Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Jan Schneider
Jan Schneider (Democratic Party) is running for election to the U.S. House to represent Florida's 16th Congressional District. She declared candidacy for the 2026 election.[source]
Biography
Jan Schneider earned a bachelor's degree from Brown University, a graduate degree from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. from Yale University. Her career experience includes working as a lawyer, small business owner, adjunct professor, and author.[1]
Elections
2026
See also: Florida's 16th Congressional District election, 2026
General election
The general election will occur on November 3, 2026.
General election for U.S. House Florida District 16
Incumbent Vern Buchanan, Jonathan Harris, Glenn Pearson, and Jan Schneider are running in the general election for U.S. House Florida District 16 on November 3, 2026.
Candidate | ||
 | Vern Buchanan (R) | |
| Jonathan Harris (D) | ||
| Glenn Pearson (D) | ||
 | Jan Schneider (D) | |
| ||||
 = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Endorsements
Ballotpedia is gathering information about candidate endorsements. To send us an endorsement, click here.
2024
See also: Florida's 16th Congressional District election, 2024
Florida's 16th Congressional District election, 2024 (August 20 Democratic primary)
Florida's 16th Congressional District election, 2024 (August 20 Republican primary)
General election
General election for U.S. House Florida District 16
Incumbent Vern Buchanan defeated Jan Schneider in the general election for U.S. House Florida District 16 on November 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Vern Buchanan (R) | 59.5 | 247,516 |
| Jan Schneider (D) | 40.5 | 168,625 | |
| Total votes: 416,141 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for U.S. House Florida District 16
Jan Schneider defeated Trent Miller in the Democratic primary for U.S. House Florida District 16 on August 20, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Jan Schneider | 65.7 | 23,701 |
 | Trent Miller | 34.3 | 12,395 | |
| Total votes: 36,096 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Republican primary election
Republican primary for U.S. House Florida District 16
Incumbent Vern Buchanan defeated Eddie Speir in the Republican primary for U.S. House Florida District 16 on August 20, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Vern Buchanan | 60.9 | 38,789 |
 | Eddie Speir | 39.1 | 24,868 | |
| Total votes: 63,657 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Endorsements
Ballotpedia did not identify endorsements for Schneider in this election.
2022
See also: Florida's 16th Congressional District election, 2022
General election
General election for U.S. House Florida District 16
Incumbent Vern Buchanan defeated Jan Schneider and Ralph E. Hartman in the general election for U.S. House Florida District 16 on November 8, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Vern Buchanan (R) | 62.1 | 189,762 |
| Jan Schneider (D) | 37.8 | 115,575 | |
 | Ralph E. Hartman (No Party Affiliation) (Write-in) | 0.0 | 21 | |
| Total votes: 305,358 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Democratic primary election
The Democratic primary election was canceled. Jan Schneider advanced from the Democratic primary for U.S. House Florida District 16.
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
Republican primary election
Republican primary for U.S. House Florida District 16
Incumbent Vern Buchanan defeated Martin Hyde in the Republican primary for U.S. House Florida District 16 on August 23, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Vern Buchanan | 86.2 | 64,028 |
 | Martin Hyde | 13.8 | 10,219 | |
| Total votes: 74,247 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
2018
General election
General election for U.S. House Florida District 16
Incumbent Vern Buchanan defeated David Shapiro in the general election for U.S. House Florida District 16 on November 6, 2018.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Vern Buchanan (R) | 54.6 | 197,483 |
 | David Shapiro (D) | 45.4 | 164,463 | |
| Total votes: 361,946 (100.00% precincts reporting) | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Sean Canfield (No Party Affiliation)
- Eric Allen (G)
- Robert Samuel Kaplan (No Party Affiliation)
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for U.S. House Florida District 16
David Shapiro defeated Jan Schneider in the Democratic primary for U.S. House Florida District 16 on August 28, 2018.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | David Shapiro | 54.7 | 34,807 |
| Jan Schneider | 45.3 | 28,834 | |
| Total votes: 63,641 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Calen Cristiani (D)
Republican primary election
Republican primary for U.S. House Florida District 16
Incumbent Vern Buchanan advanced from the Republican primary for U.S. House Florida District 16 on August 28, 2018.
Candidate | ||
| ✔ | | Vern Buchanan |
| ||||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Andrew Smyth (R)
2016
Heading into the election, Ballotpedia rated this race as safely Republican. Incumbent Vern Buchanan (R) defeated Jan Schneider (D) in the general election on November 8, 2016. Buchanan defeated James Satcher in the Republican primary, while Schneider defeated Brent King to win the Democratic nomination. The primary elections took place on August 30, 2016.[2][3]
| Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican |  Vern Buchanan Incumbent |
59.8% | 230,654 | |
| Democratic | Jan Schneider | 40.2% | 155,262 | |
| Total Votes | 385,916 | |||
| Source: Florida Division of Elections | ||||
| Candidate | Vote % | Votes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Vern Buchanan Incumbent |
80.6% | 53,706 | ||
| James Satcher | 19.4% | 12,900 | ||
| Total Votes | 66,606 | |||
| Source: Florida Division of Elections |
||||
| Candidate | Vote % | Votes | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Jan Schneider |
76.2% | 31,387 | ||
| Brent King | 23.8% | 9,782 | ||
| Total Votes | 41,169 | |||
| Source: Florida Division of Elections |
||||
Campaign themes
2026
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Jan Schneider has not yet completed Ballotpedia's 2026 Candidate Connection survey. Send a message to Jan Schneider asking her to fill out the survey. If you are Jan Schneider, click here to fill out Ballotpedia's 2026 Candidate Connection survey.
Who fills out Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey?
Any candidate running for elected office, at any level, can complete Ballotpedia's Candidate Survey. Completing the survey will update the candidate's Ballotpedia profile, letting voters know who they are and what they stand for. More than 22,000 candidates have taken Ballotpedia's candidate survey since we launched it in 2015. Learn more about the survey here.
You can ask Jan Schneider to fill out this survey by using the button below or emailing info@votejan.com.
2024
Jan Schneider completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2024. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Schneider's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.
| Collapse all
I believe in the famous statement by Vice President Hubert Humphrey: “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.” This requires difficult choices to avoid incurring huge deficits and burdening future generations with excessive debt.
One should be well informed to guide such balanced efforts. I have the education: BA summa cum laude from Brown University, MIA (International Affairs) from Columbia, and JD and PhD (Political Science) from Yale.
Long involvement in politics has also afforded me useful background. Besides practicing law, I authored a book and numerous articles on contemporary issues. Board memberships have included: nationally, American Society of International Law, Council on Ocean Law, Foundation for Art and Preservation in Embassies, International Law Association, Law of the Sea Institute and Roshan Cultural Heritage Institute; and locally, Disabled American Veterans Auxiliary, First Responders for Democracy, Gulf Coast Marine Institute South, Henry Lawrence Youth Foundation, Lemon Bay Conservancy, Protect Our Waters, Suncoast Commission on the Status of Women and Sarasota-Manatee National Organization for Women.
