Tag Archives: Republicans

GOP and their Silent Night

Some thoughts on what’s been being shown on my television set recently…

Item: The chatterati are opining about .Republican silence in regard to Trump’s racist commentary.  I’m not so sure this is entirely accurate. True, Republican members of the House and Senate haven’t flocked to the cameras to denounce the egregious tweets, but silence may not be the most accurate characterization either.  Several Republican members have made it very clear, right out in public, they’ve no intention to run for reelection in 2020.

Those announcements might easily be construed to mean that while they don’t wish to incur the wrath of the Tweeter in Chief, they also don’t care to associated with his regime. This isn’t indicative of any great level of intestinal fortitude, but it is a form of statement.

Item: Senate Majority Leader McConnell is bent into pretzelian contortions because of criticism aimed at his refusal to bring election security measures up in the Senate.  Woe, he cries, it’s McCarthyism to suggest his disloyalty! Note to the Majority Leader, hurling epithets doesn’t answer the question — Why will you not bring these bills up for consideration?

Further, he declares, the Democrats are exploiting an issue for partisan advantage.  First, let’s notice that at least one of the bills is a bipartisan product, and secondly be aware that all issues, relating to all legislative matters, may at some point be advantageous for one side or the other. However, we’d be remiss not to observe McConnell’s comments as predictably convenient.  Whenever legislative consideration is sought on matters related to gun regulation reform or election security, the Majority Leader can be counted upon to declare this a matter of partisan exploitation.  This refrain is getting tiresome.

Dear Majority Leader, if you don’t want to be festooned with the hash tag #MoscowMitch, then do something to distance yourself from the Deripaskas of this world…hint: that aluminum plant deal in Kentucky isn’t helping.

Comments Off on GOP and their Silent Night

Filed under elections, Politics, racism

It’s Been A Long Time Coming: Trump wasn’t built in a day.

The Mueller Hearing, July 24, 2019, laid bare the current differences between the modern renditions of Republicans and Democrats in a stark flash illuminating what’s been going on since 1964 (at least) and why there are no silver bullets to resolve the Constitutional issues.  The hearings took 7 hours, the problems it highlighted are freighted with 65 years worth of history. Viewed from this perspective, Trump isn’t the disease, he’s the major symptom.

If there’s a handy label for the current political shape of the Republican Party I’m not aware of it, but what we are looking at is an amalgam of revitalized Dixiecrats and long range planning by the National Association of Manufacturers as described in the 1971 memo authored by Lewis Powell.

There are more than enough tomes on both the rise of corporate power, and the insidious spread of racist political foundations, to fill library shelves.  All we need do is see the spectacle of GOP apologists for Russian interference in our elections as another mile marker on an already paved road.

Part of the pavement is composed of the vestiges of those states where the decision in Brown v Board of Education was not well received, and those states where the battle flag went back up when it was discovered that they really were going to have to integrate their schools and public accommodations.  Does anyone believe it’s an accident Senate Majority Leader McConnell is jamming through judicial appointments of those who are hedging on whether Brown was correctly decided?  Does anyone cling to the fiction that the anti-abortion culture war alliances don’t trace back to school desegregation orders? Does anyone doubt the blatant racism of Stephen Miller’s immigration proposals?

Trump hasn’t changed the racist nature of modern Republican political ideology, he’s just said the quiet part out loud.

The other part of the mixture recalls the days when the National Association of  Manufacturers decided to move their headquarters to Wasington DC.  The road map was drafted in Lewis Powell’s 1971 memo, the “American economic system is under broad attack.” Powell advocated a long term, gradual but steady, advance of corporate interests.  It wasn’t too difficult to combine the residual McCarthyism with the call for “less government” to achieve the unlikely scene of so-called populist ultra-conservatives avidly supporting a racist president against the Commies and Socialists in a hearing room; it just took time and patience.

Please give latitude to my cynicism. Impeaching Trump would be a very constructive activity, but it won’t solve the problem. The GOP will simply find another, possibly less boorish, model who will be all the more dangerous for being better able to keep his (And it will be his) thumbs and mouth under control, one who won’t say the quiet part at decibel levels associated with aircraft engines.

