A vote in favor of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) today would be a vote to make the vast majority of Americans poorer, less healthy, and more financially insecure. The AHCA would cost 24 million Americans their health insurance coverage. The majority (14 million) would lose it to breathtakingly large cuts (almost $900 billion over the next decade) to the vital Medicaid program. Further, 7 million Americans would lose the coverage they get through their employer if AHCA passes.

Costs would skyrocket for those who still needed coverage in the nongroup market. A 64 year-old making 175 percent of the federal poverty line would pay $12,900 more each year for the health insurance plan’s premiums under AHCA, but would also face deductibles and co-pays that would cost thousands more than they do currently. For the entire nongroup market, out-of-pocket costs after premiums would rise by $25 billion each year by 2026 if AHCA is passed.

On top of this severe degradation of health and financial security, the AHCA would also drag on job growth in coming years. This drag would occur because the AHCA cuts to Medicaid and insurance subsidies reduce growth in economic activity and job creation far more powerfully than the AHCA tax cuts boost this growth. By 2022, this drag could lower employment by 1.8 million unless some countervailing macroeconomic boost neutralized the AHCA job losses. This drag on job growth would felt in nearly every congressional district.

How many jobs could the AHCA cost in your congressional district?: Potential fewer jobs by congressional district due to drag on growth from the AHCA, 2017–2022