Called a wonk, I am a wonk with heart.- REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH. A fervent advocate for women’s rights, I believe Congress should pass legislation restoring Roe v. Wade standards nationwide. Congress should also eliminate the Hyde Amendment prohibiting use of federal funds for abortions, which discriminates against those dependent on Medicaid and other government health insurance programs. In contrast, our opponent espouses the anti-choice mantra “every American, born and unborn, has the God-given right to life.” He has consistently voted against not only access to abortion, but also to contraception and other choice measures. Recently he has taken up the line that reproductive issues must be left to the states, but Arizona showed how disastrous that can be.
- SECURITY FOR SENIORS. Florida CD16 is distinctive in consistently rating so high in proportion of senior citizens. Sustaining Medicare is crucial to our district and to seniors nationwide. Our campaign supports maintaining and enhancing coverage. In contrast, our opponent has repeatedly voted to privatize Medicare by converting to a “premium support”/voucher system. We are also fighting to save Social Security. We oppose decreasing benefits or further elevating the retirement age, but support sustainability measures such as raising the taxable maximum or “cap”. In contrast, our opponent has embraced proposals that would make drastic cuts to Social Security, partially privatize it and gradually increase the normal retirement age to 70.
- DEMOCRACY. Our Constitution and democratic republic are threatened. We abhor racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic notions and violence they provoke. Rejecting cooperation and civility, many politicians now indulge in hyper-partisanship. We support equality for all, including in employment, marriage, housing, justice and credit. Accordingly, we oppose voter suppression, gerrymandering and election lies. Big‐money interests are also corrupting our elections. Congress should strive to counteract the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, reversing longstanding campaign finance restrictions. As the dissent observed in a related case, “[w]here enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard."
BORDER/IMMIGRATION controls, including additional funding for border protection, better processing of asylum claims, strengthened bans on drug and human trafficking and humane treatment of asylum seekers
CLIMATE CHANGE, including increased tax credits for clean energy development and technology
ECONOMY prosperous for ALL, including fair taxes and trade
GUN SAFETY, including banning automatic weapons
HEALTH, including sustaining the Affordable Care Act
JOBS, including living wages
NATIONAL SECURITY, including aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan.
SPACE program, including enhancing research and defense.
Several qualifications are obvious, albeit somewhat rare these days. Dedication, integrity and truthfulness first come to mind, contrary to the contemporary success of the “big lie.” Seeking public office should be about desire to serve, not about personal power, selfish interests or financial gain.
One must also have an understanding of the basic nature of our representative democracy. This includes deep familiarity with the characteristics and needs of constituents, the structure and functioning of the federal government and major issues before Congress. Leadership, communication and negotiation skills are essential to achieving compromise and building consensus.
Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.
Campaign website
Schneider's campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
ABORTION / REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM Jan Schneider is pro-choice and a fervent advocate of women regaining reproductive freedom and control of our bodies. She believes that Congress should immediately pass legislation restoring the standards of Roe v. Wade nationwide. She also believes that Congress should eliminate the Hyde Amendment prohibiting use of federal funds for abortions, which among other things discriminates against those dependent on Medicaid and other government-sponsored programs. Opponent Vern Buchanan (R-FL16) believes “every American, born and unborn, has the God-given right to life.” His repeated votes against ensuring access to abortion, rights to contraception, and other measures to improve women’s reproductive health consistently earn him an A+ on the National Pro-Life Scorecard. BORDER / IMMIGRATION Jan Schneider favors a comprehensive immigration bill containing additional funding for border protection agencies and officers; an efficient and fair process for considering asylum claims; a clearer standard for qualifying for asylum; strengthened provisions against trafficking of fentanyl and other drugs, human trafficking and currency smuggling; and assurances of humane treatment of asylum seekers. While she finds some provisions and some omissions objectionable, Jan would have voted for the early 2024 bipartisan Border Bill as a valuable step toward stemming the chaos at our southern border. Opponent Vern Buchanan has summarized his position on immigration/border issues as “No Amnesty. Secure the Border. Enforce the Rule of Law. Respect the Constitution.” BUDGET Jan Schneider, although socially progressive, is fiscally conservative. While steadfastly supporting balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, she opposes a Balanced Budget Amendment. Such a constitutional amendment would deprive federal policymakers of essential flexibility to address national security, economic and natural disaster emergencies and would give dangerous additional power to congressional extremists. Opponent Vern Buchanan has repeatedly fought for a Balanced Budget Amendment. Nevertheless, he was willing to plunge the federal government into default and financial chaos, voting with a minority of Republicans against the most recent bipartisan debt ceiling and spending cuts bill. CAMPAIGN FINANCE Jan Schneider recognizes that our federal and state governments are for sale – at huge price tags. She believes that Congress should undertake to reverse the Citizens United case and could support an amendment to make clear that the Constitution does not restrict the ability of Congress or states to propose reasonable limits on private campaign contributions and independent expenditures. Opponent Vern Buchanan has voted against campaign finance reform proposals and for making permanent the Trump tax cuts for the ultra-rich and wealthy corporations. CLIMATE CHANGE Jan Schneider has worked for the United Nations Environment Programme and will continue to fight for legislation to curb climate change. She supports a wide range of measures, starting with increased tax credits to encourage development of clean energy resources and technology to capture and store carbon emissions. Opponent Vern Buchanan has consistently opposed bills to control climate change. This included voting against the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the most far-reaching United States legislation to reduce greenhouse gases pollution to date. His latest rating was 0% on the League of Conservation Voters Congressional Scorecard. ECONOMY Jan Schneider opposes making permanent the disproportionate boons for the wealthiest few in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Instead, Jan wants fair taxes with no increases for the middle class; supports raising the federal minimum wage to a living wage; seeks greater security for working families; and favors fair trade measures protecting American industry, workers and the economy. Opponent Vern Buchanan has a net worth calculated to be as high as $160 million and is self-serving. He has repeatedly championed bills to make the Trump Tax Cuts permanent; sought and enjoyed forgiveness of over $2.3 million in 2020 Paycheck Protection Act loans; and consistently voted for policies and engaged in practices advantaging himself and other ultra-rich Americans. GUNS Jan Schneider believes the 2023 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act represented an important step forward in improving firearms safety. Opponent Vern Buchanan voted Nay on that bill. He also voted against the 2021 Enhanced Background Checks Act, despite having previously backed a more expansive version. HEALTH Jan Schneider believes that not only the wealthy deserve to be healthy. She supports strengthening the Affordable Care Act and transitioning to Medicare for All. Opponent Vern Buchanan and his GOP cohorts, in contrast, seek to undermine the United States healthcare system still further. They want to dismantle Obamacare, turn Medicare into a “premium support”/vouchers system and drastically cut Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’, children’s and other healthcare funding. JOBS Jan Schneider will fight against joblessness and for jobs with living wages. In particular, she supports raising the federal minimum wage to $15 over a period of three or four years and thereafter indexing it to inflation. Opponent Vern Buchanan