The better view may be to take a longer approach, and one which draws from their own playbook. Hit’em where they think they’re strongest. In this instance, hit Trump on the very issue he intends to ride to a 2020 victory…immigration.

He’s already doubled, perhaps tripled, down on the racism embedded in his approach as he angles toward a base turnout election.  When an opponent is digging himself into a hole, hand him a larger shovel.  It shouldn’t be too difficult to brand Trump’s policies as racist, which they patently are. Nor should it be too much effort to clothe him in these soiled philosophical garments. “Yes, the stock market is doing well, but what are we to make of the fact that some children are being detained away from their parents in squalid conditions?”  Some message discipline required, but if Democrats can tag every interview with a brief inquiry about children in cages, US citizens being detained, or why the Republicans won’t discuss DACA recipients, the frog may start to boil?

Then we can add the health care issue. There is no GOP plan to replace the ACA.  Add one measure of immigration attack (Why won’t the GOP listen to Dreamers? Why are children locked away?) to one measure of specifically what is your plan to cover those with pre-existing medical conditions?  What is your plan to provide maternity care? Mental health and addiction abatement care? Why can’t we address gun violence as a question of public health and safety?

As once members of the left avoided the term liberal because the right wing talkers besmeared it, let right wingers know how the racist, heartless, radical label grates?

We could strengthen and broaden the Democratic message, and take an opportunity to begin a longer phased approach to reclaiming the social contract binding citizens to their government.  Patience. Discipline. Progress. It’s possible. A pendulum swings both directions.

 

Comments Off on It’s Been A Long Time Coming: Trump wasn’t built in a day.

Filed under conservatism, family issues, Gun Issues, Health Care, Immigration, Politics, racism

Make America Good Again: The Day After the Day After

MAGA blue good again

I am having trouble finding the words to express what I’m feeling this morning.  Is it disappointment in the response from the President to the bombs sent to prominent Democrats?  Not really, after his performance in the wake of the Charlottesville violence I can’t say I find his jab at the media this morning disappointing in the sense that I wouldn’t have expected it.

Am I frustrated by the Both Siders who persist in remarking how Both Sides Do whatever it is that everyone finds appalling?  Yes.  Let’s be fact-based for the moment.  Indeed, a left leaning whackadoodle shot up a GOP baseball practice severely injuring Congressman Steve Scalise; however, if we’re playing “balancing act” here then the scales are heavily weighted toward right wing terrorists who shot up a Unitarian church in Tennessee, who took a gun into the Holocaust Museum, who shot up a Bible study class in Charleston, SC, who drove into a crowded street in Charlottesville, VA, who terrorized a wildlife refuge in Oregon.   In fact, there’s a study out there showing that of 65 terrorist attacks in the US in one year 2/3rds of them were “tied to racist, anti-Muslim, homophobic, anti-Semitic, fascist, anti-government or xenophobic motivations.” [SPLC]  So, spare me the Both Sides Do It business.  I’m not in the mood for more obfuscation this morning.

I might also say I’m a little agitated by the calls for “civility.”  This form of advocacy seems perilously close to Both Side-ism, and I’m not really buying into it.  First, someone needs to tell the President that politics is a contact sport — like basketball as it is played in the paint.  If he can’t take the heat, then President Harry Truman had some advice: “Get out of the kitchen.”   If every criticism is taken as a personal insult, if every objection is perceived as an attack, then I suppose the President may feel assailed on all sides. Welcome to the office.  Is he thinking President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama loved all the press they got?  Did either of them continually whine about “fake news?”  Not that I recall.  I remember both arguing for broader perspectives or more focused information and articles, but Lord have mercy I don’t remember all the whingeing and whining that’s coming out of the White House now.

