The Problem with Making “Affordability” The Problem 

The November election victories of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill, and Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger convinced Democrats across the party’s ideological big tent that “affordability” should be their party’s mantra.  

As Politico observed soon after the results were tallied: 

Democrats now have proof that campaigns grounded in affordability and competence can still unite the party’s fractious coalition — from democratic socialists in the nation’s biggest city to centrists in its quintessential suburbs … in a political landscape that’s been dominated by culture-war battles and Trump’s omnipresence, Democrats found traction by talking about rent, utilities and groceries instead of ideology. 

True enough. “Affordability” is merely a timely, focused version of the 1992 maxim coined by James Carville: “It’s the economy, stupid.” In almost every election, voters care most about making ends meet.  

During periods of high unemployment, as in 1992, voters focus on what it will take to create more jobs. In recent years, when unemployment has been low (though it has ticked up slowly over the past three years) and inflation has been elevated (though it has cooled since the red-hot peak during the COVID-19 pandemic), voters’ focus has shifted to how their take-home pay isn’t covering rising costs. And since President Donald Trump is a politician unusually self-indulgent and untethered to public opinion, Democrats in 2026 can seize the “affordability” mantle. 

However, as Democrats have cut their mantra from Carville’s four words to the A-word, they risk losing the plot. Some “affordability” policies may sell in a campaign year but fail to provide financial security for lower- and middle-income earners over the long haul.  

For example: tax cuts. 

Two Democratic senators considering presidential bids, New Jersey’s Cory Booker and Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen, have tax reform plans to exempt more people from paying federal income taxes. Booker would more than double the standard deduction—for joint married filers, from $31,500 to $75,000—as well as expand the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit. Van Hollen would jack that up to $92,000 but gradually phase the enhanced standard deduction out, so families making more than that can’t fully take advantage if at all.  

Being Democrats, Booker and Van Hollen still target the rich. The New Jerseyan proposes raising the corporate tax rate and closing corporate-friendly loopholes. Van Hollen offers a surcharge on millionaires. Some progressive wonks are unimpressed since 40 percent of households—including many of the poorest—already don’t pay federal income tax. So who would be helped by the Booker and Van Hollen proposals? 

As Marketwatch reported: 

The proposals are geared at working- and middle-class families. Yet some of the big beneficiaries of the Van Hollen and Booker proposals could be taxpayers in higher tax brackets, according to some observers.  

The issue starts with the escalating tax rates that run from 10% to 37%. A deduction is worth more to richer households because it starts by subtracting money that’s taxed at a person’s highest rate.  

Chuck Marr, vice president for federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities [CBPP], said the early details of the proposals have good intentions, in his view — but they also have pitfalls.  

“The centerpiece [is] major expansions of the standard deduction that are very expensive and flow to people that just don’t need another tax cut,” he said. 

As preliminary estimates from the conservative Tax Foundation show, Booker’s standard deduction expansion mostly benefits households in the 40th to 90th income deciles.  

Now, Marr, from the progressive CBPP, may argue that these policies cut taxes for those who “don’t need another tax cut.” But the recipients would disagree, which is why “affordability” is such a widespread concern.  

A New York Times poll sampled in January found that only 29 percent of registered voters “feel” they can afford “regular expenses like rent, bills, gas and groceries” without “worrying about the cost.” Eleven percent say they can’t afford regular expenses at all, but the largest share by far, 59 percent, say they “can afford them but worry about the cost.” The worries are many and surely include much of the middle-class, broadly defined. (The poll’s crosstabs show similar percentages of worriers among race and educational achievement cohorts.) 

Moreover, the worriers really sweat big-ticket items, especially education and housing. Fifty-eight percent said the cost of education “has gotten so high that it has become unaffordable,” and 54 percent say the same of housing. And roughly 30 percent say of both, “the cost feels high, but it is still somewhat affordable.” Nearly the entire electorate feels, at minimum, that these costs are high. 

For a senator looking in the mirror and seeing the next president, offering tax relief to voters who may not need it but feel they do is a feature, not a bug. It meets voters where they are. Democratic strategists have been arguing their candidates need to do more of that. It’s why political pros were wowed by Mamdani’s laser focus on the cost of living, and his social media videos about food truck prices and freezing rent. 

But the goal “affordability” does not demand progressive, let alone socialist, policies. Republicans have known this for decades. That’s why they run on tax cuts.  

The Democratic Party’s decades-long challenge has been to argue that lower taxes, in and of themselves, do not make life more affordable. A lower federal tax bill doesn’t mean much if the extra cash is eaten up by more expensive gas and grocery bills. In fact, tax cuts can fuel inflation by increasing consumer demand when not enough supply is available to meet the demand.  

Moreover, lower federal taxes can lead to higher state and local taxes. State and municipal governments must provide essential services and balance their budgets. Less federal aid to education, health care, and infrastructure doesn’t save taxpayers money; it shifts the burden, and not in a thoughtful, progressive manner. As I wrote last month, frustration with high property taxes in Republican-controlled Texas—which doesn’t even have a state personal income tax—appears to have contributed to Democrats flipping a state Senate seat in the Fort Worth suburbs. 

But explaining this requires, well, explanation. Tax cuts are simple to grasp, while policies that could ameliorate inflationary pressures (the Washington Monthly has ideas!) can be complicated. Traumatized Democrats have lost faith in their ability to explain, or the voters’ ability to comprehend, complicated concepts. 

Yet simplicity has its downsides, as the Booker and Van Hollen plans show.  

Examined in isolation, the proposals let millions increase their take-home pay. The Tax Foundation estimates that Booker’s standard deduction provision alone amounts to a $6.3 trillion tax cut over 10 years (though he claims his corporate tax increases would “fully” pay for the overall proposal). But that money might be invested more efficiently in a comprehensive affordability agenda that increases housing supply to reduce prices, reins in health care and college costs, and helps local governments maintain roads and schools without excessive, regressive property tax increases. Granted, achieving those goals takes more time than a quickie tax cut—and anything without an instant payoff can be tricky for politicians to sell—but it would provide longer-lasting relief for squeezed households.  

The urgent need to bury MAGAism tempts Democrats to unite behind whatever it takes to win. Suppose you could prove that only a promise of a $6.3 trillion tax cut, directed primarily at middle- and upper-income earners, would guarantee Democrats control of Congress in 2026 and the presidency in 2028. That would be compelling. But no such proof exists. Democrats already appear poised for a victorious midterm, at least in the House, without any overpromising.  

And overpromising is why Trump and his MAGA-fied Republican Party are so weak today. Unrealistic and grandiose claims were good enough for GOP wins in 2016 and 2024, but not in between. Failure to meet expectations is not how a party wins consecutive elections. Democrats should learn from Trump’s mistakes, not repeat them.