represent 141 of the 215 House districts where adults aged 65 and older exceed their 16 percent share of the national population, while Democrats hold a clear majority of seats in districts with fewer seniors than average, according to the Equity Research Institute analysis.

Republicans now also control most of the House seats in which the median income trails the national level of nearly $65,000 annually. Republicans hold 152 of the 237 seats in that category. Democrats, in turn, hold 128 of the 198 seats where the median income exceeds the national level.

Perhaps most surprisingly, Republicans hold a clear majority of the districts where the share of residents who lack health insurance exceeds the national level of 9 percent. The GOP now holds 110 of those 185 highly uninsured seats. Democrats control 138 of the 250 seats with fewer uninsured than the nation overall.

Equally revealing is to examine what share of each partys total strength in the House these seats represent. From that angle, the parties offer almost mirror-image profiles. About two-thirds of House Republicans represent districts with more seniors than the national level, while about two-thirds of Democrats represent districts with fewer of them. Roughly two-thirds of House Republicans represent districts where the median income lags the national level, while three-fifths of Democrats hold seats where incomes surpass it. Almost exactly half of Republicans, compared with only about one-third of Democrats, represent districts with an unusually high concentration of people lacking health insurance.

The economically vulnerable districts that each side holds also present a stark demographic contrast. Low-income Democratic seats tend to be in urban centers with large nonwhite populations. In more than three-fourths of the Democratic seats with a median income below the national level, and in virtually all of the Democratic districts with more uninsured people than average, the minority share of the population is also higher than the national average.

Some low-income Republican districts also have large minority populations, particularly in Texas and Florida, where the GOP has made inroads into culturally conservative Latino communities. But mostly the low-income GOP seats are centered on working-class white areas, many of them outside metropolitan areas.

Read: Are Latinos really realigning toward Republicans?

In the 141 seats Republicans hold with more seniors than the national average, white residents exceed their national share of the population in 127 of them. Likewise, white residents surpass their share of the national population in more than four-fifths of the Republican-held districts that lag the median income. Nearly half of House Republicans represent districts in which all three things are true: They have more seniors than the national level, more white residents than the national level, and a lower median income than the national level.

All of this reflects how working-class white voters, many of them financially squeezed, have become the unquestioned foundation of the GOPs coalition at every level, from the House through presidential elections.

Biden is laying siege to those voters with a strategy of deemphasizing cultural disputes and stressing kitchen-table economic benefits. Democrats really are making appeals to these districts in a big way, Pierson said. Most of that infrastructure and climate [spending] is going to go on in red states. There really is a big effort to say, We are going to use policy to try to make our electoral coalition bigger.

A key element of Bidens courtship of these voters is defending the social safety net, especially Social Security and Medicare. The presidents repeated rejection of reductions in those programs, combined with former President Donald Trumps opposition to potential cuts, has resulted in the most obvious concession by House Republicans to their evolving electoral base: public declarations by Speaker Kevin McCarthy and other leaders that they will not target Social Security and Medicare in the cutbacks they are demanding for raising the federal debt limit this summer.

Republicans hope that exempting Social Security and Medicare will dampen any backlash to their deficit-reduction plans in economically vulnerable districts. But protecting those programs, as well as defense, from cutswhile also precluding tax increaseswill force the House Republicans to propose severe reductions in other domestic programs that many voters in blu-collar Republican districts rely on, potentially including Medicaid, the ACA, and food and housing assistance.

Will a Republican push for severe reductions in those programs provide Democrats with an opening in such places? Robert J. Blendon, a professor emeritus at the Harvard School of Public Health, is dubious. Although these areas have extensive needs, he told me, the residents voting Republican in them are generally skeptical of social-welfare spending apart from Social Security and Medicare. We are dealing with a set of values here, which has a distrust of government and a sense that anyone should have to work to get any sort of low-income benefit, Blendon said. The people voting Republican in those districts dont see it as important [that] government provides those benefits.

The one risk for Republicans in such areas, he noted, would be if voters conclude that they present a genuine threat to Social Security and Medicare. Even most conservative voters strongly favor those programs, Blendon told me, primarily because they view them as an earned benefit that workers have contributed to during their lifetime. If the GOP seriously pushes ideas such as converting Medicare into a voucher program, or diverting part of Social Security revenue into private investment accounts, then in districts with a lot of older people, they are going to get in trouble, Blendon said.

Pastor, the director of the Equity Research Institute, also believes that current Democratic arguments targeted at older and non-college-educated white voters that they are voting against their interests economically are unlikely to succeed. The problem, he says, is that those arguments dont directly address the way many voters also define their interests to include cultural and racial dynamics. Because Republican strength in these older, predominantly white, financially stressed districts is rooted largely in the alienation of white voters who fear the country is shifting on them demographically, Democrats must ultimately make a more explicit case to those voters about how all Americans can benefit from a more diverse and inclusive society, Pastor said. The Democratic Party needs to figure out how to talk more effectively about race and racismnot try to ignore it, but try to inoculate people against it, he said.