State	District	Representative	2019 potential job loss	2020 potential job loss	2021 potential job loss	2022 potential job loss
Alabama	1	Bradley Byrne	468	1,229	1,696	1,820
Alabama	2	Martha Roby	375	1,001	1,384	1,505
Alabama	3	Mike Rogers	404	1,071	1,478	1,613
Alabama	4	Robert B. Aderholt	429	1,108	1,522	1,647
Alabama	5	Mo Brooks	307	910	1,287	1,376
Alabama	6	Gary J. Palmer	174	662	974	1,032
Alabama	7	Terri A. Sewell	528	1,338	1,827	2,006
Alaska	Statewide	Don Young	433	1,416	2,018	2,324
Arizona	1	Tom O’Halleran	1,875	4,911	6,719	7,746
Arizona	2	Martha McSally	1,377	3,696	5,085	5,838
Arizona	3	Raúl M. Grijalva	2,182	5,606	7,640	8,789
Arizona	4	Paul A. Gosar	1,498	3,885	5,310	6,074
Arizona	5	Andy Biggs	828	2,375	3,313	3,778
Arizona	6	David Schweikert	795	2,571	3,658	4,214
Arizona	7	Ruben Gallego	3,171	8,148	11,101	12,811
Arizona	8	Trent Franks	958	2,600	3,588	4,084
Arizona	9	Kyrsten Sinema	1,592	4,314	5,946	6,841
Arkansas	1	Eric A. “Rick” Crawford	1,085	2,815	3,849	4,390
Arkansas	2	J. French Hill	777	2,127	2,941	3,342
Arkansas	3	Steve Womack	869	2,380	3,290	3,739
Arkansas	4	Bruce Westerman	1,052	2,738	3,746	4,275
California	1	Doug LaMalfa	1,096	2,880	3,954	4,460
California	2	Jared Huffman	502	1,838	2,670	3,013
California	3	John Garamendi	886	2,440	3,380	3,830
California	4	Tom McClintock	553	1,722	2,444	2,718
California	5	Mike Thompson	687	2,041	2,871	3,223
California	6	Doris O. Matsui	1,351	3,540	4,852	5,517
California	7	Ami Bera	725	2,093	2,928	3,293
California	8	Paul Cook	1,262	3,254	4,447	5,036
California	9	Jerry McNerney	1,122	2,988	4,110	4,655
California	10	Jeff Denham	1,072	2,824	3,878	4,382
California	11	Mark DeSaulnier	320	1,494	2,235	2,538
California	12	Nancy Pelosi	76	1,283	2,065	2,370
California	13	Barbara Lee	772	2,483	3,536	4,009
California	14	Jackie Speier	1	802	1,329	1,509
California	15	Eric Swalwell	197	1,159	1,777	1,981
California	16	Jim Costa	1,785	4,574	6,235	7,128
California	17	Ro Khanna	63	707	1,219	1,379
California	18	Anna G. Eshoo	543	21	437	539
California	19	Zoe Lofgren	484	1,754	2,544	2,883
California	20	Jimmy Panetta	942	2,623	3,643	4,107
California	21	David G. Valadao	1,658	4,250	5,793	6,635
California	22	Devin Nunes	1,144	3,075	4,235	4,829
California	23	Kevin McCarthy	1,039	2,800	3,859	4,392
California	24	Salud O. Carbajal	834	2,405	3,364	3,786
California	25	Stephen Knight	781	2,270	3,180	3,561
California	26	Julia Brownley	585	1,878	2,678	2,992
California	27	Judy Chu	585	1,914	2,737	3,064
California	28	Adam B. Schiff	726	2,332	3,321	3,752
California	29	Tony Cárdenas	1,405	3,589	4,897	5,528
California	30	Brad Sherman	518	1,857	2,690	3,025
California	31	Pete Aguilar	1,173	3,112	4,277	4,852
California	32	Grace F. Napolitano	1,018	2,643	3,622	4,048
California	33	Ted Lieu	310	486	1,034	1,191
California	34	vacant	1,702	4,385	5,990	6,803
California	35	Norma J. Torres	1,202	3,065	4,181	4,719
California	36	Raul Ruiz	1,208	3,219	4,429	5,017
California	37	Karen Bass	1,152	3,263	4,543	5,156
California	38	Linda T. Sánchez	892	2,354	3,239	3,607
California	39	Edward R. Royce	549	1,768	2,524	2,809
California	40	Lucille Roybal-Allard	1,766	4,465	6,075	6,892
California	41	Mark Takano	1,290	3,338	4,566	5,170
California	42	Ken Calvert	664	1,862	2,593	2,888
California	43	Maxine Waters	1,270	3,340	4,585	5,176
California	44	Nanette Diaz Barragán	1,532	3,886	5,293	5,985
California	45	Mimi Walters	175	1,191	1,846	2,060
California	46	J. Luis Correa	1,262	3,232	4,414	4,960
California	47	Alan S. Lowenthal	1,026	2,827	3,919	4,410
California	48	Dana Rohrabacher	294	1,447	2,180	2,443
California	49	Darrell E. Issa	386	1,590	2,349	2,631
California	50	Duncan Hunter	920	2,509	3,472	3,883
California	51	Juan Vargas	1,618	4,061	5,522	6,205
California	52	Scott H. Peters	258	1,305	1,973	2,201
California	53	Susan A. Davis	897	2,469	3,424	3,830
Colorado	1	Diana DeGette	2,344	6,472	8,944	10,362
Colorado	2	Jared Polis	1,597	4,573	6,368	7,344
Colorado	3	Scott R. Tipton	2,339	6,134	8,395	9,669
Colorado	4	Ken Buck	1,585	4,408	6,103	7,055
Colorado	5	Doug Lamborn	1,722	4,656	6,408	7,421
Colorado	6	Mike Coffman	1,449	4,134	5,750	6,656
Colorado	7	Ed Perlmutter	1,743	4,705	6,476	7,482
Connecticut	1	John B. Larson	982	2,879	4,029	4,616
Connecticut	2	Joe Courtney	632	1,952	2,760	3,136
Connecticut	3	Rosa L. DeLauro	953	2,768	3,869	4,426
Connecticut	4	James A. Himes	145	1,504	2,372	2,784
Connecticut	5	Elizabeth H. Esty	853	2,626	3,706	4,249
Delaware	Statewide	Lisa Blunt Rochester	1,202	3,381	4,698	5,362
DC	Statewide	Eleanor Holmes Norton	303	1,542	2,321	2,691
Florida	1	Matt Gaetz	557	1,482	2,051	2,208
Florida	2	Neal P. Dunn	652	1,696	2,333	2,533
Florida	3	Ted S. Yoho	699	1,798	2,469	2,667
Florida	4	John H. Rutherford	574	1,563	2,177	2,309
Florida	5	Al Lawson, Jr.	907	2,234	3,034	3,319
Florida	6	Ron DeSantis	777	2,037	2,813	2,983
Florida	7	Stephanie N. Murphy	845	2,176	2,998	3,147
Florida	8	Bill Posey	720	1,862	2,565	2,722
Florida	9	Darren Soto	1,096	2,650	3,597	3,817
Florida	10	Val Butler Demings	969	2,462	3,383	3,550
Florida	11	Daniel Webster	807	1,983	2,699	2,879
Florida	12	Gus M. Bilirakis	639	1,702	2,361	2,492
Florida	13	Charlie Crist	689	1,812	2,506	2,653
Florida	14	Kathy Castor	808	2,107	2,903	3,136
Florida	15	Dennis A. Ross	678	1,773	2,446	2,615
Florida	16	Vern Buchanan	612	1,677	2,339	2,477
Florida	17	Thomas J. Rooney	788	1,953	2,663	2,853
Florida	18	Brian J. Mast	807	2,168	3,013	3,155
Florida	19	Francis Rooney	671	1,897	2,660	2,813