voted to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 back in 2007, but he has thereafter opposed further increases, including in the pandemic relief package. The two also disagree on related issues, including tax policies, gender gaps and healthcare. MEDICARE Jan Schneider is committed to sustaining Medicare and phasing in dental, hearing and vision coverage. She also supports transitioning to offering Medicare for All. Opponent Vern Buchanan has, in contrast, repeatedly voted effectually to privatize Medicare by converting to a voucher system devastating to seniors. Meanwhile, he represents a congressional district regularly ranked in the top ten or even five in terms of age and with nearly a quarter of its residents over 65. PORT MANATEE Jan Schneider will energetically advocate in Congress for all available assistance to Port Manatee. Opponent Vern Buchanan has shown considerable interest in Port Manatee, but he voted against both the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (a/k/a Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) and American Rescue Plan Act. SOCIAL SECURITY Jan Schneider supports raising the Social Security taxable maximum or “cap”, ceasing raiding the Trust Funds and implementing other financial measures to sustain the system. She opposes decreasing benefits or further raising the retirement age. Opponent Vern Buchanan, for his part, has repeatedly embraced proposals to make drastic cuts to Social Security, partially privatize the system and gradually increase the normal retirement age to 70. SPACE Jan Schneider believes it crucial for the United States federal government, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in particular, to reexamine, redefine and balance U.S. priorities and activities in space. Opponent Vern Buchanan is not known to have opined much about space (or cyberspace) policies. VETERANS Jan Schneider will continue to fight for veterans and military families, including for: full funding of veterans’ healthcare, with mental health and women’s reproductive health coverage; veterans’ benefits, including under the 2022 Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act (PACT Act); additional assistance to homeless, unemployed and addicted vets; and assistance to military victims of sexual assault. Opponent Vern Buchanan has generally supported veterans and routinely stages photo opportunities with them. Surprisingly, however, he voted against the PACT Act.[4] |
” |
| —Jan Schneider's campaign website (2024)[5] | ||
2022
Jan Schneider did not complete Ballotpedia's 2022 Candidate Connection survey.
Campaign website
Schneider's campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Campaign Finance Our federal and state governments are for sale – at huge price tags. Jan Schneider supports revival of reasonable campaign finance limits to restore democracy. The situation was exacerbated by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. FEC, both 5 to 4 decisions by the United States Supreme Court. The Senate and House of Representatives should vote for a Constitutional amendment to overturn these decisions and restore the ability of Congress and the states to establish campaign fundraising and spending rules that prevent billionaires and corporations from buying elections. In the 2010 decision in Citizens United, the Supreme Court struck down §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“McCain-Feingold”). The Court held that the §203 prohibition on contributions by corporations and unions violated First Amendment free speech. Citizens United led to use of Super PACS to circumvent limits on individual donors. Four years later, in the 2014 decision in McCutcheon, the Supreme Court struck down the limit on the total amount of money wealthy donors can give to federal candidates and political committees in a two-year period. The limit was enacted in the wake of Watergate, and for 2013- 14, the cap was $123,200 (including $74,600 to political parties and PACs and $48,600 to candidates). These decisions aggravate the vicious cycle of concentrations of wealth and political power in this country. Donors making huge campaign contributions may buy politicians and elections; many elected officials in turn support reducing taxes on the wealthy and deregulating and bailing out their businesses; and the richest few get even richer. As the dissent pointed out in McCutcheon, “[w]here enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard.”
Budget Currently Under Revision Jobs Jan Schneider supports a transition to a federal minimum wage of $15 per hour indexed for inflation. The current federal minimum of $7.25 per hour (and the Florida minimum of $8.25) does not allow working families, even with two full-time wage earners, adequately to support themselves and one or more children. This is not only a financial, but also a moral issue. In other words, the current issue is not jobs. The United States is at near-full employment, with a jobless rate under 4 percent. The issue is jobs that pay living wage. Democrats have “Raise the Wage” bills pending both in the Senate and the House of Representatives (S.1242 & H.R.15). The bills would phase in a $15/hour minimum wage over a seven-year period and would also improve the situations of tipped workers and individuals with disabilities. The Senate bill has 31 cosponsors and the House version 171. Considering that there are currently 49 Senators who caucus with the Democrats 193 Democrats in the House, the policy has gone mainstream. In Jan’s view, a country that can afford to give $1.5 trillion in tax cuts to the richest Americans and wealthy corporations can and should ensure living wages for its workers. It has now become clear that the benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act have not “trickled down” or resulted in substantial increases in worker salaries and wages. Moreover, increasing the minimum wage may be the biggest stimulus for the economy – and it will certainly afford working families greater security and better living standards. The U.S. Debt Clock
Climate Change and Clean Energy Climate Change is real and immediate. The Paris Agreement adopted on December 12, 2015 is a great step forward in committing countries to pursue efforts to limit global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. But the Paris Agreement is a beginning rather than a solution. It consists more of aspirations than firm commitments and lacks effective enforcement mechanisms. Jan is a strong advocate for accelerated transitions to clean and renewable energy sources, reduced American and global dependence on fossil fuels and consistent implementation of the “polluter pays” principle. It is past time to stop new offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Six years after the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Gulf is still suffering grave environmental aftereffects. Jan has for decades opposed drilling in the Arctic, especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), one of the last pristine wildernesses. She continues to oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline, Phase IV of the Canada-U.S. Keystone Pipeline system, which was rejected by the Obama Administration in late 2015. Jan opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) for its lack of environmental as well as labor protections. In the 6,000 pages of the TPP, neither “climate change” nor “global warming” is mentioned. Worse, the TPP has the potential to add fuel to the climate crisis. The Sierra Club has pointed out several problems in this regard. The TP would, among other problems, allow companies to attack climate policies in private tribunals, require the U.S. Department of Energy to approve all exports of liquefied natural gas and thereby increase dependence on a fuel with high greenhouse emissions, increase emissions that cause global warming and even restrict government efforts to combat climate change. Particularly for Floridians, it is important to add that Jan is a staunch opponent of fracking (hydraulic fracturing). Fracking involves pumping a toxic cocktail of water and potent chemicals (some known carcinogens) underground at extreme pressure to break up rock formations and release oil or natural gas. It poses grave risks to human and animal health and water supplies. Jan seeks early repeal of the “Halliburton loophole” in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that exempts fracking fluids from the Safe Drinking Water Act. More generally, she urges an immediate halt to fracking on public lands and would support a nationwide fracking ban by Congress. Manatees Protection of manatees or “sea cows” is sacred to our congressional district. We especially loved, and mourn the loss of, Snooty. Manatees were among the first species to be classified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered back in 1967. There are practical consequences to the different classifications in terms of required degrees of protection. Manatees should continue benefit from, among other things, special speed limits in boating zones and restrictions on dredging and other disruptive activities.