Secondly,  civility shouldn’t be subject to a double standard.  Is it civil to lie about Democratic positions on taxation, health care insurance programs, and veterans’ benefits?  — and then squeal like a stuck pig when this is challenged?  Is it mutually “civil” to lambaste one’s opponent for items real and imagined and then scream bloody murder when the lambasting is returned?  There’s too much loaded language involved in this element.  My side is “challenging” your side is “attacking.”  My side is “passionate,” your side is “unhinged.”  My side is activated, your side is an angry mob.  I’m tried of framing games.

Tone down, or dial down, the rhetoric?  Excuse me? Which side has a crowd chanting “Lock Her Up?”  “CNN sucks?”  Which side has advocated “2nd Amendment Solutions?” Which side has told voters to go to the 2018 polls armed because the Democrats may be an “angry mob?”  Which side equates harassment in a restaurant with driving a car into protesters and bomb threats?

A bit further along this line, don’t try to convince me this morning the President is completely unblemished, untarnished, untouched by the actions of whomever is sending and delivering the bombs.  I’m sure I understand the general notion of proximate causation.  I know full well the President didn’t directly inspire the actions of the whack-job who’s sending the bombs for whatever reason. I get that.  I also get that he’s not helping.

The President doesn’t get to lead chants, grin at the racist/misogynist antics of the crowd, and then wash his hands (or have them washed for him by his apologists) of the whole mess by saying, “I wasn’t directly involved.”

Teachers often refer to “classroom management,”  meaning that the tone in their classroom is set by the teacher who by instruction and example lets it be known that misbehavior is not tolerated — and 90% of the students will behave themselves accordingly.  Business owners often refer to “climate,” and mean that by instruction or example employees will follow standards of ethics and behavior associated with good management and customer/client relations practices.  90% of employees will conform, the other 10% will be looking for other employment.   This White House doesn’t appear to understand that management, climate, or whatever we want to call it, is a function of leadership. Real leadership. Hands on management and the establishment of a positive corporate culture and climate.  Leadership with real accountability.  Or, there’s the old cliché: fish rots from the head.

I want an America that’s good again.  I want an America which is seen worldwide as opposed to the killing of journalists from any newspaper from any country.  I want an America that doesn’t lock children in cages and call it a deterrent for asylum seekers. I want an America where the 99% can expect the same deference to their economic needs as the top 1%.  I want an America where children don’t have live fire drills in elementary and secondary schools. I want an America where parents don’t wait to take a child to a physician because they can’t afford a medical bill that month.  I want an America where everyone is encouraged to vote. I want an America where no one thinks sending bombs to prominent politicians is excusable, and that a President can be excused for his un-empathetic response to the incidents.

I want an America that’s good again.

Comments Off on Make America Good Again: The Day After the Day After

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics

And now some after thoughts

There are some Nevada politicians still clutching Trumpian coat-tails, or pants’ legs, or something as of now.  They might want to ask some questions, some fundamental, some quotidian, some tangential about that posture.  We’ve had a day in which President Obama has spoken of a need to preserve and protect our democratic institutions, and in which his successor has spoken of a felt need to use the Department of Justice to pursue his personal political critics.  It’s time to address the questions.

Do Nevada politicians really want to associate themselves with a president who cannot, or perhaps will not, differentiate between his own sense of security and the security of this nation?  There is a difference.  Our national security is not compromised by the publication of non-classified, albeit controversial, information about how the West Wing functions.  It is a stretch to assume that IF a person divulges information from a meeting then it is presumed the individual in questions would necessarily reveal classified information.  I can think of one instance in which #45 shared information with Russian visitors to the White House that compromised sources and methods; no sources and methods were compromised by the NYT op-ed piece.

President Bush took flack from critics of the Iraq War, from those critical of his administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina, and from others who decried his economic policies and his advocacy of de-regulation.  Never once did he call the press an “enemy of the people.”  President Obama received his share of criticism and complaint concerning everything from wearing a tan suit to the validity of his birth certificate. Never once did he call the press an “enemy of the people.”  Both these men understood the difference between the President and the Presidency, and the difference between being the Head of State and the State itself.

Merely because criticism makes #45 feel insecure doesn’t mean the state is insecure.  Bush understood this. Obama understood this.  Nevada politicians would do well to consider whether or not to wholeheartedly support someone who can’t make this distinction.

