Current continuing Republican hegemony in our politics still surprises me in light of the frequency with which Republicans reference lack of veracity in their rhetoric. You would think that a group so insistent on the "fakeness" of the publicly available news would insist on veracity from its own politicians, but that doesn't seem to be the case. For example, back in July--you may recall that the Republicans were trying to repeal and replace Obamacare by themselves at that time, drafting their bill behind closed doors--Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, justified the closed door enterprise by claiming that the Democrats had passed the Affordable Care Act the same way. But on July 23 of this year, the New York Times published a comparison of the bill the Republicans produced with the ACA, and it indicated that while the Republican controlled Senate passed zero amendments to their bill proposed by the Democrats, when the ACA was passed it contained 188 Republican amendments, including the requirement that members of congress buy their insurance through the public health exchanges and allowing small businesses to syndicate their purchases of coverage. And in fact...ironically...the ACA's mandate was a Republican idea originally, though now they are trying to undermine the ACA by repealing it concomitantly with what they call tax reform. McConnell outright lied about the roles that the two parties played in their opponents healthcare-related legislative efforts, but that didn't seem to bother rank and file Republicans. What it comes to is that hyperbole and outright misrepresentation are the coins of the Republican realm today, and for the past twenty years or so...thirty if you want to include the advent of "trickle-down economics," all of which has to elicit the question of whether the Republicans are telling the truth with regard to their two "tax reform" proposals.
Let me start my answer with this; I redid my taxes for 2016 using the tax brackets proposed in the House of Representatives and my wife and I will pay perhaps a thousand dollars more under the Republican plan than under the existing tax code. Including my Social Security, we bring in something in the low hundred thousand plus range and we have no children at home any more. We live pretty well, but we are not rich by any means...definitely firmly in the middle class. The reason is that getting one $24,000 deduction instead of over $12,000 in exemptions and $16,000 in itemized deductions reduces our deductions by $4,000, which though taxed at a lower rate still results in higher net taxes. Donald Trump will pay less, and the manager of your local hedge fund will still pay only 20% on his "earnings" because of a special provision just for him in the current and future codes, but if you are like most people who have worked hard, bought a house and put a little aside, there's a good chance you too will pay more. The guy who built your house won't, but you will. Then, in the Senate version of tax reform the insurance mandate is repealed, which sounds at first like a good thing. But it's consequence will be that people for whom health insurance is a stretch will stop making the effort because...well, because it's a stretch. The result will be that the federal government won't have to subsidize their premiums any more; they won't have insurance, but the federal budget deficit will be reduced, which might just be the margin the Republicans need to get their plan passed with a bare majority in The Senate instead of having to get 60 votes to pass it under the regular procedure. With the mandate, their plan would raise the budget deficit too much to make the plan passable under what is called "reconciliation," which allows a simple majority to pass a finance related bill.
Of course, this all related to the fact that there will be federal elections in 2018 and the Republicans feel the need to pass something significant in order to satisfy their constituents, but here's the rub. If they fail to pass anything, the voters will say that the party got both houses of congress and the white house from them and still couldn't do anything, so why let the Republicans keep their majorities. On the other hand, if they pass something that will cost their constituents their tax refunds and even something more, they'll say that Republican policy favors the rich, including Trump and the new alligators with whom he has replaced the old alligators in his "swamp." It's the old rock and hard place dilemma. What's a party to do? Or more aptly, someone is going to get screwed if they win. Who's it going to be.
Your friend,
Mike
Leave a comment