Jan Schneider believes in sensible gun control/safety measures to abate gun violence. Weapons of war, and particularly AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, have no place in civilian hands. On February 14, 2018, a gunman identified as Nikolas Cruz opened fire in Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. He killed 17 people and wounded 14 others. Cruz was armed with at least one AR-15 and “countless magazines.” The Parkland incident followed a horrible pattern. Most mass shootings in the United States in recent years have involved the AR-15. These include: Newtown, Connecticut (2012); San Bernardino, California (2015); Orlando, Florida (2016); Las Vegas, Nevada (2017); and Sutherland Springs, Texas (2017). While respecting the Second Amendment, Jan favors the following measures: universal background checks; closing the internet, gun show and “Charleston” (3-day) loopholes; bans on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and bump stocks; and restrictions on ownership by the seriously mentally ill, suspected terrorists (no-fly-no-buy) and persons under 21. Jan opposes concealed-carry reciprocity. Such ideas are scarcely new or startling. There was a federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) — officially known as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-322) — in effect between September 13, 1994 and September 13, 2004. It included limits on magazines holding more than ten rounds. The law survived several legal challenges, but Congress allowed the10-year ban to expire. A renewed assault weapons ban could have an impact in reducing horrendous tragedies in schools and elsewhere. It would, however be the beginning rather than the end of measures to reduce gun violence. According to the Gun Violence Archive, in 2017 there were 61,672 gun incidents in the United States (346 being mass shootings), resulting in 15,618 deaths and 31,232 injuries (including 3,975 children and teens killed or injured). Moreover, these figures do not include 22,000 annual suicides. Clearly, we have to address gun safety in the broader contexts of mental health, domestic violence, race relations and others. Finally, special thanks are due to the students who survived the Parkland disaster and have launched a crusade to fix America’s gun laws. We should learn from them and support their efforts.
MEDICARE Medicare is crucial to American seniors, and it is particularly important to the Florida 16th Congressional District as the second oldest in the country in demographic terms. Jan Schneider will fight for preservation of Medicare as we know it. In contrast, Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL16) has voted at least half a dozen times to convert Medicare into a “premium support” a/k/a vouchers system. This would be disastrous for most seniors, and such a system would cost the average 65-year old twice as much for healthcare as under current Medicare. The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have engaged in an assault on Medicare. Breaking an oft-repeated campaign promise, President Donald Trump sought to slash Medicare spending by $266 billion over a decade in his proposed budget for 2019. As a result of his proposed cuts, seniors and people with disabilities would face prodigious new obstacles in accessing healthcare. In his sham American Patients First Plan, Trump even broke his campaign promise to allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices. Seniors lose again. But more important for present purposes is conduct of Rep. Buchanan. As already indicated, he voted repeatedly to voucherize Medicare. Buchanan also voted in committee and the full House of Representatives to inundate our country with more debt in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, in order to fund tax $1.5 trillion in tax boons for the ultra-rich (like himself) and wealthy corporations. He then turned around and shortly thereafter voted for a Joint Resolution (H.R. Res.2) proposing a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. By requiring the federal government to spend no more than it takes in in a given year, such an amendment would be disastrous for crucial social programs, including effectively stealing the Medicare, and Social Security trust funds. In contrast, Schneider is for seniors. VoteJan – For Your Health! SINGLE-PAYER/MEDICARE FOR ALL “Single-payer” national health insurance, also known as “Medicare-for-All,” is a system in which the federal government administers healthcare financing, but the delivery of care remains private or locally-controlled. Jan Schneider believes favors transitioning to such a system. The Affordable Care Act was a major step forward in safeguarding the health of Americans. Obamacare is now, however, excessively expensive, complicated and in some parts incomprehensible. Moreover, while fatally bungling “repeal-and-replace,” President Trump and Republicans in Congress have engaged in a sustained campaign of “piece by piece” sabotage. Most notable was repeal of the ACA individual mandate in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2018. Among other assaults, the Trump administration also promulgated regulations for “short-term” or “limited duration” plans that do not have to adhere to Obamacare requirements; sliced the federal enrollment period in half; slashed 90 percent of the advertising budget; and cut 41% of funding for outreach programs. For this and other reasons, Medicare-for-All has recently been gaining popularity with the American public. A March 2018 Health Tracking Poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy think tank, came up with some remarkable findings: Overall, 59 percent of respondents favored Medicare-for-All (including 85% of Democrats, 58% of independents and 35% of Republicans). If participation is framed as an option allowing people to keep other forms of coverage they already have (a/k/a “Medicare for Some”), support increased to 75% among the overall public (87% of Democrats, 74% of independents and 64% of Republicans). There are several ways to move toward a Medicare-for-All system. In the Senate, there is, of course, the Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Medicare for All Act of 2017 (S.1804), which has 16 cosponsors. In the House of Representatives, the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act (H.R. 676), now sponsored by Rep. Keith Ellison (R-MN) with 122 cosponsors, seems simpler and in some ways more appealing. In addition, the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, has come up with a voluntary plan called “Medicare Extra for All,” which includes a parallel program called Medicare Choice (similar to Medicare Advantage) run by private insurers and would also allow employers to choose between private health insurance and a public option. Another proposal worthy of consideration as means for transitioning to Medicare-for-All is the Medicare-X Choice Act of 2917 (S.1970 & H.R.4094). Jan also particularly likes the Medicare at 55 Act (S.1742), sponsored by Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) with 19 cosponsors. In contrast, our Congressman, Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL16), has consistently voted to undermine the health of his constituents and the American public: Rep. Buchanan voted to repeal Obamacare about 60 times; he voted for the TCJA mandate repeal; he voted to abolish the Prevention and Public Health Fund; he voted at least a half dozen times to turn Medicare into a “premium support”/vouchers system; and he voted many times to cut Medicare and other healthcare funding. In general, Buchanan has regularly voted for boons for the ultra-rich and wealthy corporations at the expense of health and other social programs. In sum, Jan favors a gradual transition, perhaps over a decade and perhaps in 5-year age increments, to Medicare for All. VoteJan – For Your Health! WOMEN AND CHILDREN Jan Schneider also supports the heathcare needs of women and children. While our current representative works and votes for the rich and powerful, Jan will protect working families. Women Planned Parenthood is a leading provider of high-quality, affordable healthcare in this country. The majority of its services are preventive, including preventing unintended pregnancies with birth control and sex education, reducing the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases and infections through testing and treatment, and screening for cervical, breast, and other cancers. Planned Parenthood provides services not only to women, but also to men and to the LGBTQ community. Abortions account for only a small portion of such services – and they are not paid for by any taxpayer funding. At least 60% of Planned Parenthood patients depend on public health programs like Medicaid and Title X (low-income family planning and preventive health services) for funding their preventive and primary care. In addition to otherwise seeking to undermine Planned Parenthood, President Trump wants to impose a domestic “gag rule” that would prevent organizations that receive Title X funds from even talking about abortion. This alone will put the health of millions of low-income patients at risk. A self-described “pro-life” advocate, Vern Buchanan (R-FL16) has declared himself prepared to “work hard to defend life from conception to natural death.” Buchanan has