Do Nevada politicians truly want to run campaigns anchored in a message of fear and division?  What is gained by suggesting that Nevada citizens of Hispanic origin are less “American” than the citizens of Irish, German, Polish, Basque, or Chinese descent who preceded them?  What is gained by inferring that immigrants from the Philippines are less capable of assimilating into the broad fabric of Nevada life than the immigrant workers in the hospitality industry who came from other countries?  What is better for Nevada in the long run, promoting a path to citizenship and entrepreneurial opportunities for immigrants to this country (and this state), or building walls, both metaphorical and literal to keep them at a distance?

It isn’t necessary to run about wearing a white hood to touch the vile pitch of racism.  All that’s required is to advocate in favor of restricting the economic opportunities, circumscribe the education, and diminish the participation in civic life, for various ethnic or minority groups.  We can constrict them, devalue them, and make advocacy difficult for them.  We can take away their voices by capriciously restraining their voting rights.  We can wall ourselves off from them.  However, in doing so we only succeed in encircling and shrinking ourselves.

If there’s one thing Nevada has it’s miles and miles of beautiful miles and miles. We can see further toward the horizons beyond most other topographical regions in this nation.  Why would we choose to close down our social horizons when after a few moments driving time we can open up our physical ones?   Every time we build a wall we restrict our own field of vision.

Fear usually breeds failure.  Do Nevada politicians want to associate with failed policies? Nothing seems like a larger failure than the Zero Tolerance debacle on our southern border.  416 children to date separated from their parents, some of whom were lawfully seeking asylum in this country.  Too many of these youngsters are under the age of 5.  This is an unconscionable failure.  Unless, of course, one adopts the President’s mindset that immigrants from Mexico and Central America “infest” our country; unless, of course, one thinks of people from Sh*thole Countries as undesirable. And now the Administration wants to detain families indefinitely. Indefinitely. [Vox]

There is only one nation on this planet that pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords, and as President Obama noted today, it wasn’t Syria…it was the United States of America.  There is only one nation that gave away dominance in regional trading by backing out of the Transpacific Partnership…it was the United States of America.  China and Japan are only too happy to fill the void.  There is only one western democracy causing friction among NATO allies…the United States of America. There is only one nation threatening trade wars with debilitating tariffs … the United States of America.  There is only one nation taking positions which could seriously damage trade relations with two of its most valuable trading partners… the United States of America.  This isn’t success.

We got vague promises of future vague promises from the North Korean regime.  While we made relations with China more difficult, the Chinese now have less incentive to pressure North Korea to do more.  The North Koreans are continuing their military research apace. This isn’t success.

Polarization begets gridlock, and gridlock impedes progress.  Do Nevada politicians want to take this route?  My way or the highway is NOT a bargaining position.   Implacable positions, taken for political expediency, mean a politician can never follow the dictum: Campaign in poetry, Govern in prose.  I can startle a conservative relative by arguing that single payer health care would promote entrepreneurship and support small businesses by leveling the playing field between the big box retailers and the mom and pop stores.  My conservative relative can widen my eyes by arguing that when work requirements are attached to Medicaid benefits we should be mindful of single adults, who while not physically disabled, are intellectually or developmentally challenged, and adjustments should be made for them.   If hard and fast positions don’t advance conversations; then how can they be an impetus toward progress?

We can, and must, do better.  And, we’ll do better when we function from a foundation predicated on our shared values, not one based upon our private fears.

Comments Off on And now some after thoughts

Filed under Nevada politics, Politics

News From a Fire House Sprinkles on the Republican Finance Committee

April 3, 2017:  Republican Party issues the following announcement

“I am delighted to announce the addition of these longtime friends of the Party and supporters of this administration to our Finance leadership team,” said Chairwoman McDaniel. “Elliott Broidy, Michael Cohen, and Louis DeJoy will serve as National Deputy Finance Chairmen, and Brian Ballard, Bob Grand, Gordon Sondland, Geoff Verhoff, and Ron Weiser will serve as Regional Vice-Chairmen. Together this team will employ their extraordinary talent and understanding of Americans across the country to maintain and build uponF our unprecedented fundraising success.”

January, 2018:  Former casino owner Steve Wynn, steps down from the RNC finance committee as reports of sexual harassment hit the headlines. [Politico] Wynn has since resigned as casino company CEO (March 22, 2018), has settled a six year legal battle with his ex-wife (WSJ), and has asked to be removed as a “qualifier” from the list of key employees required to undergo background checks by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. [BostonH]  However, Wynn’s donations to a Trump super-PAC aren’t going to be returned:

“Wynn gave $500,000 to America First Action Super PAC on Jan. 23, just days before the first reports of his alleged harassment of women were published, according to first-quarter financial data from the Federal Election Commission. CNBC asked the group whether it has any intention of returning the contribution following the stories of Wynn’s alleged misconduct.

“We’re not returning the donation,” a spokeswoman for America First said.” [CNBC]

Thus, the next time a member of the GOP sputters about Democrats accepting money from a potentially dubious source, the appropriate response is, “Steve Wynn.” Chicago Cubs owner, Todd Ricketts, became the new RNC Finance Chair. [CNBC]

April 13, 2018: Another shoe drops — on Elliott Broidy.

“A major donor with close ties to the White House resigned on Friday as deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee after the revelation that he had agreed to pay $1.6 million to a former Playboy model who became pregnant during an affair.” [NYT]

Mr. Broidy comes with a bit of a “past,”

In 2009, Broidy pleaded guilty to committing a felony by giving nearly $1 million in illegal gifts to state officials in order to secure a lucrative deal with New York’s public pension fund for his then-firm Markstone Capital Partners.

Broidy avoided jail time by blowing the whistle on the same people who accepted his bribes. He admitted to ponying up $75,000 for an all-expanses paid luxury trip to Jerusalem, which included first-class tickets, luxury hotel suites, a helicopter tour, and a personal driver for New York State’s comptroller and his family. [TWrap] [WSJ] {Markstone Capital, NYT}

His appeals worked such that Reuters reported in 2012:

Los Angeles money manager Elliott Broidy was spared jail time and a felony conviction on Monday for his role in a “pay to play” scheme at the New York state pension fund.

Justice Lewis Bart Stone reduced Broidy’s felony to a misdemeanor and sentenced him to a conditional discharge.

Mr. Broidy had a busy social calendar entertaining those who sought access to the White House, including the following:

Mr. Broidy offered tickets to V.I.P. inauguration events, including a candlelight dinner attended by Mr. Trump, to a Congolese strongman accused of funding a lavish lifestyle with public resources. He helped arrange a meeting with Republican senators and offered a trip to Mar-a-Lago, the president’s private Florida resort, for an Angolan politician. And he arranged an invitation to a party at Mr. Trump’s Washington hotel for a Romanian parliamentarian facing corruption charges, who posted a photograph with the president on Facebook. [NYT]

The “past became prologue” when he used the services of yet another RNC Finance Committee member to clean up — dare we say “fix” — his issues with the Playmate and her pregnancy. Therefore, the correct response to any Republican who wishes to discuss “family values,” is… “Elliott Broidy.”

April 13, 2018:  Who helped arrange the $1.6 million payout to the Broidy’s ex-mistress? Another RNC Finance Committee member Michael Cohen. [CNN]  Mr. Cohen has drawn the attention of the prosecutors in the SDNY, complete with a highly publicized raid.

“The longtime attorney for President Donald Trump’s real-estate empire, Michael Cohen, went to federal court on Monday in a bid to block federal prosecutors from reading documents and other materials that were seized from Cohen’s home in a sweeping raid. The porn star Stormy Daniels, whom Cohen allegedly paid off to protect Trump, was there to watch. And the hearing was presided over by Judge Kimba Wood, who ordered Cohen to reveal the name of a client he’d tried to keep secret: the Fox News host Sean Hannity.” [Atlantic]

The paragraph above sums up the Trumpian swamp which is looking more like a sink-hole with every passing day.  Thus, the appropriate reply to Republican assertions of “transparency and accountability” is “Michael Cohen.”