Read: The four quadrants of American politics

Bryan Bennett, the senior director of polling and analytics at the Hub Project, notes that the majority of voters, including seniors, support Bidens approach to preserving the safety net for retirees: In a recent national survey, his group found that voters were nearly four times as likely to support stabilizing Medicare by raising taxes on the affluent rather than cutting benefits. There is quite a bit of economically populist appetite even among Republicans for raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, Bennett told me. Even Medicaid, once seen as a program for the poor, now draws widespread support across party lines, he said.

Yet Bennett, too, is cautious about predicting that Republican efforts to cut the safety net will hurt them in districts that highly depend on it. The GOP, Bennett said, is gambling that it can cut programs that benefit the partys lower-income white base and still prevent those voters from defecting to Democrats by stressing other issues like immigration and the culture war.

If Republicans face any internal resistance to sharp cuts in the safety net, in fact, it may be more likely to come from their members who represent socially liberal white-collar districts that dont rely as much on these programs than from their members who represent the culturally conservative blue-collar districts that do depend on them. The Republicans who seem least concerned about targeting the social safety net are those who represent the places that need those programs the most. Thats another telling measure of just how fully the concrete has settled beneath a modern political alignment that revolves more around culture than class.

Continue Reading

Technology

Here’s where Apple makes its products — and how Trump’s tariffs could have an impact

Published

on

By

Here's where Apple makes its products — and how Trump's tariffs could have an impact

Apple’s iPhone 16 at an Apple Store on Regent Street in London on Sept. 20, 2024.

Rasid Necati Aslim | Anadolu | Getty Images

Apple has made moves to diversify its supply chain beyond China to places like India and Vietnam, but tariffs announced by the White House are set to hit those countries too.

U.S. President Donald Trump laid out “reciprocal tariff” rates on more than 180 countries on Wednesday.

China will face a 34% tariff, but with the existing 20% rate, that brings the true tariff rate on Beijing under this Trump term to 54%, CNBC reported. India faces a 26% tariff, while Vietnam’s rate is 46%.

Apple was not immediately available for comment when contacted by CNBC.

Here’s a breakdown on Apple’s supply chain footprint that could be affected by tariffs.

China

The majority of Apple’s iPhones are still assembled in China by partner Foxconn.

China accounts for around 80% of Apple’s production capacity, according to estimates from Evercore ISI in a note last month.

Around 90% of iPhones are assembled in China, Evercore ISI said.

While the number of manufacturing sites in China dropped between Apple’s 2017 and 2020 fiscal year, it has since rebounded, Bernstein said in a note last month. Chinese suppliers account for around 40% of Apple’s total, Bernstein said.

Evercore ISI estimates that 55% of Apple’s Mac products and 80% of iPads are assembled in China.

India

Apple is targeting around 25% of all iPhones globally to be made in India, a government minister said in 2023.

India could reach about 15%-20% of overall iPhone production by the end of 2025, Bernstein analysts estimate. Evercore ISI said around 10% to 15% of iPhones are currently assembled in India.

Vietnam

Vietnam has emerged in the past few years as a popular manufacturing hub for consumer electronics. Apple has increased its production in Vietnam.

Around 20% of iPad production and 90% of Apple’s wearable product assembly like the Apple Watch takes place in Vietnam, according to Evercore ISI.

Other key countries

Continue Reading

Politics

Alabama, Minnesota lawmakers join US states pushing for Bitcoin reserves

Published

on

By

Alabama, Minnesota lawmakers join US states pushing for Bitcoin reserves

Alabama, Minnesota lawmakers join US states pushing for Bitcoin reserves

Lawmakers in the US states of Minnesota and Alabama filed companion bills to identical existing bills that if passed into law, would allow each state to buy Bitcoin.

The Minnesota Bitcoin Act, or HF 2946, was introduced to the state’s House by Republican Representative Bernie Perryman on April 1, following an identical bill introduced on March 17 by GOP state Senator Jeremy Miller.

Meanwhile, on the same day in Alabama, Republican state Senator Will Barfoot introduced Senate Bill 283, while a bi-partisan group of representatives led by Republican Mike Shaw filed the identical House Bill 482, which allows for the state to invest in crypto, but essentially limits it to Bitcoin (BTC).

Twin Alabama bills don’t explicitly name Bitcoin

Minnesota’s Bitcoin Act would allow the state’s investment board to invest state assets in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and permit state employees to add crypto to retirement accounts.

It would also exempt crypto gains from state income taxes and give residents the option to pay state taxes and fees with Bitcoin.

Alabama, Minnesota lawmakers join US states pushing for Bitcoin reserves

Source: Bitcoin Laws

The twin Alabama bills don’t explicitly identify Bitcoin, but would limit the state’s crypto investment into assets that have a minimum market value of $750 billion, a criterion that only Bitcoin currently meets.