repeatedly voted to “defund” Planned Parenthood. He has even voted to prohibit federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes abortion (going beyond the current system whereby federal funds must be segregated from those used for abortion services) and to disallow any tax benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion. The National Right to Life Committee scores him as having voted its anti-choice positions 100% of the time. Jan supports Planned Parenthood and opposes all efforts to restrict its funding. She also goes beyond that and advocates repealing the “Hyde Amendment” that effectively prevents servicewomen and female members of military families from accessing the same reproductive services (including abortion services) at military healthcare and/or other facilities as other American women can access. VoteJan – For Your Health! Children The Children’s Health Insurance Program is a cost-effective, successful program that provides health insurance coverage to 9 million low- and middle-income children. It has also become a “political football.” Congressional Republicans have displayed incredible hypocrisy in “playing politics” with the health of our children and grandchildren. First, they claimed CHIP cost the federal government too much and declined to pass an extension of the program estimated to cost $8.3 billion over five years. Then, they turned around and passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act with $1.5 trillion in tax cuts for the ultra-rich and wealthy corporations. After the TCJA repeal of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) individual mandate, the Congressional Budget Office lowered its estimate for the 5-year cost of CHIP to $800 million (balancing out the additional cost if CHIP children were moved to ACA exchanges). Thereafter, on January 22, 2018 Congress passed a six-year extension (FY2018-2023) of CHIP funding as part of a broader continuing resolution. Jan finds this sequence of events despicable. The health of our children is crucial to the future of our country. VoteJan – For Your Health!
Jan Schneider supports changes to immigration policy that would include a path to permanent legal status followed by citizenship for undocumented immigrants. There are, however, exceptions to this broad statement. Also, for the most part, such a grant should be part of compendium of comprehensive and humane immigration reform and border protection measures. Meanwhile, the current separation of children from parents as part of the Trump administration “zero tolerance” policy is inhumane and un-American. Dreamers The first issue that cries out for immediate action by Congress is the plight of the Dreamers. The March 5, 2017 deadline arbitrarily imposed by President Trump for termination of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals protections absent action by Congress has come and gone. On February 26, however, the Supreme Court came to the rescue by declining to overturn two lower court rulings and thereby continuing DACA. This protected DACA participants from deportation and termination of work authorization, but it otherwise left their lives largely in limbo. Moreover, Dreamers and DACA are not synonymous. The term “Dreamers” originated with the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act,” first introduced in 2001. DACA is an Obama-era program providing relief to close to 800,000 young, undocumented immigrants. Including those protected by DACA, the going estimate is that more than 3.6 million unauthorized immigrants entered the United States before the age of 18 and are therefore Dreamers. Jan supports the provisions of the current DREAM Act of 2017 (S.1615 & H.R.3440). The identical bills, sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), would provide an eventual path to citizenship for Dreamers who have DACA status or are undocumented. To qualify, an alien must have: (a) been continuously present in the United States for four years preceding enactment of the legislation; (b) been younger than 18 on the initial date of entry; (c) not been deemed inadmissible on criminal, security, terrorism, or other grounds; (d) not participated in persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion;(e) not been convicted of specified federal or state offenses; and (f) fulfilled specified educational requirements. Temporary Protected Status Another group that needs especially rapid action is people enjoying Temporary Protected Status. Under the TPS program, the Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized to declare eligible individuals from designated countries afflicted by armed conflict, environmental disaster, epidemic or other extraordinary and temporary conditions. While the program has long been supported by presidents of both major parties, President Trump is intent on ending it. He has already terminated TPS status for Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Nepal and Honduras. With reference to the TPS program, Trump reportedly asked during a meeting on immigration: “Why do we want all these people from “shithole countries” coming here?” Particularly concerned about the 50,000 TPS recipients from Haiti who reside in Florida, three Representatives from Florida – Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R), Alcee Hastings (D) and Frederica Wilson (D) — have signed on among 20 cosponsors to the ASPIRE-TPS Act of 2017 (H.R.4384). It would let every person covered by TPS on January 1, 2017 apply for permanent residency by proving extreme hardship if forced to return home. Our campaign supports this bill. Comprehensive Reform The immigration issue is, of course, much broader than the above. Most creditable estimates seem to put the number of undocumented immigrants/illegal aliens currently in this country in the range of 11 to 12 million. About half are thought to be Mexicans, although their proportion has declined sharply in recent years. The sheer number of people involved cries out for a comprehensive solution. The most recent real effort in Congress broadly to address United States immigration policy — including the millions of undocumented immigrants/illegal aliens in the country — appears to have been the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S.744). This bill was introduced by SenatorCharles Schumer (D-NY) and was co- sponsored by the other seven members of the “Gang of Eight” a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators who wrote and negotiated the bill. It would have provided a path to citizenship for many undocumented immigrants. It would also have doubled the number of border agents to 40,000, added 700 miles of fencing on the southern border and even expanded use of drones to patrol that border. No one was thrilled by S.744, but many supported it. The bill passed the Senate by 68 to 32 on June 27, 2013, but it was not considered by the House and died in the 113th Congress. Although a lot has changed in the past five years, we may have to look backwards-to-the future and reexamine the parameters of such a compromise. A comprehensive package should include, among other things: (a) a path to permanent residence and eventually citizenship for those already in the country meeting specified conditions (no criminal records, etc.); (b) review, modernization and enforcement of temporary worker programs; (c) penalties for employers who knowingly bring in and/or hire unauthorized workers; (d) clearer requirements for treatment of temporary workers so as not to undermine wages and working conditions of U.S. workers; and (e) rational, humane and effective border control measures. Border Issues Jan opposes the wall Trump wants to build along the Mexican border – even in the unlikely event Mexico were agreeable to paying for some or all of it. Cost estimates for the Trump wall vary incredibly, from about $10 to $70 billion, depending on the source. Moreover, such estimates typically fail to include the costs of eminent domain, and two-thirds of the border land in question is said to be private or state-owned. But more importantly, the wall is extremely unlikely to be effective. In Jan’s view, a more promising and humane approach to limiting future illegal immigration would be to increase penalties on employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers. We have the National Instant Background Check System for guns and could undoubtedly develop something similar to NICS for employment. After fixing immigration laws, this country needs to enforce them, even in the face of intense pressures to overlook violations. Separation of Children Meanwhile, 2500 or more migrant children are reported to have been separated from their parents at the United States-Mexico border by mid-June 2018. This is the result of a Trump administration “zero-tolerance” policy for their parents, who are accused of illegally entering the country. President Donald Trump persists, however, in blaming a nonexistent Democratic immigration law. Experts say that this separation of children will have long-term health effects on the kids. Moreover, many of these families are escaping countries experiencing widespread violence and suppression of basic human rights, including Honduras and El Salvador. The whole separation policy is not only morally indefensible, but also a violation of United States commitments under international law.