Meanwhile, will the last member of the Republican National Finance Committee please turn out the lights and lock the door?

Comments Off on News From a Fire House Sprinkles on the Republican Finance Committee

Filed under campaign finance reform, campaign funds, corruption, Nevada politics, Politics, RNC, Steve Wynn

Not One More Word About the GOP Is Good For Business

No, I don’t want to hear one more word about how Republicans are “good for business.”  Not after this week.  First, we got that Tax Scam, the benefits of which went to corporations and the top 1% of income earners.  That is only superficially good for business — it did precious little for consumers, the ones who actually make the US economy run.  Corporations (we learned in high school General Business classes) make a profit when people buy their products or use their services.  The Tax Scam benefited the Investors, not necessarily the “business” in totality.   A system in which we continually cut corporate taxes in order to protect corporate revenue/profits and put the burden on consumers is a recipe for disaster.

Then the occupant of the Oval Office throws a tantrum and announced he is about to put 25% tariffs on imported steel and 10% on aluminum.  If this is about a trade war with China, he’s got it exactly backwards — we get more aluminum from China than we do steel.  And, now he’s finding out his steely blast will hurt Canada, “The top supplier to the U.S. in 2017 was Canada, followed by Brazil, South Korea, Mexico and Russia. Other notables include Turkey, Japan and Taiwan.” [MrktWtch]   The reaction to the announcement is/was predictable:

“Trump has declared that the U.S. will impose steep tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, escalating tensions with China and other trading partners and raising the prospect of higher prices for American consumers and companies. With tensions rising over international trade, stocks closed sharply lower on Wall Street. China on Friday expressed “grave concern.” [WAPT]

While the tariffs may have an effect on aluminum importation, the damage will be downstream:

“But industries that use aluminum say there’s an ugly trade-off: Manufacturing jobs in the auto and aerospace industries might go away if the cost of aluminum rises too much. The aluminum smelting jobs that Trump wants to save account for 3 percent of the total aluminum industry jobs in the United States, according to the Aluminum Association. The other 97 percent of jobs (about 156,000) are in downstream industries that take the raw metal and make something new with it.” [WaPo]

When former President George W. Bush slapped tariffs on foreign steel (2002) we lost approximately 200,000 jobs.

“A study funded by steel producers that supported the tariffs found that the tariffs brought back 16,000 steel jobs. A study funded by steel-consuming companies that opposed the tariff found that rising prices caused 200,000 job losses, concentrated in the metal manufacturing, machinery and transportation equipment sectors, though it noted that it was not clear how much of the price increases were caused by he tariffs.” [Star.com]

The job loss numbers are disputed, ranging from about 43,000 to 200,000, but no one appears to be arguing there won’t be some downstream (and midstream) damage from the imposition of tariffs.  Nor are major economic voices saying the Bush tariffs did all that much good.  The Bush tariffs were removed after 21 months.  And then there’s that “it’ll be easy” part.

Trade wars aren’t good for anyone.  One pithy summary asserts prices will go up, American businesses will lose sales, and American trading partners are also among our biggest lenders [CNN] and thus may be less willing to purchase our bonds — remember that budget busting tax scam passed by the GOP controlled Congress and signed by an enthusiastic executive?  Lovely, now that we’re racking up a mountain of indebtedness as a result of the Tax Scam, we’re ticking off our biggest lenders?  In what world does this make any sense?

So, we have a Tax Scam that benefits a small investor class and backhands 99% of American income earners, a tariff plan that could easily cost more jobs than it saves.  It’ll be jeans, bourbon, and motorcycles … more a signal to Congressional and Republican leadership I’d think… but I’ll cling to my opinion that the real damage will be to American agriculture.

“The tariffs announced by the administration will put the interests of other domestic industries over farmers,” American Soybean Association President John Heisdorffer, an Iowa soy grower, said in a news release.  “Prior to today’s (March 1) announcement, China has indicated that it may retaliate against U.S. soybean imports, which would be devastating to U.S. soy growers. Our competitors in Brazil and Argentina are all too happy to pick up supplying the Chinese market.” [Fence Post]

But wait, we’re not finished.  There’s S. 2155 coming up in the US Senate — a bill to roll back some of the reforms included in the Dodd Frank Act, enacted in the wake of the Housing Bubble Debacle.  That’s right — the current mis-administration wants to reopen the Wall Street Casino and let the “investors” play the banking games which caused the last economic collapse.

Considering these three examples of incompetency and ineptitude, please — oh please — spare me any more renditions of “Republicans are Good for Business.”

Comments Off on Not One More Word About the GOP Is Good For Business

Filed under Economy, Politics

The Incredible Tax Bill

For once the President* found the precise word.  The recently enacted tax bill is incredible, and so is the President*.

There are some elements of the tax plan which, indeed, are genuinely incredible.  Here are a few —

 The tax plan is predicated on what amounts to economic mythology/ideology, and it is NOT grounded in empirical evidence.  Trickle Down economics is and has always been a theory in search of some evidence, and not a result of the collection and analysis of actual economic data.  The following summation is as good a point at any to discuss the reality of this manufactured ideology:

“The harsh reality is that while this story has been told for – sometimes very eloquently for 30 years, now – we can look back to President Reagan’s tax cuts in 1981. There’s never been a documented case in which it actually worked. The problem is that every time we’ve enacted tax cuts in the last 30 years that have been based on this premise, we’ve had to backpedal as a nation. We’ve had to undo them. Sometimes, as in the case of the Bush tax cuts of 2001, it’s taken a decade of pitched battle for Congress to realize in a bipartisan way that they really had just dug the hole too deep.”

The tax plan benefits approximately 83% of the nation’s income earners, and does little to help the remainder.

“By 2027, more than half of all Americans — 53 percent — would pay more in taxes under the tax bill agreed to by House and Senate Republicans, a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center finds. That year, 82.8 percent of the bill’s benefit would go to the top 1 percent, up from 62.1 under the Senate bill.”

And even in the first years of the bill’s implementation, when it’s an across-the-board tax cut, the benefits of the law would be heavily concentrated among the upper-middle and upper-class Americans, with nearly two-thirds of the benefit going to the richest fifth of Americans in 2018.”

Let’s get realistic about this point.  Nevada has a total population of 2,998,039; with a median home owner value of $191,600.  The median household income is $53,094.  The per capita income is $27,253.   We’ve covered Nevada tax filers previously, with the following result:

1,350,730 Nevadans filed income tax returns in 2015.   27.21% of the Nevada filers reported adjusted gross income between $25,000 and $50,000.  13.5% of filers reported AGI between $50,000 and $75,000. 8.15% reported AGI between $75,000 and $100,000.  Another 10.22% reported an AGI between $100,000 and $200,000.  From this point on the percentage of filers by category drops, those reporting AGI between $200,000 and $500,000 were 2.48% of the filers; those reporting AGI between $500,000 and $1 million were 0.43%, and those reporting over $1 million AGI made up 0.26%.

It doesn’t take any form of complicated arithmetic to discover that giving tax breaks to the top tier income tax filers doesn’t apply to all that many people in the state of  Nevada (or anywhere else for that matter.)  While the definition of  “middle class” seems to vary, the most commonly accepted definition by income asserts  it is  those households  earning between $46,960 and $140,900 annually.  Nevada’s median income ($53,094) fits within that range.   The majority of the benefits included in the current tax scheme do NOT accrue to the majority of Nevada’s income tax filers.

And then there’s the CBO analysis:

“According to the CBO’s calculations, individuals in every tax bracket below $75,000 will experience a year in which they record a net loss — meaning they’ll pay more in taxes, experience diminished services, or both — by 2027.  The lowest income groups will face significant overall losses, and those making between $10,000 and $20,000 a year will face the biggest losses. The CBO estimates that in 2027, taxpayers from this bracket will see an overall loss equivalent to $788.10.”