Florida	20	Alcee L. Hastings	1,533	3,616	4,880	5,170
Florida	21	Lois Frankel	910	2,374	3,284	3,411
Florida	22	Theodore E. Deutch	1,024	2,775	3,868	4,028
Florida	23	Debbie Wasserman Schultz	1,120	2,927	4,050	4,207
Florida	24	Frederica S. Wilson	1,717	4,082	5,522	5,828
Florida	25	Mario Diaz-Balart	1,375	3,310	4,494	4,710
Florida	26	Carlos Curbelo	1,482	3,544	4,808	5,013
Florida	27	Ileana Ros-Lehtinen	1,468	3,697	5,070	5,321
Georgia	1	Earl L. “Buddy” Carter	682	1,773	2,439	2,653
Georgia	2	Sanford D. Bishop, Jr.	761	1,946	2,660	2,961
Georgia	3	A. Drew Ferguson, IV	561	1,512	2,095	2,275
Georgia	4	Henry C. “Hank” Johnson, Jr.	918	2,285	3,117	3,348
Georgia	5	John Lewis	751	2,122	2,966	3,241
Georgia	6	vacant	81	876	1,402	1,473
Georgia	7	Rob Woodall	745	2,006	2,789	2,940
Georgia	8	Austin Scott	633	1,643	2,254	2,502
Georgia	9	Doug Collins	679	1,755	2,409	2,624
Georgia	10	Jody B. Hice	669	1,736	2,385	2,606
Georgia	11	Barry Loudermilk	438	1,395	1,997	2,131
Georgia	12	Rick W. Allen	751	1,928	2,640	2,907
Georgia	13	David Scott	843	2,112	2,886	3,106
Georgia	14	Tom Graves	636	1,613	2,206	2,413
Hawaii	1	Colleen Hanabusa	422	1,445	2,071	2,424
Hawaii	2	Tulsi Gabbard	866	2,463	3,424	3,965
Idaho	1	Raúl R. Labrador	1,094	2,743	3,743	4,069
Idaho	2	Michael K. Simpson	1,084	2,757	3,773	4,113
Illinois	1	Bobby L. Rush	1,376	3,656	5,021	5,744
Illinois	2	Robin L. Kelly	1,481	3,850	5,264	6,023
Illinois	3	Daniel Lipinski	821	2,289	3,177	3,606
Illinois	4	Luis V. Gutiérrez	1,593	4,132	5,646	6,464
Illinois	5	Mike Quigley	354	1,574	2,339	2,691
Illinois	6	Peter J. Roskam	9	722	1,202	1,358
Illinois	7	Danny K. Davis	1,480	4,271	5,955	6,875
Illinois	8	Raja Krishnamoorthi	766	2,126	2,951	3,330
Illinois	9	Janice D. Schakowsky	501	1,860	2,701	3,101
Illinois	10	Bradley Scott Schneider	377	1,552	2,286	2,609
Illinois	11	Bill Foster	674	1,994	2,799	3,173
Illinois	12	Mike Bost	1,238	3,265	4,476	5,134
Illinois	13	Rodney Davis	1,146	3,092	4,258	4,891
Illinois	14	Randy Hultgren	327	1,255	1,837	2,066
Illinois	15	John Shimkus	1,053	2,770	3,798	4,328
Illinois	16	Adam Kinzinger	857	2,303	3,173	3,604
Illinois	17	Cheri Bustos	1,259	3,267	4,466	5,105
Illinois	18	Darin LaHood	642	1,864	2,605	2,974
Indiana	1	Peter J. Visclosky	863	2,305	3,173	3,594
Indiana	2	Jackie Walorski	874	2,297	3,152	3,557
Indiana	3	Jim Banks	769	2,050	2,822	3,184
Indiana	4	Todd Rokita	732	1,953	2,690	3,030
Indiana	5	Susan W. Brooks	393	1,380	1,994	2,230
Indiana	6	Luke Messer	827	2,165	2,968	3,354
Indiana	7	André Carson	1,284	3,295	4,496	5,107
Indiana	8	Larry Bucshon	799	2,091	2,868	3,226
Indiana	9	Trey Hollingsworth	806	2,145	2,952	3,328
Iowa	1	Rod Blum	542	1,538	2,140	2,439
Iowa	2	David Loebsack	675	1,894	2,630	3,011
Iowa	3	David Young	507	1,546	2,181	2,489
Iowa	4	Steve King	611	1,704	2,363	2,701
Kansas	1	Roger W. Marshall	351	959	1,332	1,448
Kansas	2	Lynn Jenkins	386	1,041	1,443	1,566
Kansas	3	Kevin Yoder	170	767	1,153	1,218
Kansas	4	vacant	343	968	1,353	1,466
Kentucky	1	James Comer	3,623	9,361	12,764	14,783
Kentucky	2	Brett Guthrie	3,172	8,232	11,235	13,005
Kentucky	3	John A. Yarmuth	3,086	8,156	11,172	12,952
Kentucky	4	Thomas Massie	2,495	6,627	9,088	10,524
Kentucky	5	Harold Rogers	4,920	12,672	17,264	20,016
Kentucky	6	Andy Barr	3,459	9,065	12,395	14,367
Louisiana	1	Steve Scalise	1,376	3,743	5,173	5,842
Louisiana	2	Cedric L. Richmond	2,632	6,759	9,221	10,510
Louisiana	3	Clay Higgins	1,693	4,490	6,165	7,041
Louisiana	4	Mike Johnson	1,931	5,035	6,888	7,885
Louisiana	5	Ralph Lee Abraham	2,264	5,834	7,961	9,108
Louisiana	6	Garret Graves	1,422	3,825	5,270	5,993
Maine	1	Chellie Pingree	424	1,177	1,649	1,704
Maine	2	Bruce Poliquin	553	1,355	1,848	1,933
Maryland	1	Andy Harris	1,172	3,334	4,638	5,339
Maryland	2	C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger	1,552	4,199	5,784	6,659
Maryland	3	John P. Sarbanes	794	2,646	3,780	4,373
Maryland	4	Anthony G. Brown	1,042	3,059	4,280	4,929
Maryland	5	Steny H. Hoyer	650	2,184	3,123	3,614
Maryland	6	John K. Delaney	942	2,987	4,235	4,879
Maryland	7	Elijah E. Cummings	1,974	5,499	7,613	8,817
Maryland	8	Jamie Raskin	315	1,741	2,642	3,059
Massachusetts	1	Richard E. Neal	1,258	3,365	4,632	5,257
Massachusetts	2	James P. McGovern	920	2,630	3,669	4,154
Massachusetts	3	Niki Tsongas	793	2,466	3,490	3,964
Massachusetts	4	Joseph P. Kennedy, III	107	1,098	1,739	1,976
Massachusetts	5	Katherine M. Clark	236	1,391	2,126	2,423
Massachusetts	6	Seth Moulton	391	1,563	2,298	2,594
Massachusetts	7	Michael E. Capuano	1,528	4,261	5,906	6,772
Massachusetts	8	Stephen F. Lynch	476	1,774	2,582	2,925
Massachusetts	9	William R. Keating	841	2,431	3,398	3,837
Michigan	1	Jack Bergman	1,226	3,128	4,272	4,773
Michigan	2	Bill Huizenga	1,099	2,852	3,904	4,411
Michigan	3	Justin Amash	1,026	2,752	3,791	4,300
Michigan	4	John R. Moolenaar	1,184	3,093	4,236	4,814
Michigan	5	Daniel T. Kildee	1,340	3,470	4,742	5,414
Michigan	6	Fred Upton	1,203	3,146	4,311	4,883
Michigan	7	Tim Walberg	895	2,383	3,280	3,704
Michigan	8	Mike Bishop	769	2,234	3,128	3,524
Michigan	9	Sander M. Levin	1,053	2,825	3,896	4,374
Michigan	10	Paul Mitchell	910	2,396	3,296	3,675
Michigan	11	David A. Trott	321	1,269	1,866	2,075
Michigan	12	Debbie Dingell	1,082	2,925	4,034	4,593
Michigan	13	John Conyers, Jr.	2,037	5,211	7,098	8,154
Michigan	14	Brenda L. Lawrence	1,568	4,192	5,765	6,594
Minnesota	1	Timothy J. Walz	715	2,022	2,808	3,253
Minnesota	2	Jason Lewis	291	1,112	1,618	1,893
Minnesota	3	Erik Paulsen	10	642	1,062	1,283