Port Manatee is in the Florida 16th Congressional District. Also, while Port Tampa Bay is not itself in CD16, many who depend on it for services and employment are residents. Port Manatee With regard to Port Manatee, as the nearest deepwater seaport to the expanded Panama Canal (newly-reopened on June 26, 2016), it has huge and growing potential for the area and the country. Port Manatee offers container, bulk, breakbulk, heavylift, project and general cargo customer services and generates more than $2.3 billion annually for the local economy, including providing 24,000 jobs. The Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 2016 included funding of $700,000 for a dredging feasibility study for Port Manatee (one of only 10 waterways in the continental United States identified for such assistance). In addition, the FY2016 Budget included $300,000 for maintenance and $100,000 for operation of Manatee Harbor. Port Manatee has a target harbor depth of 45 feet, and Manatee Harbor is currently at 40 feet. Should the project ultimately come to fruition, deepening the harbor offers the possibility of serving larger ships and generating greater revenue. Obviously, this would be a great boon for Port Manatee and the people of our district. Port Tampa Bay As regards Port Tampa Bay, it is the largest port in Florida. This port handles more than one-third of the cargo moving in and out of the state, in addition to large-scale cruise operations. In anticipation of the reopening of the expanded Panama Canal, Port Tampa Bay has in recent years benefitted from upgraded infrastructure for both rail and truck transport to and from its facilities. Such projects have been supported in part by the federal government, including a $105 million in federal stimulus funds towards a new dedicated truck ramp to Interstate-4. Port Tampa Bay has also been upgrading its cyber security measures, thanks to $1.6 million from the Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Intergenerational Equity Federal policy decisions are frequently presented as issues of intergenerational equity. In some areas they clearly are, but others represent false dichotomies. On the one hand, environmental policies and practices today clearly affect future generations. Climate change is probably the outstanding example. Fiscal policies too can have such intergenerational impacts. With the national debt at over $19 trillion, we cannot afford to finance expensive military ventures – in the case of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, as much $6 trillion – by borrowing and foisting the costs on future generations. On the other, in the area of entitlements, policy issues are often unfairly posited as “zero-sum” choices between seniors and children. Social Security, Medicare and other earned benefits and federal assistance programs allow seniors to live independently, without burdening their families. Enhancing the health and education of our children through federal programs such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is an investment both in our families and in the future of the country. The two are complementary, both supporting family, societal and moral values. Medicare Jan will be a strong advocate for protecting and enhancing Medicare for present and future seniors. By contrast, Republicans, led by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, have sought to privatize Medicare by converting it to a “premium support” or “voucher” system. Representative Vern Buchanan has repeatedly voted for Ryan budgets that would end Medicare as we know it. More specifically, privatizing Medicare would effectively deny healthcare to millions of seniors in the United States. Support payments/vouchers are expected to cover only about 40 percent of insurance premiums and additional healthcare costs. Privatization could thrust this country back to the situation before enactment of Medicare in 1965, when half of seniors had no health insurance and almost all lacked access to tax-subsided policies from employers. Moreover, as already indicated, most retirees fail to amass adequate resources to finance basic necessities, let alone to defray escalating healthcare costs. That said, even though recent measures such as the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) have had some beneficial effects, and even with wealthier Americans already paying substantial surcharges for their Part B and Part D Coverage, Medicare is ailing. The system faces grave financial problems, due both to the hordes of Americans reaching senior status while the workforce is shrinking and to the burgeoning and excessive healthcare expenses in the United States. The former is inexorable; but the fact that this country spends more on our healthcare system by any measure than all other industrialized countries, with no better or worse outcomes, need not be. Medicare may itself offer a path to a solution. Allowing all Americans to buy into the system at relative actuarial costs – if need be through the Obamacare Health Insurance Exchanges — may offer the best means for stabilizing Medicare, reigning in future healthcare expenses and protecting the health of Baby Boomers and their successors. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is unwieldy, excessively expensive and in need of reform, and some of us continue to believe that a single-payer national insurance system would be preferable, more effective and less costly. Nevertheless, there has been an estimated reduction of 20 million adults without health insurance since passage of the ACA, a major achievement of historic proportions. Meanwhile, the United States remains the only wealthy, industrialized country without a comprehensive national health insurance or healthcare system. Government control of healthcare delivery mechanisms, national healthcare or socialized medicine in traditional terms, appears contrary to the political and economic culture in this country, as well as repugnant to the medical community and large portions of the citizenry. Jan opposes such proposals. On the other hand, expanding Medicare (or a scaled-down Medicare), a social insurance program, progressively to cover younger age groups on a voluntary basis seems the least disruptive and most promising path to achieving universal health insurance, reductions in the costs of American healthcare and a healthier population. Jan favors pilot programs to this end. In any event, it should go without saying that any and all remedial measures must include continuing and expanding efforts to cut down the fraud, waste and abuse that plague the system at healthcare provider levels. Social Security Social Security is and should remain the ultimate “safety net” for present and future generations of seniors. Jan is committed to protecting the system and restoring its financial health. Social Security currently provides more than half of their income for two-thirds of all seniors in this country and 90 percent for more than one-third – and commensurately alleviates anxieties and potential burdens for their children and grandchildren. We should secure and expand the system, not privatize it or reduce benefits. Eliminating or at least raising the Social Security cap or taxable maximum, $118,500 for 2015 and 2016, is a long-overdue corrective that would go a long way toward both preserving and improving the system. Cracking down on abuses, especially misclassification by employers of workers as independent contractors instead of employees, will also get considerably more money into the system. Jan favors such proposals. Other proposed solutions, however, risk fundamentally altering the purpose and nature of Social Security. Increasing the retirement age further will disadvantage workers who are unable to perform more physical and lower paid work after age 66 or 67, compared to wealthier and typically healthier individuals. Tampering with benefits formulas, either the initial primary insurance amount or cost-of-living adjustments, can threaten the independence of vulnerable seniors dependent on the system and tend commensurately to burden their families. Means testing would fundamentally change the system from one of earned social insurance to a species of welfare. Nor does it seem essentially fair and reasonable to both scrap the cap and means test receipt of benefits, up to 85% of which are already subject to taxation. Jan opposes such measures. Individual retirement accounts, 401(k) plans and other private retirement arrangements are good things, and it may even be good policy to provide additional tax incentive for investing in them — provided that they are in addition to, not instead of, all or any portion of Social Security. Privatizing or partially privatizing Social Security would unduly subject retirement security to market vagaries, with the difficulties exacerbated for those who need to retire in the midst of a serious downturn or recession. In any event, what seems virtually certain is that privatization would leave lower-income retirees with less security. The simple fact remains that most Americans are woefully unprepared for retirement. The Social Security safety net is still vitally needed.
FAIR AND EQUITABLE TAXES Jan believes that every person and entity should pay a fair and equitable share of taxes. Taxpayers in similar conditions should be treated similarly, without the tax code being riddled with special interest loopholes. Those at or near the top of the economic pyramid should pay at least the same proportion of their income as those in more modest circumstances, taking account of various forms of income, sales and other taxes. Also, taxes should be sufficient to fund essential social programs and government functions, including providing, repairing and replacing vital infrastructure. Accordingly, Jan favors increasing tax breaks for our vanishing middle class, not awarding huge boons to the ultra-rich and wealthy corporations. Income funneled through “pass-through” businesses should not be accorded more beneficial rates than that earned directly by individuals. The federal government should not facilitate huge concentrations of wealth through raising the federal estate, gift and generation-skipping transfer tax exemptions to exorbitant levels (currently above $20 million per couple). The tax code also needs to be adjusted to reflect new financial developments and assets, including cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum. Taxes should be used to fund vital social programs and repair and replace aging infrastructure, not to give more to the wealthy and provide corporate welfare. Further, tax policies may themselves serve social ends, such as cigarette, gasoline and perhaps carbon taxes. TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT The Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-97, “TCJA”) did just the opposite of most of these goals. The TCJA passed the Senate on a wholly partisan basis and the House without a single Democratic vote, and it was signed by President Donald Trump on December 22, 2017. The TCJA cuts totaling $1.5 trillion primarily benefit the top 1% and wealthy businesses. Meanwhile, the Act is now expected to cause the deficit to rise to $1.5 trillion in 2028. Accordingly, the TCJA was essentially a “reverse Robinhood,” in favor of the richest few and wealthy corporations at the expense of most Americans and our children and grandchildren. New Tax Provisions Businesses. The TCJA lowered corporate taxes from a top rate of 35 percent to a flat rate of 21%. The TCJA also converted the United States from a “global” tax system (corporations paying at the U.S. rate for income earned in any country) to a “territorial” system (paying at the usually lower rate of the country in which legally established). In addition, the Act repealed the alternative minimum tax for C-corps. Unlike the tax cuts for individuals, these and other corporate benefits are permanent. Beyond that, the TCJA cut taxes on income from “pass-through” entities — S corporations, LLCs, and partnerships, whose profits are attributed directly to their owners and taxed at the owners’ personal levels. Pass-throughs got an initial reduction of 20 percent for “qualified business income,” effectively reducing their maximum rate from 37% to 29.6%. Unlike the permanent corporate cuts, however, these pass-through reductions last only through 2025, unless Congress extends them. Individuals. For individuals, the TCJA kept the seven-bracket structure of previous law, but the income ranges in several brackets were modified, and the new brackets have slightly lower rates. The rates range from 10% to 37%, as opposed to the previous 10% to 39.6%. The Act, however also adopts a new formula for calculating inflation (C-CPI- U). This may be a more accurate gauge, but it will result in more people rising more quickly into higher brackets. The TCJA did nearly double the standard deduction: to $12,000 (single taxpayer), $18,000 (head of household) and $24,000 (married and filing jointly). But the Act totally eliminated many itemized deductions, including casualty and theft losses, employee business expenses and tax preparation fees; it limited others, including state and local income taxes (SALT) deductions to $10,000 and mortgage interest to a maximum new mortgage of $750,000; and it modified some others, including for charitable contributions, medical expenses and gambling losses. Some “above the line” deductions are also eliminated, including alimony expenses. On the other hand, the Child Tax Credit was doubled to $2,000. The TCJA also raised the exemptions on the alternative minimum tax from $54,300 to $70,300 (single), from $84,500 to $109,400 (married filing jointly) and from $42,250 to $54,700 (married filing separately) and also increased the phaseout levels. Transfer Taxes. Despite intense pressure from some conservatives, the TCJA did not repeal the estate or so-called “death” tax. Instead, the Act doubled the federal estate, gift and generation-skipping transfer exclusions to $10 million indexed for inflation per person and $20 million indexed per couple (resulting in limits of $11,180,000 and double that respectively in 2018). These provisions too expire at the end of 2025. Individual Mandate. The TCJA also repealed fines for not having health insurance pursuant to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), effectively killing the individual mandate. This might be considered tantamount to a tax hike, because it means fewer eligible people will sign up and receive federal subsidies. Surprises. Among many other provisions, some surprises were buried in the TCJA. For example, the Act requires the federal government to hold lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. For another, contrary to repeated Trump campaign promises, the Act preserves the “carried interest loophole,” allowing hedge fund managers to pay a lower capital gains rate on their share of fund profits. For a third, after intense lobbying by the National Automobile Dealers Association, the Act preserves 100 percent deductibility of floor plan loan interest. Deficit Increases The Congressional Budget Office released its annual report, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2018 to 2028 on April 9, 2018. It analyzed the effects of the TCJA, combined with the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123) enacted on February 9, 2018 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141) enacted March 23, 2018. The CBO now projects that the federal deficit will near the trillion-dollar mark next year and exceed that level in following years. More specifically, deficits are expected to rise from $665 billion in Fiscal Year 2017 to $804 billion in FY 2018 and $981 billion in 2019. Beyond that, the CBO projects deficit growths to $1.5 trillion in 2028. Accordingly, deficits would increase from 3.5 percent of GDP in FY 2017 to 4.0 in 2018 to 5.1% in 2028. Overall, the increase in the deficit is projected to mount to $5.7 trillion over the period 2018 to 2023 and $12.4 for 2018 to 2028. Differential Effects According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, in 2018 households in the lowest 20 percent of income distribution (earning about $25,000 or less) are projected to receive an average tax cut of $60, while those in the top 1% (with incomes of $733,000 or more) will get an average cut of approximately $51,000 and in the top 0.1 (with incomes over $3.4 million) of about $193,000. After-tax income will rise by 0.4% on average for households in the bottom quintile, 3.4% for the top 1% and 2.7% for the top 0.1%. Over time, the TPC distributional estimates for the TCJA (excluding the impact of repealing the ACA individual mandate) show households in the bottom quintile projected to gain 1 percent of the federal tax change in 2018 and 1.3% in 2025 and to have a negative share of -4.5% in 2027. Meanwhile, the figures for top 1% the figures are gains of 21%, 25% and 83% respectively and the top 0.1% gains of 8% 11% and 60% Vern Buchanan (R-FL16) Major Beneficiary Our congressman, Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL16) is a major beneficiary of the legislation he voted for in both committee and the full House. According to his congressional financial disclosure forms, Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL16) is a partner or managing member of over 30 pass-through entities. He was also the owner of several dozen car dealerships, a number of which are now run by his son.
