ON THE ISSUES
WHAT TANIA STANDS FOR
Tania is a Newer Deal Democrat. What does that mean? The original New Deal, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s signature program, was enacted during the Great Depression. It encompassed legislation that regulated business and established federal programs that created the social safety net.
​
The business regulations in the original New Deal included antitrust laws, which prevented the creation of monopolies that harmed competition and failed to deliver goods at fair prices. They prevented the boom-and-bust cycles associated with unregulated capitalism, which historically caused market crashes every 20 to 30 years. The programs that created a basic safety net, including Social Security, the federal minimum wage, and the Public Works Administration, provided Americans with access to jobs, a livable wage, and a secure retirement.
​
Unfortunately, the benefits of the New Deal were not equitably enjoyed by all citizens since sexism and racism—Jim Crow laws were still in place in the South, were predominant in our laws and our culture during that era. ​Nonetheless, the New Deal brought enormous benefits to our country overall. America saw the greatest expansion of the middle class and experienced the longest period of economic stability—no more boom-and-bust cycles followed by a market crash.
​
For more than 50 years, the regulations on businesses and antitrust laws have been weakened or repealed. The social safety net has been frayed if not outright targeted for
elimination. Tania attributes widening income inequality and the rising tension in our country to the attacks on the New Deal legislation. She believes the best way forward is to use the New Deal as a model but with discernment to ensure that the laws and programs are designed to benefit all Americans fairly.
​
“We need a Newer Deal. We must enact business regulations and progressive tax policies to build an economy that works for everyone, not just billionaires. We must protect and expand public programs and infrastructure to guarantee every American the opportunity to genuinely pursue life, liberty, and happiness.” - Tania Nyman
-
DEFEND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
-
​PROTECT ELECTION INTEGRITY
-
PROTECT PUBLIC EDUCATION
-
FAIR WAGES
-
FAIR TAXATION​
-
PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY
-
PROTECT & EXPAND MEDICARE​
-
PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT
-
AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE
-
AFFORDABLE TUITION TO PUBLIC COLLEGES
-
BAN CONGRESSIONAL STOCK TRADING
-
PASS A WAR POWERS RESOLUTION
-
SUPPORT EFFORTS TO REVITALIZE THE STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
-
PROTECT ELECTION INTEGRITY
Ensuring that ballots are counted accurately is important, but there are other equally important factors to ensure the integrity of our elections, including the adoption of fair maps, protecting voter access, and overturning the Citizens United decision.
-
FAIR MAPS
In order to ensure the constitutional principle of one person, one vote, maps of political jurisdictions must abide by key elements. Districts must be compact; contiguous; of approximately equal population size; and protect communities of interest. Districts must not be gerrymandered to “pack” minority populations into too few districts or “crack” minority populations between districts to dilute their voting strength. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) is critically important to ensure that maps abide by these principles.
-
PROTECT VOTER ACCESS
Our democratic form of government demands that we ensure eligible voters’ right and ability to participate in elections. Currently that right is under attack. Under the guise of preventing voter fraud, President Trump and some Republicans are demanding the passage of the SAVE Act. This Act imposes strict new voter ID requirements that could prohibit many eligible citizens from voting in upcoming elections, including the midterm elections this fall. That Trump is demanding the implementation of such dramatic changes on such a short timeline should be worrisome to all. Married women who changed their names, for example, could find themselves turned away at the polls. We must prevent the passage of the SAVE Act and similar efforts that prohibit voter access.
-
OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED
The Citizens United decision dramatically altered campaign finance rules, authorizing corporations and other groups to spend unlimited funds in elections. Corporations and billionaire-backed SuperPACs immediately began to pour billions of dollars into our elections to help elect candidates that serve their interests rather than those of the American people. We must overturn Citizens United to restore integrity to our elections.
-
PROTECT PUBLIC EDUCATION
Public education is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy. In order for schools to be genuinely public, they must be subject to the democratic control of their community. For the past several decades, there has been a concerted effort to undermine this democratic control and our public schools. We must protect our public schools from further harm and reverse the damage. We must recommit to investing in genuine public education so that we may fulfill our responsibility to provide all children regardless of race, socioeconomic background, and ability with a free and appropriate education. Federal policy must be designed to fulfill this responsibility, and it must be written in a manner to ensure states, especially Louisiana, use the federal resources provided to strengthen not weaken public education.
-
FAIR WAGES
Currently set at $7.25, the federal minimum wage has not been increased by Congress since 2009. This amount does not provide a living wage. Congress must increase the minimum wage to at least $15.00 per hour.
-
FAIR TAXATION
Income inequality in America has skyrocketed over the past 50 years thanks in part to the leveling of our progressive income tax. We must increase tax rates on top income brackets to help mitigate income inequality.
Currently our top most income bracket for single tax payers begins at $626,351 and at $751,601 for married filing jointly. Income above those amounts is taxed at 37%. Historically, this tax rate has been much higher. In 1960, it was 90%. In 1980, it was 70%. The Reagan tax cuts passed in 1986 reduced this rate to 28%. According to the Federal Reserve, income inequality has significantly increased since 1980. The correlation between the cuts to this tax rate and the increase in income inequality demonstrates the need to restore the top tax rate to levels in place prior to the Reagan era.
One possible solution is to simply create additional brackets with incrementally graduated tax rates on income over $1 million dollars. The number of brackets over $1 million (i.e. $1 million, $10 million, $100 million) and the various rates (i.e. 45%, 60%, 70%) would be determined after a comprehensive study. If approached in this manner, most Americans would not see any increase in their federal income taxes. The additional income taxes would be paid solely by those earning more than $1 million in income.
In addition to increasing tax rates on income over $1 million, we must levy a wealth tax. Such a tax would levy a modest percentage on total assets over $50 million in order to generate sufficient funds to address the growing deficit, fund essential services, and properly care for the American people. One current plan, The Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has nearly 50 co-sponsors and the support of nearly 40 community groups and labor organizations.
If I am elected to Congress, I would support The Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act.
-
PROTECT SOCIAL SECURITY: RAISE THE CAP
Social Security may be the most significant program enacted under President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Signed into law in 1935, the program was intended to provide the elderly with some modicum of retirement benefits. For nearly a century, social security has done just that.
In recent years, officials warn the program is in dire straits. Most estimates suggest social security will be depleted by 2034, which will require significant reductions in benefits. Such reductions put the most vulnerable citizens at risk and reduces the quality of life for all Americans. This can and must be avoided.
We can easily protect Social Security. Congress must simply raise the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax. Currently, wages subject to the tax are capped at $184,500. Raising the cap would not increase taxes on those who earn less than this amount. Those who earn more than $184,500 would see an increase.
Raising the cap even significantly would result in a relatively modest tax increase for these individuals when compared to their overall income. For example, if the Social Security threshold was raised from $184,500 to $300,000, taxes on the highest earners would increase by $7100. This amount is a small percentage of their overall income, and it is well worth the additional benefits: it would ensure Social Security's solvency and guarantee benefits to all participants, including those paying the additional taxes. For the higher earners, these additional taxes will produce a longterm gain that in most cases will far exceed the initial investment.
There are indirect benefits as well. Guaranteeing social security benefits for all Americans improves the quality of life for communities overall and reduces low income individuals' dependency on other social programs. In other words, an increase in the social security tax helps stabilize communities and prevents tax increases for other social programs.
-
PROTECT AND EXPAND MEDICARE
Medicare is one of the most successful and critically important government programs, providing healthcare benefits for more than 60 million Americans 65 and older. We must strengthen the solvency of the Medicare program so that it is available for seniors for generations to come.
​
One aspect that needs to be addressed is the continued increase in the privatization through Medicare Advantage plans. Medicare Advantage is provided by private health insurance plans that receive a monthly payment from the Medicare Program to provide health coverage for enrolled seniors. The monthly payment is calculated in part based on the health condition of the insured Medicare member. The Medicare Advantage plans pay the health care providers for the covered members.
​
Many studies have shown mixed-results when evaluating whether traditional Medicare enrollees or Medicare Advantage members are receiving better overall care. However, a study by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) estimates federal payments to Medicare Advantage Plans in 2025 exceeded the spending that would have occurred in traditional Medicare for those enrollees by 20%, which approximates $84 billion in additional spending. This raises the question of whether the additional spending is providing a better quality of care or simply increased profits for the Medicare Advantage private insurance companies. The fixed-payments Medicare pays to the Medicare Advantage plans must be scrutinized to determine if they are in the best interest of the program and taxpayers.
​
EXPAND MEDICARE​
​
Medicare currently covers in-patient hospital care, doctors’ services and tests, and preventive care. It should be expanded to also cover dental and vision for eligible seniors.
​
The expansion should not stop with the type of benefits. Ideally, Medicare would be expanded to cover all U.S. citizens. We could achieve this by incrementally decreasing the age of eligibility until we achieve Medicare for All. This is long overdue. This was a key component of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s second Bill of Rights which he shared in his State of the Union address in 1941: The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
To genuinely achieve this objective, we must simultaneously protect our public hospitals. Ideally a universal healthcare program would depend upon public hospitals to provide quality care at an affordable rate. Unfortunately, our public hospitals are being systematically privatized. Private hospitals create another means for private entities to profit from public programs. This is a direct threat to achieving cost-effective universal healthcare that can provide high quality care.
The One Big Beautiful Bill has endangered public hospitals across Louisiana, including District 5. We must reverse the harmful provisions of the OBBB to protect the people who live and work in Louisiana and the public infrastructure that provides for them.
-
PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT
We must protect our planet. Climate change is real. Decreasing our dependency on fossil fuels is critically important. Developing new “green” technologies is one means. We should also invest heavily in public transportation projects in order to reduce the number of vehicles on the roads.
-
REINSTATE AND STRENGTHEN ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
Congress must not only reinstate but strengthen the environmental regulations repealed by the Trump administration. President Trump’s most recent and possibly most significant action was to repeal the endangerment finding that allowed the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Trump’s repeal of this finding may not apply to powerplants, possibly the most relevant consideration for Louisiana. However, even with the endangerment finding in place, petrochemical plants in Louisiana have been allowed to “self-report” the release of dangerous emissions. This lack of oversight and enforcement of policies must be addressed for the health and well-being of those who live near these facilities as well as for the entire state and the world.
-
IMPOSE A MORATORIUM ON NEW DATA CENTERS
The proliferation of data centers in Louisiana demands our immediate attention. A data center in Mississippi offers a cautionary tale. Approved with inadequate regulations, the xAI data center dramatically eroded the quality of life for the people in its vicinity and appears to offer little to no economic benefit.
Unfortunately, the Meta data center approved for construction in Richland Parish appears poised to do the same. Louisiana officials offered Meta exorbitantly generous tax incentives and did not require any meaningful commitments to local job creation. No environmental impact study was required. Concerns about air quality and water usage remain unaddressed. These factors suggest this facility will offer little to no benefit to the local community or the state. Moreover, Louisiana’s Public Service Commission recently approved a change to the company’s financial structure which appears to allow Meta to avoid long term obligations it previously agreed to.
These instances demonstrate we are unprepared to properly evaluate, regulate, and administer these facilities. We need more time to perform the appropriate research so we can ensure any data centers are in the best interest of the people of Louisiana. For this reason, I agree with efforts to place a moratorium on the approval of all new data centers until we can determine how best to proceed.
-
PROHIBIT NEW CARBON INJECTION PROJECTS: IMPOSE A MORATORIUM AND SUSPEND FEDERAL SUBSIDIES
In theory, carbon capture and storage (CCS) or carbon sequestration projects include a variety of initiatives, including biofuels like forests, grasses, and algae. In Louisiana, CCS commonly refers to carbon injection projects. Carbon injection begins with the capture of carbon dioxide emitted by a facility. The CO2 is converted from a gas to a liquid and transported to a storage site, where it is injected deep underground.
The publicly available data on this technique does not unequivocally demonstrate that it works. It appears the amount of carbon dioxide it removes from the environment is offset by the amount of carbon dioxide required to build the facility, transport the liquid CO2, and maintain operations of the storage facility.
Moreover, there are real environmental risks. Data demonstrates that deep wells often leak oil and gas into ground water, streams, and lakes for decades after being plugged and abandoned.
To adequately address the question of CCS projects, Congress should:
​
-
suspend the tax incentive for such projects. Intended to encourage investment in CCS projects and emission reductions, the tax incentive instead has been used to increase oil production by means which offset any reduction in emissions.
-
impose a moratorium on any new carbon injection projects until the technology can be evaluated by those with the expertise to objectively weigh its costs and benefits.