If ever there was an example of Reverse Robin Hood, this tax scheme would serve nicely.  This is a middle class tax cut only if the middle class is defined in extremely illogical ways — as if $250,000 AGI was anywhere in the “middle.”

The tax plan make corporate tax cuts permanent and individual/family tax cuts temporary.  This is a recipe for disaster in 2027 when someone is asked to pony up the difference between realistic spending and unrealistic assumptions about economic growth.

The tax plan is underpinned by the assumption corporate tax cuts will yield increased wages and increased employment.   A common Republican argument of the moment is that our recovery from the last recession was sluggish, and tax cuts would have made it better.  Another argument could as easily be made:  The recovery was not as robust as it could have been because Republicans refused to enact the kinds of stimulus spending that would have both improved our national infrastructure and boosted consumer expenditures.  Republicans screamed “deficit spending” and “national debt” to the heavens, a tune they now seem to have forgotten as they vote in favor of a $1.4 trillion deficit.

The tax scheme also ignore the obvious.  How many times in this modest little blog have we said: There is ONE and ONLY  ONE reason for any firm to hire anyone at any time — a business only hires personnel when the staffing levels are insufficient to meet the demand for goods or services with an acceptable level of customer/client satisfaction. Regular readers should be able to recite this from memory by now.

We’ve also mused about other ways corporations spend their windfalls — mergers and acquisitions, increased dividends, stock buy-backs, increased investment in financial revenue streams, etc.  It’s not like wage increases and plant expansion are the only options.  In fact, for corporations, especially those for whom  ‘shareholder value” is the driving focus, increasing wages and capital expenditures is the last likely option.  Shareholders are focused on getting a maximum return on their investments and this is not enhanced by increasing labor costs.

The tax plan is riddled with benefits for the wealthy that defy common sense.  For example: Carried interest, increasing the estate tax exemption (Fun Fact: Of the 5,460 estates slated to pay the estate tax this year only 80 of them are small businesses or farms.)  More examples?  There’s the alternative minimum tax which was enacted  to address a concern which may be resurrected by this tax bill:

“Congress enacted the AMT in 1969 amid widespread outrage that many wealthy people paid little or nothing to Washington thanks to clever use of loopholes. But because income thresholds for being subject to the tax weren’t indexed to inflation (until 2012, which didn’t make up for the decades of lost ground), many middle-class people got sucked into paying it. ”

The tax plan is only part of an overall plan to Kill The Beast.  Or, make government so small it could be drowned in a bathtub?  Those who aren’t convinced by now that the next move by this Norquistian Congress is to go after Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid haven’t been listening to GOP leadership.   Expect the drumbeat of commentary on “entitlements” to increase by leaps and bounds — We have a Huge Deficit! (Which they created) and now We have to cut government spending.  Remember: They are called entitlements because you are entitled to the benefits you’ve been paying for with your payroll taxes all along.

Pro Tip:  This assessment of voters was made in 2006, and not all that much has changed since –

“Regular voters also are older than those who are not registered. More than four-in-ten of those ages 50 and older (42%) are regular voters, about double the proportion of 18-29 year-olds (22%). Among those between the ages of 30 and 49, more than a third (35%) reliably go to the polls ­ a fact that is consistent with previous research that found voting is a habit acquired with age.”

Now, who is most likely to be quite concerned with saving Social Security and Medicare? There’s a reason  Social Security and Medicare form the third rail of American politics.

A final point.  The Republicans have given away their cards.  When Democrats called for increased spending on health programs, Republicans pointed to the deficit. When Democrats called for increased infrastructure spending, Republicans pointed to the deficit.  Now, the deficit (all $1.4 trillion of it) is the responsibility of the Republicans.  They’ve given away the revenue.  Now the Democrats have the Tax the Corporations card in hand.  And who among the GOP wants to run on a platform of saving those cash-hoarding multi-national corporations?  Good luck with that.

Comments Off on The Incredible Tax Bill

Filed under Economy, Nevada economy, Politics, Taxation