In 1963, women were paid 59 cents for every dollar men were paid. Despite the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which requires equal pay for equal work for men and women with equivalent qualifications in the same workplace, the gender gap persists. Despite the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which overturned a Supreme Court decision restricting the time period for filing employment discrimination actions, parity continues to be elusive. Today, women are paid $0.79 for every $1.00 for men, and the gap is even wider for women with children and for minority women. The Paycheck Fairness Act is a comprehensive bill that would strengthen the Equal Pay Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. It would, among other things, enhance enforcement and create incentives for employers to follow the law. Jan supports the Paycheck Fairness Act as a long overdue measure to bolster the Equal Pay Act. Congress needs to support women and their families by ending discrimination in compensation in all sectors of the economy. Racial Injustice Racism and racial injustice, especially against African-Americans, unquestionably persist in our country. They are rampant in, among other realms: (i) public education, where minority students are too often confined to racially isolated, underfunded, and inferior schools and programs; (ii) other public programs, where minority communities receive less than their fair share of services and infrastructure investment; (iii) our criminal justice system, where minorities are more often pursued and much more aggressively punished; (iv) employment, where they enjoy fewer opportunities and receive lower pay; and (v) financial sectors, where they are much more likely to be denied mortgage loans and other assistance. In addition, blacks are also much more frequently targets of violence by police and other law enforcement officers, by extremists and by punks in “street crime.” The quest for racial justice and equality requires a multifaceted approach. Legislative actions to date have been at best a “mixed bag”:
Despite all the paper improvements, one area that should be mentioned especially at this time is regression of the as law as to the right to vote. New voter identification and other electoral laws unquestionably have the result of disproportionately disenfranchising minority populations. Reproductive Rights Jan supports reproductive freedom. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and must remain so. In addition to being safe and legal, Jan believes that abortions should also be rare. The primary emphasis must be on education and prevention of unwanted pregnancies. Women of all ages, regardless of income, should have access to family-planning services, including counseling on birth-control methods and abstinence. Birth control, including emergency contraception, should also be readily available. On the other hand, Jan opposes measures that would indirectly deny women the right to choose. These include dictates forcing clinics to close, requiring extended waiting periods or inventing other barriers. They also include denying funding to Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide free or low-cost family planning services. Moreover, among other unfortunate legacies of the “Hyde Amendment,” servicewomen and female members of military families are effectively being deprived of equal rights. They are often unacceptably denied reproductive services, particularly abortion services, at military healthcare facilities. Finally, a woman’s right to choose should include the right to choose to bear a healthy child. Jan supports full funding of programs to improve healthcare for pregnant women and young children, including the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), among others.
JAN SCHNEIDER DISAGREES WITH VERN BUCHANAN ON ISSUES VITAL TO THE PEOPLE OF THE 16TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Our incumbent Congressman, Vern Buchanan (R-Longboat Key), has repeatedly taken positions that contrary to the interests of constituents in the Florida 16th Congressional District. To give a few examples: SOCIAL SECURITY: Representative Buchanan has repeatedly voted for Ryan Budgets that would “privatize” or partially privatize Social Security. In Florida CD16, there are nearly 225,000 current Social Security beneficiaries (close to 200,000 of whom are age 65 and older). In other words, almost one-third of the residents of the district receive Social Security payments. These bring over $3.6 billion into CD16 each year. Think what would have happened during the recent recession if this “safety net” had been privatized. MEDICARE: The same Ryan Budgets supported by Rep. Vern Buchanan provided for turning Medicare into a “premium support” (a/k/a “voucher”) system and for raising the age of eligibility from 65 to 67. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that such support payments/vouchers would cover only about 40 percent of Medicare premiums and out-of- pocket expenses for the typical senior would be more than twice as great as projected under Original Medicare by 2022. Since CD16 has in recent years ranked as high as second among all the Congressional Districts in the country in terms of age, Medicare is crucial here. AFFORDABLE CARE ACT: Rep. Buchanan has also joined the Republican majority in voting more than 60 times to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The ACA is unwieldy, excessively expensive and in need of reform (particularly as to the small business mandate). Nevertheless, it has resulted in an estimated reduction by 20 million of adults without health insurance. Moreover, the United States remains the only wealthy, industrialized country without a comprehensive national health insurance or healthcare system. We deserve better (and many of us hope Obamacare will ultimately evolve into a single-payer system). WOMEN: With regard to women’s health, Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Longboat Key) is not only anti-choice. He has also seized every occasion to vote to defund Planned Parenthood and to deprive women of vital healthcare services. He even voted “yea” for a bill providing federal funding to combat the Zika virus, but barring Planned Parenthood from receiving funds for Zika-related reproductive health services. LGBTQ: Rep. Buchanan has also voted against the LGBTQ community. He even cast a “nay” vote on an amendment to ban payments to government contractors who discriminate against LGBT employees. TRUMP: Rep. Buchanan also rushed to endorse Donald Trump as soon as Mr. Trump became the “presumptive” Republican presidential nominee. Many consider Mr. Trump a racist, sexist, xenophobic demagogue. Even the two most recent Republican former presidents, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, have declined to endorse him.[4] |
” |
| —Jan Schneider's campaign website (2022)[6] | ||
2016
The following issues were listed on Schneider's campaign website. For a full list of campaign themes, click here.
| “ |
|
” |
| —Jan Schneider's campaign website, http://votejan.com/jan-on-the-issues/budget/ | ||
Campaign finance summary
Note: The finance data shown here comes from the disclosures required of candidates and parties. Depending on the election or state, this may represent only a portion of all the funds spent on their behalf. Satellite spending groups may or may not have expended funds related to the candidate or politician on whose page you are reading this disclaimer. Campaign finance data from elections may be incomplete. For elections to federal offices, complete data can be found at the FEC website. Click here for more on federal campaign finance law and here for more on state campaign finance law.
See also
2026 Elections
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Information submitted to Ballotpedia through the Candidate Connection survey on April 16, 2024
- ↑ Florida Department of State, "Candidate Listing for 2016 General Election," accessed June 25, 2016
- ↑ Politico, " Florida House Races Results," August 30, 2016
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Jan Schneider's campaign website, "Issues," accessed September 19, 2024
- ↑ Vote for Jan Schneider, “Home,” accessed August 22, 2022