Minnesota	4	Betty McCollum	752	2,294	3,227	3,764
Minnesota	5	Keith Ellison	1,064	3,064	4,266	4,970
Minnesota	6	Tom Emmer	457	1,384	1,945	2,254
Minnesota	7	Collin C. Peterson	799	2,180	3,007	3,476
Minnesota	8	Richard M. Nolan	910	2,448	3,367	3,892
Mississippi	1	Trent Kelly	503	1,339	1,846	2,052
Mississippi	2	Bennie G. Thompson	820	2,075	2,830	3,146
Mississippi	3	Gregg Harper	517	1,434	1,992	2,213
Mississippi	4	Steven M. Palazzo	520	1,387	1,912	2,132
Missouri	1	Wm. Lacy Clay	790	2,035	2,792	3,035
Missouri	2	Ann Wagner	75	681	1,083	1,119
Missouri	3	Blaine Luetkemeyer	472	1,262	1,749	1,879
Missouri	4	Vicky Hartzler	631	1,618	2,218	2,414
Missouri	5	Emanuel Cleaver	665	1,721	2,365	2,569
Missouri	6	Sam Graves	472	1,282	1,782	1,918
Missouri	7	Billy Long	735	1,856	2,539	2,744
Missouri	8	Jason Smith	669	1,689	2,306	2,530
Montana	Statewide	vacant	4,195	10,844	14,807	16,956
Nebraska	1	Jeff Fortenberry	188	554	787	798
Nebraska	2	Don Bacon	84	393	595	598
Nebraska	3	Adrian Smith	336	856	1,181	1,200
Nevada	1	Dina Titus	2,079	5,348	7,293	8,370
Nevada	2	Mark E. Amodei	1,440	3,826	5,256	5,994
Nevada	3	Jacky Rosen	888	2,541	3,543	4,037
Nevada	4	Ruben Kihuen	1,598	4,172	5,708	6,537
New Hampshire	1	Carol Shea-Porter	968	2,733	3,805	4,295
New Hampshire	2	Ann M. Kuster	952	2,683	3,733	4,227
New Jersey	1	Donald Norcross	2,149	5,769	7,932	9,145
New Jersey	2	Frank A. LoBiondo	2,418	6,419	8,807	10,153
New Jersey	3	Thomas MacArthur	1,004	2,958	4,142	4,753
New Jersey	4	Christopher H. Smith	1,532	4,511	6,312	7,292
New Jersey	5	Josh Gottheimer	705	2,590	3,757	4,322
New Jersey	6	Frank Pallone, Jr.	1,705	4,827	6,706	7,731
New Jersey	7	Leonard Lance	189	1,583	2,471	2,887
New Jersey	8	Albio Sires	3,348	8,947	12,287	14,218
New Jersey	9	Bill Pascrell, Jr.	2,776	7,473	10,280	11,864
New Jersey	10	Donald M. Payne, Jr.	3,553	9,339	12,781	14,782
New Jersey	11	Rodney P. Frelinghuysen	153	1,411	2,215	2,584
New Jersey	12	Bonnie Watson Coleman	1,343	4,101	5,773	6,682
New Mexico	1	Michelle Lujan Grisham	3,748	9,795	13,389	15,497
New Mexico	2	Stevan Pearce	4,438	11,467	15,636	18,106
New Mexico	3	Ben Ray Luján	3,867	10,066	13,748	15,911
New York	1	Lee M. Zeldin	132	271	538	695
New York	2	Peter T. King	102	237	462	594
New York	3	Thomas R. Suozzi	656	531	402	331
New York	4	Kathleen M. Rice	240	150	418	576
New York	5	Gregory W. Meeks	588	1,737	2,427	2,843
New York	6	Grace Meng	459	1,483	2,104	2,476
New York	7	Nydia M. Velázquez	1,091	3,203	4,472	5,245
New York	8	Hakeem S. Jeffries	1,076	3,019	4,181	4,888
New York	9	Yvette D. Clarke	789	2,349	3,287	3,857
New York	10	Jerrold Nadler	249	716	1,352	1,735
New York	11	Daniel M. Donovan, Jr.	410	1,444	2,074	2,456
New York	12	Carolyn B. Maloney	896	501	182	5
New York	13	Adriano Espaillat	1,393	3,769	5,183	6,048
New York	14	Joseph Crowley	817	2,268	3,135	3,661
New York	15	José E. Serrano	2,002	5,192	7,080	8,238
New York	16	Eliot L. Engel	114	985	1,533	1,864
New York	17	Nita M. Lowey	190	409	807	1,045
New York	18	Sean Patrick Maloney	51	691	1,096	1,340
New York	19	John J. Faso	374	1,224	1,739	2,051
New York	20	Paul Tonko	386	1,302	1,858	2,196
New York	21	Elise M. Stefanik	585	1,651	2,289	2,678
New York	22	Claudia Tenney	656	1,833	2,536	2,966
New York	23	Tom Reed	687	1,922	2,661	3,112
New York	24	John Katko	561	1,662	2,324	2,727
New York	25	Louise McIntosh Slaughter	590	1,763	2,468	2,898
New York	26	Brian Higgins	800	2,219	3,067	3,585
New York	27	Chris Collins	250	896	1,290	1,528
North Carolina	1	G. K. Butterfield	1,315	3,320	4,522	5,075
North Carolina	2	George Holding	878	2,347	3,240	3,580
North Carolina	3	Walter B. Jones	985	2,531	3,464	3,852
North Carolina	4	David E. Price	948	2,611	3,626	4,016
North Carolina	5	Virginia Foxx	1,021	2,677	3,680	4,085
North Carolina	6	Mark Walker	847	2,271	3,138	3,465
North Carolina	7	David Rouzer	1,090	2,804	3,839	4,256
North Carolina	8	Richard Hudson	1,132	2,864	3,904	4,356
North Carolina	9	Robert Pittenger	280	1,248	1,867	2,019
North Carolina	10	Patrick T. McHenry	1,042	2,674	3,660	4,048
North Carolina	11	Mark Meadows	1,148	2,889	3,939	4,349
North Carolina	12	Alma S. Adams	1,580	3,951	5,376	5,966
North Carolina	13	Ted Budd	612	1,829	2,583	2,814
North Dakota	Statewide	Kevin Cramer	934	2,624	3,646	4,151
Ohio	1	Steve Chabot	1,216	3,394	4,704	5,414
Ohio	2	Brad R. Wenstrup	1,057	2,963	4,111	4,725
Ohio	3	Joyce Beatty	1,867	4,879	6,673	7,688
Ohio	4	Jim Jordan	1,129	2,972	4,072	4,680
Ohio	5	Robert E. Latta	957	2,602	3,589	4,122
Ohio	6	Bill Johnson	1,309	3,419	4,677	5,372
Ohio	7	Bob Gibbs	1,105	2,933	4,026	4,614
Ohio	8	Warren Davidson	1,103	2,958	4,068	4,669
Ohio	9	Marcy Kaptur	1,655	4,327	5,919	6,818
Ohio	10	Michael R. Turner	1,298	3,489	4,800	5,525
Ohio	11	Marcia L. Fudge	1,957	5,194	7,124	8,226
Ohio	12	Patrick J. Tiberi	655	2,063	2,922	3,364
Ohio	13	Tim Ryan	1,511	3,926	5,366	6,160
Ohio	14	David P. Joyce	604	1,848	2,607	2,972
Ohio	15	Steve Stivers	994	2,746	3,798	4,366
Ohio	16	James B. Renacci	565	1,673	2,347	2,673
Oklahoma	1	Jim Bridenstine	245	798	1,147	1,213
Oklahoma	2	Markwayne Mullin	369	957	1,318	1,420
Oklahoma	3	Frank D. Lucas	292	823	1,154	1,226
Oklahoma	4	Tom Cole	291	826	1,159	1,230
Oklahoma	5	Steve Russell	313	961	1,367	1,455
Oregon	1	Suzanne Bonamici	2,371	6,413	8,833	10,176
Oregon	2	Greg Walden	3,546	9,149	12,482	14,352
Oregon	3	Earl Blumenauer	3,493	9,167	12,551	14,441
Oregon	4	Peter A. DeFazio	3,882	10,040	13,698	15,812
Oregon	5	Kurt Schrader	2,881	7,582	10,383	11,968
Pennsylvania	1	Robert A. Brady	1,262	3,318	4,553	5,160
Pennsylvania	2	Dwight Evans	1,239	3,416	4,729	5,388
Pennsylvania	3	Mike Kelly	661	1,812	2,508	2,837
Pennsylvania	4	Scott Perry	585	1,614	2,240	2,497
Pennsylvania	5	Glenn Thompson	732	1,948	2,679	3,035
Pennsylvania	6	Ryan A. Costello	163	912	1,393	1,532
Pennsylvania	7	Patrick Meehan	94	784	1,234	1,343
Pennsylvania	8	Brian K. Fitzpatrick	227	1,013	1,518	1,629
Pennsylvania	9	Bill Shuster	778	2,026	2,776	3,130
Pennsylvania	10	Tom Marino	704	1,868	2,572	2,874
Pennsylvania	11	Lou Barletta	645	1,749	2,418	2,712
Pennsylvania	12	Keith J. Rothfus	417	1,304	1,851	2,067
Pennsylvania	13	Brendan F. Boyle	690	1,975	2,761	3,078
Pennsylvania	14	Michael F. Doyle	901	2,417	3,330	3,768
Pennsylvania	15	Charles W. Dent	574	1,652	2,310	2,581
Pennsylvania	16	Lloyd Smucker	743	2,009	2,776	3,114
Pennsylvania	17	Matt Cartwright	748	1,969	2,706	3,027
Pennsylvania	18	Tim Murphy	340	1,136	1,632	1,813
Rhode Island	1	David N. Cicilline	1,736	4,626	6,354	7,303
Rhode Island	2	James R. Langevin	1,378	3,700	5,092	5,833
South Carolina	1	Mark Sanford	218	754	1,099	1,118
South Carolina	2	Joe Wilson	228	682	970	998
South Carolina	3	Jeff Duncan	332	845	1,163	1,208
South Carolina	4	Trey Gowdy	328	902	1,262	1,300
South Carolina	5	vacant	325	850	1,177	1,220
South Carolina	6	James E. Clyburn	426	1,036	1,410	1,472
South Carolina	7	Tom Rice	486	1,197	1,637	1,695
South Dakota	Statewide	Kristi L. Noem	239	748	1,069	1,128
Tennessee	1	David P. Roe	1,049	2,712	3,711	4,181
Tennessee	2	John J. Duncan, Jr.	819	2,223	3,074	3,452
Tennessee	3	Charles J. “Chuck” Fleischmann	928	2,443	3,354	3,779
Tennessee	4	Scott DesJarlais	901	2,365	3,245	3,659
Tennessee	5	Jim Cooper	982	2,666	3,686	4,130
Tennessee	6	Diane Black	861	2,273	3,124	3,508
Tennessee	7	Marsha Blackburn	708	2,038	2,849	3,210
Tennessee	8	David Kustoff	629	1,836	2,573	2,895
Tennessee	9	Steve Cohen	1,361	3,501	4,781	5,426
Texas	1	Louie Gohmert	395	1,072	1,490	1,603
Texas	2	Ted Poe	98	735	1,155	1,200
Texas	3	Sam Johnson	25	621	1,023	1,038
Texas	4	John Ratcliffe	356	998	1,396	1,497
Texas	5	Jeb Hensarling	468	1,236	1,708	1,826
Texas	6	Joe Barton	397	1,120	1,571	1,656
Texas	7	John Abney Culberson	100	474	869	899
Texas	8	Kevin Brady	164	754	1,134	1,201
Texas	9	Al Green	681	1,710	2,339	2,499
Texas	10	Michael T. McCaul	239	946	1,401	1,466
Texas	11	K. Michael Conaway	249	820	1,178	1,263
Texas	12	Kay Granger	331	1,027	1,466	1,539
Texas	13	Mac Thornberry	302	843	1,177	1,271
Texas	14	Randy K. Weber, Sr.	291	919	1,314	1,404
Texas	15	Vicente Gonzalez	640	1,622	2,218	2,420
Texas	16	Beto O’Rourke	800	1,956	2,663	2,818
Texas	17	Bill Flores	397	1,104	1,541	1,668
Texas	18	Sheila Jackson Lee	586	1,557	2,154	2,312
Texas	19	Jodey C. Arrington	321	910	1,274	1,383
Texas	20	Joaquin Castro	578	1,448	1,979	2,113
Texas	21	Lamar Smith	225	919	1,367	1,431
Texas	22	Pete Olson	76	738	1,180	1,198
Texas	23	Will Hurd	480	1,334	1,863	1,991
Texas	24	Kenny Marchant	85	684	1,080	1,120
Texas	25	Roger Williams	188	812	1,216	1,277
Texas	26	Michael C. Burgess	165	771	1,166	1,199
Texas	27	Blake Farenthold	378	1,037	1,444	1,553
Texas	28	Henry Cuellar	668	1,667	2,275	2,450
Texas	29	Gene Green	756	1,828	2,477	2,668
Texas	30	Eddie Bernice Johnson	632	1,591	2,176	2,335
Texas	31	John R. Carter	288	886	1,263	1,325
Texas	32	Pete Sessions	117	765	1,189	1,246
Texas	33	Marc A. Veasey	758	1,832	2,480	2,681
Texas	34	Filemon Vela	660	1,662	2,270	2,476
Texas	35	Lloyd Doggett	716	1,748	2,375	2,551
Texas	36	Brian Babin	372	1,051	1,474	1,565
Utah	1	Rob Bishop	503	1,315	1,818	1,903
Utah	2	Chris Stewart	621	1,607	2,217	2,331
Utah	3	Jason Chaffetz	579	1,544	2,143	2,238
Utah	4	Mia B. Love	610	1,540	2,114	2,208
Vermont	Statewide	Peter Welch	1,137	3,011	4,140	4,664
Virginia	1	Robert J. Wittman	156	742	1,125	1,145
Virginia	2	Scott Taylor	295	885	1,257	1,304
Virginia	3	Robert C. “Bobby” Scott	448	1,150	1,580	1,693
Virginia	4	A. Donald McEachin	406	1,103	1,539	1,593
Virginia	5	Thomas A. Garrett, Jr.	440	1,208	1,687	1,762
Virginia	6	Bob Goodlatte	440	1,150	1,590	1,669
Virginia	7	Dave Brat	201	844	1,263	1,283
Virginia	8	Donald S. Beyer, Jr.	310	184	547	520
Virginia	9	H. Morgan Griffith	434	1,124	1,549	1,644
Virginia	10	Barbara Comstock	428	6	319	267
Virginia	11	Gerald E. Connolly	117	486	908	887
Washington	1	Suzan K. DelBene	819	2,627	3,732	4,294
Washington	2	Rick Larsen	1,713	4,539	6,228	7,154
Washington	3	Jaime Herrera Beutler	1,797	4,732	6,484	7,453
Washington	4	Dan Newhouse	2,406	6,289	8,598	9,945
Washington	5	Cathy McMorris Rodgers	2,105	5,508	7,534	8,686
Washington	6	Derek Kilmer	1,620	4,338	5,962	6,867
Washington	7	Pramila Jayapal	1,151	3,622	5,127	5,933
Washington	8	David G. Reichert	1,217	3,485	4,855	5,584
Washington	9	Adam Smith	1,718	4,846	6,728	7,765
Washington	10	Denny Heck	1,630	4,315	5,916	6,821
West Virginia	1	David B. McKinley	1,801	4,706	6,435	7,436
West Virginia	2	Alexander X. Mooney	1,623	4,284	5,869	6,778
West Virginia	3	Evan H. Jenkins	2,121	5,509	7,520	8,701
Wisconsin	1	Paul D. Ryan	270	803	1,138	1,187
Wisconsin	2	Mark Pocan	185	668	976	1,026
Wisconsin	3	Ron Kind	395	1,024	1,413	1,482
Wisconsin	4	Gwen Moore	466	1,214	1,673	1,797
Wisconsin	5	F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.	147	604	901	925
Wisconsin	6	Glenn Grothman	286	817	1,152	1,195
Wisconsin	7	Sean P. Duffy	492	1,244	1,710	1,776
Wisconsin	8	Mike Gallagher	378	1,006	1,398	1,450
Wyoming	Statewide	Liz Cheney	199	582	824	853

ChartData Download data

The data below can be saved or copied directly into Excel.

The data underlying the figure.

The nongroup market spending is the net outcome of repealing ACA subsidies and introducing new AHCA tax credits. We take estimates of current health exchange enrollees by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) and apply estimates from Cutler (2017) on the change in enrollment spurred by the AHCA to get a measure of remaining enrollment in nongroup markets by congressional district (CD). We use this measure to allocate the nationwide amount of tax credits estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). We also provide an age adjustment that estimates higher tax credits going to CDs whose age 18–64 population skews older, reflecting the fact that under the AHCA tax credits are larger for older enrollees. Specifically, we multiply the share of the 18–64 population that is between 30 and 49 by 1.375 and the share that is 50 and over by 1.875, reflecting the greater generosity of tax credits for these populations relative to those received by the under-30 population.

For Medicaid spending we allocate the CBO estimates of Medicaid spending reductions across states by using the Blumberg et al. (2016) estimates of how partial ACA repeal would be borne. Within states, we allocate the incidence of these spending cuts across CDs proportionally to each CD’s share of the population with incomes beneath the federal poverty line.

For tax cuts, we assume 40 percent of the revenue accrues uniformly across CDs, while allocating 60 percent of it proportionally to each CD’s total share of the population with incomes over $150,000.

Output multipliers are 1.4 for the nongroup spending reductions, 2 for Medicaid spending reductions, and 0.4 for the tax cuts. These parameter choices are explained in Bivens (2017). In 2019, we divide the output change by $146,000 to get employment changes, also explained in Bivens (2017). For each year after 2019, we increase this divisor by 1.5 percent, reflecting expected productivity growth over that time.

Source: Author's analysis of U.S. Census Bureau (2013), U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC 2016a), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS 2016e), and BLS Employment Projections program (BLS-EP 2014a and 2014b). For a more detailed explanation of data sources and computations, see the appendix.

Share on Facebook Tweet this chart

Embed

Copy the code below to embed this chart on your website.

<iframe width="100%" height="460" src="https://www.epi.org?p=124627&view=embed&embed_template=charts_v2013_08_21&embed_date=20261007&onp=128303&utm_source=epi_press&utm_medium=chart_embed&utm_campaign=charts_v2" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Download image

Read more

A Senate vote on House Joint Resolution 66 may come as early as tomorrow. H.R. 66 would put roadblocks in front of states setting up convenient low-cost individual retirement accounts (IRAs) for workers who aren’t covered under an employer-based plan such as a 401(k) or a traditional pension. These plans, sometimes called “Secure Choice” plans, are well advanced in many states, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and Oregon. They’re designed to make it easy for workers whose employers don’t offer retirement plans—shockingly, around half of all workers—to contribute to low-cost IRAs through automatic payroll deductions. Workers who stand to benefit are disproportionately low-wage workers and small business employees.

Support for meddling with these useful, if limited, programs tends to split along party lines, though at least one Republican, Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, has publicly opposed H.R. 66 and a similar bill and others appear on the fence.

Passage of the bill in a GOP-controlled Congress would belie the party’s claim to respect states’ rights. Republicans have historically supported retirement savings accounts, and the state plans only offer a low-cost, hassle-free way for uncovered workers to do something they can do already—contribute to an IRA. So why are some members of Congress trying to derail the state initiatives? They claim to be concerned about workers, but it should come as no surprise that the mutual fund industry is behind H.R. 66, presumably because state plans offering low-cost investment options could serve as a nudge to employers to rethink the high-cost funds they offer in their 401(k)s.

Read more

After President Trump’s first 100 days in office, it’s clear that his promises to help the working class were little more than a campaign ploy. His dismantling of Obama-era regulations like the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule and deregulation of the financial industry reveal what he really cares about—lining the pockets of America’s ultra-rich.

Nothing demonstrates his disdain for working people more than his budget proposal. In it, he cuts 31 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s budget, which ensures people across the country have clean air and water, and 21 percent from Department of Labor programs that provide job training to seniors and disadvantaged youth. Instead of helping working people, Trump’s budget imposes a hiring freeze on crucial federal agencies and calls for many more staff to be laid off from public sector jobs—the largest reduction in the federal workforce since World War II.

The FY 2018 People’s Budget: A Roadmap for the Resistance by the Congressional Progressive Caucus stands in stark contrast to Trump’s budget. The People’s Budget is a plan to actually help working Americans who have felt left behind by an economy rigged against them. Our budget, is a roadmap for the resistance, investing in the progressive priorities and kitchen table issues that matter to real people: infrastructure to create jobs and ensure public safety; education to help our kids reach their full potential; and sustainable energy to protect our precious environment.Progressives in Congress fully want to make investments in our future generations and protect programs that improve the lives of people every day. We believe our budget should strengthen Social Security and Medicare and invest in job growth through infrastructure, education, and research and development, while responsibly reducing our deficits and cutting wasteful spending and redundant programs where they exist.

Read more

On Monday morning, members of Congress in the House and Senate made public the text of omnibus appropriations legislation to fund the U.S. government through September 2017. The legislation includes a “rider” provision that will double the size of the H-2B nonimmigrant visa program, a temporary foreign worker (or “guestworker”) program that brings up to 66,000 migrant workers per year to the United States for up to nine months at a time to perform low-wage seasonal jobs in industries like landscaping, forestry, housekeeping, seafood processing, and construction. The fact that the legislation was unveiled on May Day makes it sadly ironic, because if President Trump signs it without pressuring congressional leaders to remove this H-2B rider, it will become the latest example of Trump’s aggressive anti-worker agenda. There is still a chance that the final version of the bill might not include it, but it’s a longshot unless Trump demands that Republican leaders in Congress take it out.

H-2B visas are sponsored—in other words owned and controlled—by the employers who hire H-2B workers. In practice that means H-2B guestworkers cannot switch employers if they are cheated or abused. For H-2B workers, losing their visa makes them instantly deportable, which is why they often work for low wages in poor conditions without complaining. In addition, EPI research has shown how H-2B wage rules have often allowed H-2B workers to be paid less than local average wage rates for similarly situated U.S. workers, and how H-2B workers earn no more than undocumented workers on average. Moreover, there are numerous cases of litigation, reports in the media, and government audits documenting how migrants employed through the H-2B program are often exploited and robbed by employers, and even are victims of human trafficking. Because U.S. workers are forced to compete with vulnerable H-2B workers, in turn, this degrades wages and working conditions for all workers in major H-2B occupations. Thus, there’s no question that the H-2B program needs major reforms to protect migrant and American workers—but any push to expand H-2B should be made through the regular legislative process and after a full debate in Congress, so that members are accountable for their votes—not as a fly-by-night provision on a must-pass spending bill.

Read more

Included in President Trump’s announcement of his tax plan earlier this week is a promise to provide “tax relief for families with child and dependent care expenses”. Without more details about his plan, however, it’s near-impossible to judge, but we make an attempt nonetheless.

Various news outlets and advocates have speculated that Trump’s initial interest in reforming Dependent Care Flexible Spending Accounts (DCFSA) has since shifted to address a more widely utilized tax credit, referred to as the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (see here, here, and here).

There are three central questions to ask when facing reforms billed as improving access to effective, high-quality child care and education: (1) Does the policy allow all parents the option to stay home with their infants, newly adopted children, or new foster children? (2) Does the policy relieve the cost burden of early child care and education for low- and middle-income families? (3) Does the policy improve quality by investing in the early care and education workforce?

Given the wording of the president’s plan outline, it would appear his efforts will focus on (2) affordability—by either reforming or expanding the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC)—while remaining silent on (1) parental leave policies and (3) improving child care quality. Right off the bat, his hint at child care reform misses key components, and we will show you below that improving affordability through current tax programs misses the target.

Relying on the tax system to improve access to affordable, high quality child care has a number of limitations. As a whole, using the tax system to expand access to affordable child care is especially misguided for three key reasons. First, many families do not have the cash on hand each month to pay out-of-pocket and wait for the end of the year’s tax return. Second, not all current tax credits benefiting household with children are refundable, meaning they are useless if a family owes no taxes. Finally, existing tax programs for child care are not well targeted. In a zero sum world of child care subsidies, many families who arguably don’t need assistance are getting a large share of it.

Read more

Besides the labor secretary, President Trump will name countless federal officials responsible for advocating for working people. One of the most important agencies to which Trump will nominate officials is the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which protects the rights of private sector employees to join together, with or without a union, to improve their wages and working conditions.

On April 25, POLITICO reported that the Trump administration is considering Minneapolis attorney Doug Seaton to fill a vacancy on the NLRB. Seaton is a well-known union-avoidance consultant, otherwise known as a “persuader” or, more accurately, a union buster.

When workers seek to organize and bargain collectively, employers often hire so-called “persuaders” to orchestrate and roll out time-tested, anti-union campaigns. Union-avoidance consultants do exactly what their job titles describe: they help employers keep their businesses union-free, by either defeating union organizing campaigns or assisting with decertification efforts to unseat an existing union.

Read more

In 2015, 4,836 workers died on the job. That’s nearly five thousand husbands, wives, fathers, and mothers who walked out their door in the morning and never came back home.

April 28 is Workers’ Memorial Day—an international day of remembrance for workers killed, disabled, or sickened by their work. And as highlighted by the AFL-CIO’s 2017 Death on the Job Report, it is also an opportunity to highlight the preventable nature of most workplace deaths and injuries, and a day of action to fight for improvements in workplace safety.

One important way we can honor the memories of our fallen loved ones is by learning from what happened, and enacting laws and regulations to make workers safer in the future. In fact, many workplace safety laws and regulations are passed in memory of workers who died on the job.

Take, for example, the Miner Act of 2006—a mine safety law enacted after the deaths of 21 miners within the first few months of that year. The Senate report explaining the necessity of the enhanced mining safety provisions states that, “these tragedies serve as a somber reminder that even that which has been done well can always be done better.” Or California’s 2016 Workplace Violence Prevention in Health Care regulation, promulgated to protect health care workers against workplace violence after the deaths of a psychiatric technician and a registered nurse who were killed during patient assaults. Documentation supporting the regulation states that, “the deaths of theses health care workers demonstrate the need for better security measures, procedures, and practices.”

The foundational step in enacting new worker safety rules is recording and reporting workplace incidents, because if we don’t know about the problems, we cannot solve them. For example, many people may be surprised that in 2016, the private-sector jobs with the highest rates of injuries included not only tractor-trailer truck drivers and warehouse laborers, but also nursing assistants. And the top five public-sector occupations with the highest rates of injury included sheriff’s patrol officers and firefighters, but also janitors, cleaners, and teacher assistants.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for tracking workplace injuries and illnesses, and issuing new rules and regulations to keep workers safe going forward. But OSHA cannot read minds: it requires employers to record and report injury and illness rates in their workplaces. Yet, many employers evade their statutory recording and reporting duties, sweeping deaths and injuries under the rug to avoid liability. That is one reason why OSHA enacted a recordkeeping rule last year, enhancing its enforcement powers to issue citations and fines to employers who fail to maintain these critical injury and illness records.

Yet, one of the first things President Trump and congressional Republicans did this year was overturn OSHA’s recordkeeping rule, and establish that OSHA can never promulgate a similar rule again unless Congress specifically authorizes it to do so.

So now workers may not only die at work, they could die in vain. Or lose a limb, lose their eyesight, or develop lung cancer from exposure to toxins. And instead of honoring their tragedies by recording and reporting them to learn what we can do better, much if it could all quietly brushed under the rug. Without any evidence of the problems of the past, we can have no solutions for the future.

What will happen next year if, because OSHA’s enforcement powers have been stripped down, workplace tragedies go unreported? Sadly, it’s something we all should think about during this Workers’ Memorial Day. And who knows, one day the person who wakes up, goes to work, and never comes home could be someone you love. Wouldn’t you want their death to mean something? Check the vote count for overturning OSHA’s rule to see if your congressperson or Senator agrees.

Alexander Acosta will not be the secretary of labor that working people need, and for that reason, senators should oppose his confirmation. As Senator Elizabeth Warren said, the test is not whether Acosta is better than Andrew Puzder, a truly abysmal, insulting choice to lead the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The test must be whether he will be a strong advocate for working Americans, someone who will use the power of his department to improve their lives. The evidence from Acosta’s confirmation hearings and his past service in the government shows that he will not. The best we might hope for is that he will not politicize the agency and will be a caretaker until an administration that believes in the Labor Department’s mission is elected. That is not enough.

It isn’t even clear that Acosta will be a good caretaker of the agency whose mission is to foster and promote the welfare of the nation’s job seekers, wage earners, and retirees. At Acosta’s confirmation hearing, Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH) asked whether Acosta would defend the DOL against the draconian 21 percent budget cut called for in President Trump’s preliminary budget. Acosta refused to say he would, despite professing concern about reducing the already tiny number of OSHA compliance officers in New Hampshire. Even Scott Pruitt, who spent years in state government attacking and suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before his appointment as EPA administrator, cared enough about his mission to publicly oppose the EPA budget sent to Congress by Trump’s Office of Management and Budget. DOL’s Wage and Hour Division has fewer than 1000 inspectors for 7.3 million workplaces, and wage theft is a nationwide epidemic costing workers tens of billions of dollars a year. Yet Acosta would not commit to work to preserve the meager resources devoted to protecting workers from abuse.

Read more

Today, President Trump is set to unveil a proposal that serves as his opening bid for the upcoming debate over tax “reform.” Unsurprisingly, the president is proposing straightforward tax cuts for the rich, which will need to be temporary because they will increase the federal budget deficit. It’s being reported that the centerpiece of the proposal is a cut to the rate faced by both corporations and “pass-throughs” to 15 percent, accompanied by the claim that the tax cuts will pay for themselves (“pass-throughs” are businesses that pay no direct taxes but whose owners pay individual taxes on the dividends and other income they receive from the business). There are three important things to note about these proposed changes.

First, they would clearly be a windfall to already-rich households. The incidence of corporate tax cuts falls disproportionately on owners of businesses and other capital, and this type of income is incredibly concentrated at the top, with the top 1 percent alone claiming 53 percent of it in 2013.

Second, these tax cuts will not trickle down. There is simply no payoff to low- and middle-income families from cutting the corporate tax rate. We’ll touch on this more in an upcoming paper, but briefly, corporate tax cuts are terribly inefficient fiscal stimulus relative to nearly any other tax cut or spending increase. And the textbook channel through which they boost long-run growth—boosting savings—will not materialize. The U.S. and global economies are glutted with savings, so boosting incentives to save helps nothing.

Read more