26 Bitcoin reserve bills now introduced in the US

Introducing identical bills is not uncommon in the US and is typically done to speed up the bicameral legislative process so laws can pass more quickly.

Bills to create a Bitcoin reserve have been introduced in 26 US states, with Arizona currently the closest to passing a law to make one, according to data from the bill tracking website Bitcoin Laws.

Alabama, Minnesota lawmakers join US states pushing for Bitcoin reserves

Arizona currently leads in the US state Bitcoin reserve race. Source: Bitcoin Laws

Pennsylvania was one of the first US states to introduce a Bitcoin reserve bill, in November 2024. However, the initiative was reportedly eventually rejected, with similar bills also killed in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.

Related: North Carolina bills would add crypto to state’s retirement system 

Law, Bitcoin Regulation, United States, Policy, Bitcoin Reserve

Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Wyoming are the five states thathave rejected Bitcoin reserve initiatives. Source: Bitcoin Laws

According to a March 3 report by Barron’s, “red states” like Montana have faced setbacks to the Bitcoin reserve initiatives amid political confrontations between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

Additional reporting by Helen Partz.

Magazine: Financial nihilism in crypto is over — It’s time to dream big again

Continue Reading

Environment

Hyundai’s super-efficient Ioniq 6 updated with sportier look, ‘N’ model coming soon

Published

on

By

Hyundai's super-efficient Ioniq 6 updated with sportier look, 'N' model coming soon

Hyundai has unveiled the design refresh of its Ioniq 6 sedan, and announced that it will become a family of cars rather than a single model, with an N Line trim and upcoming N performance model, much like its sister car the Ioniq 5.

Hyundai has been doing great with its EVs lately, hitting sales records and getting great reviews.

Much of that focus has been on the Ioniq 5, an attractive crossover SUV with lots of capability at a good price – and a bonkers N performance version which has been breaking different kinds of records.

The Ioniq 6, conversely, hasn’t attracted quite as much attention, even though it has some records of its own (it’s the most efficient vehicle in the US… for under $70k).

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Between its admittedly odd looks – much more aerodynamic and rounded than the comparatively blocky 5 – and it fitting into the less-popular (but better) sedan form factor, it just hasn’t captured as much imagination as the 5.

It has also fallen somewhat behind. The Ioniq 5 got a big update this year, including a native NACS port, the first non-Tesla mass market vehicle to hit the road with one of these included (and it even charges faster than a Tesla does on home turf). The 6, however, is still sitting on its original design from when it first started production/shipping in 2022/23.

But that’s about to change, as Hyundai is giving the model some love with a design update and some hints at new things to come.

We’ve seen spy shots of these design updates before, but now Hyundai is showing them to everyone at the Seoul Mobility Show.

Hyundai showed two models today, the standard Ioniq 6 and the “N Line,” an upgraded trim level with some interior and exterior changes to look a little more sporty. Hyundai has used similar nomenclature for its other models, and that carries over here.

Both have a redesigned front end, making it look more aggressive than the prior bulbous and aerodynamic shape, and narrower headlights.

The N Line looks even more aggressive than the standard model, though, with an even more aggressive front and rear end.

Hyundai says that the redesign will also include interior enhancements for “a more comfortable, intuitive experience,” with a redesigned steering wheel, larger climate control display, upgraded materials and redesigned center console with more physical controls.

Beyond this, the refresh was light on details – intentionally, with a full unveil of specs and changes coming later. We can imagine a lot of the improvements on the 2025 Ioniq 5 will be carried over, such as a native NACS port for example, and potentially a slightly larger or faster-charging battery.

We had also previously heard hints that an N version (yes, “N” and “N Line” are different, no, we don’t know why they used these confusing names) of the Ioniq 6 is coming, and Hyundai reiterated those hints today – even giving us a glimpse of the car in the background of one of its shots.

Now THIS one looks quite aggressive, with a bigger double wing and potentially some changes to the diffuser (it’s hard to tell from the shot, as the N Line also has a modified diffuser).

The ioniq 5N has earned rave reviews from enthusiasts for its bonkers driving dynamics and comparatively reasonable price for a true performance vehicle. But it’s still an SUV format, and frankly, an SUV will never be a sportscar no matter how many horsepower you put into it (I will die on this hill).

The 6, however, with its sedan shape and footprint, could make for a much more compelling sports package once it’s all put together. So we’re very excited to see what Hyundai can do if they apply the same magic they put into the 5 into a new 6N. Looking forward to July.


Charge your electric vehicle at home using rooftop solar panels. Find a reliable and competitively priced solar installer near you on EnergySage, for free. They have pre-vetted installers competing for your business, ensuring high-quality solutions and 20-30% savings. It’s free, with no sales calls until you choose an installer. Compare personalized solar quotes online and receive guidance from unbiased Energy Advisers. Get started here. – ad*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending