United States Congress of Fail (Part 3)

[Cartmann99]

Gotta pay for those tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"'Holy crap': Experts find tax plan riddled with glitches"

Spoiler

Republicans’ tax-rewrite plans are riddled with bugs, loopholes and other potential problems that could plague lawmakers long after their legislation is signed into law.

Some of the provisions could be easily gamed, tax lawyers say. Their plans to cut taxes on “pass-through” businesses in particular could open broad avenues for tax avoidance.

Others would have unintended results, like a last-minute decision by the Senate to keep the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to make sure wealthy people and corporations don't escape taxes altogether. For many businesses, that would nullify the value of a hugely popular break for research and development expenses.

Some provisions are so vaguely written they leave experts scratching their heads, like a proposal to begin taxing the investment earnings of rich private universities’ endowments. The legislation doesn’t explain what’s considered an endowment, and some colleges have more than 1,000 accounts.

In many cases, Republicans are giving taxpayers little time to adjust to sometimes major changes in policy. An entirely new international tax regime, one experts are still trying to parse, would go into effect Jan. 1, only days after lawmakers hope to push the plan through Congress.

“The more you read, the more you go, ‘Holy crap, what’s this?'” said Greg Jenner, a former top tax official in George W. Bush’s Treasury Department. “We will be dealing with unintended consequences for months to come because the bill is moving too fast.”

Some liken it to when Democrats rushed the Affordable Care Act through Congress and ended up with scads of legislative snafus. Republicans have not allowed Democrats to fix the health care law, and some say the GOP can expect payback when it tries to address problems with its tax plan.

House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said he’s aware of problems, and that lawmakers aim to address them as part of negotiations over a final plan.

“We’ve gotten really good feedback on how best to fine-tune it,” he said. “It’s really showing us where we need to land, and the issues we need to improve in conference.”

Part of writing any tax legislation, tax veterans say, is trying to anticipate how clever tax lawyers might game a proposal, how seemingly disparate sections of the code might interact in unexpected ways and how to address taxpayers’ sometimes unusual circumstances.

It’s not possible for lawmakers to foresee every eventuality, and it’s hardly unusual for there to be mistakes Congress later corrects.

What is unusual is the sheer scope of the legislation now before lawmakers, and the speed with which it’s moving through Congress. Republicans are trying to muscle the plan through the Capitol before special interest groups can mobilize opposition.

The House passed its draft of the proposal, from introduction to final vote, in two weeks flat. The normally balky Senate needed barely three weeks to move its plan.

By comparison, it took Democrats more than six months to pass the Affordable Care Act.

That breakneck pace means there hasn’t been much time for feedback from experts outside the Capitol.

“You can never catch all the implications,” said Jenner. “That problem is magnified exponentially when you’re rushing through like this.”

Some of the problems can be addressed by negotiators charged with hashing out a single plan that lawmakers can forward to President Donald Trump.

But many of the issues are complicated, and lawmakers are in a hurry.

Trump wants negotiators to wrap up their work even before a Dec. 22 deadline they’ve set for themselves. “We want it to proceed as quickly as possible,” Marc Short, the administration’s congressional liaison, said Tuesday.

What’s more, some of the fixes could be expensive, potentially throwing lawmakers’ budget numbers out of whack.

Republicans may try to pass subsequent legislation to address problems, but that may not have the ”reconciliation” protections — a set of complex rules in the Senate that allow them to shut off Democratic filibusters — on which they’re now relying to move their plan through the chamber. That would enable Democrats to block any fixes.

Lawmakers could also punt some of the issues to Treasury to figure out with government regulations. But that’s typically a slow process, and most of the Republican plan would take effect Jan. 1.

Republicans are well aware of the corporate AMT problem and appear likely to address it in conference, with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) demanding a fix.

“That should be eliminated, for sure,” he told CNBC on Monday.

But experts say there are plenty of other issues.

Their plans to cut taxes on pass-through businesses would open a whole new palette of complicated tax-avoidance techniques allowing the well-to-do to slash their taxes, lawyers say.

People will be tempted to recharacterize their income in order to take advantage of a 23 percent deduction for pass-throughs offered by the Senate. For someone making $500,000, that would save them $30,000.

“This is an entirely new concept and, from a tax lawyer’s perspective, it’s like a new paint box,” said David Miller, a tax partner at Proskauer Rose LLP. “We have a new tool to play with.”

At the same time, an apparent bid by the Senate to head off tax-avoidance moves involving business losses would dissuade people in certain circumstances from starting companies — though one of the main purposes of the legislation is to improve the business environment, said Don Susswein, a principal at the tax and accounting firm RSM.

“That’s a good example of a provision that was undoubtedly well-intentioned, trying to solve a very narrow problem, but maybe they didn’t have the time to really get it right,” he said. “Hopefully, it will be closely examined in conference.”

Republicans themselves acknowledge one glitch. In a report accompanying their legislation, House Republicans essentially say they screwed up the details of how a one-time tax on multinational companies’ offshore profits would work and plan to fix it.

“The committee is aware that certain aspects of this section require additional attention,” the report says, and will revise the plan to avoid “inappropriate” results.

Other issues arise from the fact that lawmakers are mostly skipping the custom of having a transitional period between current tax rules and the new ones, in order to give the public time to adjust to the changes.

The House bill also includes a whole new way of taxing multinational corporations — aside from the one-time tax — that lawmakers have hardly debated, and which experts are still trying to understand.

“It’s crazy,” said one Republican lobbyist. “I don’t think anyone could explain it, let alone comply with it” by Jan. 1.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Yeah, this will never happen: "Fellow conservatives, it’s time to call on Clarence Thomas to resign"

Spoiler

Amid the sickening tales emerging about Harvey Weinstein, Louis C.K., Roy Moore, Kevin Spacey and so many more, there is a glimmer of hope: The #MeToo movement has emboldened survivors of assault and harassment to come forward. Many men are being held accountable for their behavior, and there are signs that new norms are developing, as more and more people recognize how serious the problem of sexual harassment is.

In this new environment, several on the left have begun reconsidering their support for Bill Clinton. Clinton should have resigned, wrote Matt Yglesias at Vox; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) also said that Clinton should have resigned. Alyssa Rosenberg went even further, arguing that Democrats even now should shun Clinton.

While some might say that it’s 20 years too late, it’s an important and healthy reckoning to have, and I admire them for it. As one liberal friend of mine said, this isn’t about apologizing to Republicans: This is about Democrats being honest to themselves and being better.

Those of us on the right could use a reckoning, too. Obviously, Donald Trump has no business being president; I opposed his candidacy and I oppose his presidency, so I don’t need to reiterate that further. The same is true for Roy Moore. But I’ve been thinking about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, and I think it’s time conservatives seriously reconsider our continued support for Thomas in light of his past.

As a conservative, Thomas was one of my role models. I am a fan of his judicial philosophy. Reading his story of rising from nothing, from a Geechee-dialect speaking black kid in Georgia, to Yale and the Supreme Court, was inspiring to me.

During his confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, Thomas was accused of sexual harassment by a former employee of his. Hill claimed that Thomas made unwelcome advances to her and spoke about sex in graphics terms that made her uncomfortable. Thomas denied everything, of course, and was supported by prominent politicians. It was his word against hers, and he won out.

Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said “her story just doesn’t add up.” Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) notoriously spoke of “… getting stuff over the transom about Professor Hill. I’ve got letters hanging out of my pockets. I’ve got faxes. I’ve got statements from Tulsa saying: ‘Watch out for this woman.’ ” David Brock (who was then right-wing) called Hill “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.”

Thomas called it a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks. Having seen how other minority conservatives were treated by the left, I found it convincing that the opposition was motivated by race and ideological nonconformance. But recent events have made me reconsider my knee-jerk defense.

Recently, I looked up the case again. Here is a good review: “As Thomas’s confirmation was nearing a final vote in October ’91, an affidavit from Hill was leaked to National Public Radio’s Nina Totenberg (the source was never identified); in the document, which Hill, then a University of Oklahoma law professor, had prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee several weeks earlier, she alleged that Thomas had repeatedly asked her out on dates and made lewd and graphic sexual comments to her when she had worked for him in the early 1980s.” After Hill gave her testimony, she was viciously smeared, and Thomas was confirmed anyhow.

It’s always a question of balance between believing the victims and avoiding mob mentality. But there are a few factors that tilt toward Hill’s version of the story.

It wasn’t exactly his word against hers; she had witnesses whom the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, did not call up. And Biden is a Democrat, so there goes the “they only attacked him because he’s conservative” narrative. He was confirmed by a Senate under Democratic control.

In an interview on CNN, conservative journalist Bethany Mandel talks about how coming forward affects women. “This will be the only thing these women are ever known for. That’s not something someone wants to sign up for.” Hill is a law-school professor with a respected career in her own right, but she has to carry this around with her — without even the satisfaction of having her harasser punished.

There was also one big part of the puzzle that never clicked. In Jeffrey Toobin’s book about the Supreme Court, he writes that reporters for The Washington Post obtained “information confirming that Thomas’ involvement with pornography far exceeded what the public had been led to believe” just after he was confirmed. (That juicy detail didn’t make it to print then because once he was confirmed, the story was considered finished.) The issue at hand is not Thomas’s entertainment predilections. But if he was dishonest about the videos, it’s conceivable that he lied about the rest, too.

Hill, meanwhile, had no reason to lie and had supporting evidence. Is it enough to stand up in the court of law? Maybe not. But the question was if Thomas was fit to sit on the Supreme Court, not if he should be prosecuted.

The severity of the claims against Thomas pales in comparison to the claims against Clinton, something other conservatives have pointed out. In response to someone comparing how Hillary treated Bill’s accusers with how Republicans treated Hill, Jonah Goldberg tweeted “You do realize the allegations against Clinton and Thomas aren’t comparable, right?”

Yet here’s an inconsistency to the logic here. Are we defending Thomas because he is innocent or because it’s not that bad? Until very recently, I probably would have responded similarly to Goldberg. Maybe Thomas did say some things he shouldn’t have, I would have thought, but he wasn’t accused of anything “serious.”

All along, in other words, I didn’t doubt Hill. I knew the truth was on her side. But I was subconsciously belittling her experience, and that was wrong. In 2017, post-Weinstein, we can’t let sexual harassment slide just because it doesn’t rise to the severity of rape, or because we believe that boys will be boys.

I believe Anita Hill. I believe that Clarence Thomas abused his authority to sexually harass a woman who worked for him. And lied about it. And smeared his accuser.

And got away with it.

As painful as it is to repudiate a man I respected, I believe Thomas should never have been confirmed and should resign.

Well, I have never respected Thomas, but I agree he should resign. Sadly, a cow will jump over the moon before that happens.

[GreyhoundFan]

This is just who we DON'T need in the senate: "E.W. Jackson, conservative firebrand, preparing U.S. Senate bid in Virginia"

Spoiler

E.W. Jackson, a firebrand minister who says that yoga leads to Satan and that gay people are ill, plans to announce that he is seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) next year, Jackson’s finance director said.

Jackson will announce his candidacy on Monday in the Chesapeake area, said Steven Thomas, who said he is raising money for Jackson’s campaign and filled the same role during Jackson’s 2013 losing bid for lieutenant governor.

A website registered to Jackson was updated Tuesday and announces “EW Jackson for U.S. Senate.”

Jackson did not return calls seeking comment.

“Rumors are flying that I’m going to run for US Senate in Virginia,” he tweeted last week. “Stand by for the official word sometime next month.”

Jackson has a history of controversial comments, including calling gay men and lesbians “very sick people” and suggesting that the practice of yoga invites Satan to possess one’s soul.

He will face Corey Stewart, a bombastic Prince William County official who ran for the GOP nomination for governor earlier this year in the mold of President Trump. Several other Republicans are considering whether to join the race.

The Senate field is expected to solidify this weekend when Virginia Republicans gather for their largest annual event — dubbed the Advance — at an Allegheny Mountain resort in western Virginia.

In an interview on WAMU Radio last week, Virginia GOP Chairman John Whitbeck said the party will remain neutral, but noted, “It’s not going to be just Corey Stewart in this race by himself.”

Stewart, who declared his candidacy in July, on Tuesday announced the endorsement of Jerry Falwell Jr., the influential head of Liberty University and an ally of Trump.

In a statement, Falwell alluded to Stewart’s narrow loss to Ed Gillespie in the GOP gubernatorial primary in June, calling him “a proven vote-getter who will win back Virginia’s U.S. Senate seat for conservatives.”

Trump needs Stewart “in the U.S. Senate to help clean up the swamp in Washington,” Falwell said.

In response to the endorsement, Stewart said, “Virginia’s awakening is happening, and Mr. Falwell’s endorsement is proof positive [that] conservative Republicans will take back Virginia.”

Stewart has promised a “vicious” campaign to try to unseat Kaine, a popular former governor and 2016 vice-presidential running mate to Hillary Clinton who is seeking a second term in the Senate.

In addition to Stewart, the only other candidate who filed federal paperwork to run as of Tuesday is Ivan Raiklin, an Army veteran who recently jogged an average of 22 miles a day to bring awareness to suicide among veterans and to begin his campaign.

As a Green Beret, he advised the Salvadoran army on ways to counter the MS-13 gang, and he has served as a foreign affairs specialist and intelligence officer, according to his website. He has lived in Virginia since 2004, the site says.

Republicans turned off by Stewart’s approach are looking to another candidate, Del. Nick Freitas (Culpeper), who said Tuesday that he is considering a run for the nomination.

The two-term state lawmaker is a former head of the Culpeper County GOP and moved to Virginia in 2009. He served in the Army Special Forces as a Green Beret and is a defense contractor.

John Norton Moore, an international law expert who has taught at the University of Virginia School of Law on and off for half a century, is also considering a run, he said in an interview Monday.

Moore, who established the U.S. Institute of Peace under President Ronald Reagan, said he is focused on big policy questions about the economy, health care, Social Security and criminal justice.

Freitas, Moore, Raiklin and Stewart will host small parties in hotel suites at a GOP retreat in Hot Springs, a sign to party activists that they are interested in running for public office.

Also Tuesday, a nonpartisan organization advocating for term limits released a pledge signed by Jackson saying that if he is elected, he will support a constitutional amendment limiting House members to three terms and Senate members to two terms.

 

[Howl]

Well, to help pay for all those tax breaks for the wealthy, Paul Ryan has announced that the Republican agenda in 2018 is to "reform" Medicare and other "entitlement" programs.

Quote

Ryan specifically mentioned Medicare as being the "biggest entitlement that's got to have reform."

"Really, what it is is we need to convert our health care system to a patient-centered system, so that people have more choices, we have more competition," Ryan later said.

I have traditional MediCare.  It's really pretty effortless, but not free. My part B is covered by my retiree insurance.  My husband also has traditional MediCare, but pays for Part B out of pocket (over $200/month).  When we waded into finding him Part B coverage, it was incomprehensible, because EVERY PLAN IS DIFFERENT, has different tiers and plans are not exactly comparable.  We were saved by a cold call from an insurance agent who specializes in this very thing. 

 And patients do already have choices, because you can do traditional MediCare or opt for any of a bazillion plans offered by insurance companies.   I wouldn't touch those with a ten-foot pole, although some people that I know like them so far, but they are very healthy people.  So taking away MediCare would essentially convert everyone to an Obamacare model, which I thought was the most evil thing in the world.  We live frugally, we're both healthy, and we have some savings, but chaos in the health care system is the one thing over which we have very little control, and could send us into the poor house.  

I'm guessing Repubs will hit the ground running and try to get this passed, in order to screw as many elderly citizens as possible in the shortest amount of time possible.  Who the heck knows what will happen in the mid-term elections next November?  Should things stay the same (Republican majority in House, Senate, WH) we are all well and truly f**ked.  We'll end up a third world country with a third-world ranking globally, with our trade in tatters.  

Should a massive natural disaster happen (Yellowstone caldera blows, massive earthquake on the New Madrid Fault, the West coast quakes and falls into the ocean or giant tsunami, the entire country engulfed in wildfires) or we get hit by a No. Korean nuke and we are living with a desperate, dispirited populace, who knows what will happen.  Sorry for the post-apocalyptic dystopia crap, but dang, what are the Republicans thinking? 

[GreyhoundFan]

So, Al Franken is stepping down: "Al Franken announces he will resign from the Senate"

Spoiler

In a stunning close to his congressional career, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) on Thursday announced that he will resign amid multiple allegations that he touched women inappropriately, becoming the second lawmaker to step aside over such accusations in three days.

Yielding to pressure from other Democrats, Franken said he will leave Capitol Hill in the “coming weeks,” but continued to deny allegations of groping and unwanted advances from more than half-a-dozen women.

The former rising Democratic star used his resignation speech to take aim at President Trump and Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, who have not been forced aside despite facing arguably more serious allegations of sexual misconduct.

“There is some irony in the fact that I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party,” Franken said in a speech on the Senate floor.

The resignation of not one but two prominent Democratic lawmakers over allegations of inappropriate behavior points to the wider reckoning taking place around the country as women come forward to accuse powerful men of misconduct. Members of Congress have spent the last month grappling with how best to respond to allegations of harassment against colleagues and criticism of the way workplace complaints are handled in the legislative branch.

On the Senate floor, Franken called the reckoning an “important moment” that is “long overdue,” but he denied engaging in behavior that disrespected or took advantage of women.

“I know there’s been a very different picture of me painted over the last few weeks, but I know who I really am,” he said. “I know in my heart that nothing I have done as a senator — nothing — has brought dishonor on this institution.”

He is expected to make his resignation effective at the end of the month, according to a person familiar with his decision-making. This timetable could allow him to cast several consequential votes on the Republican tax bill, funding the government and possibly the fate of “dreamers,” immigrants brought to the country illegally as children.

Franken faced a cascade of opposition the day after Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) ended his 52-year career in Congress over accusations he harassed female aides, including propositioning them for sex. It is unclear whether the resignations will increase pressure on accused offenders in the House, including Reps. Blake Farenthold (R-Tex.) and Ruben Kihuen (D-Nev.), to step down.

Once Franken makes his resignation official, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton (D) will pick a replacement to serve until a November 2018 special election. Whoever wins the special election will have to run again in 2020 to begin a new term if they desire to stay in the Senate.

Franken suggested Thursday that he will be replaced by a woman. Minnesota’s Democratic Farmer-Labor Party has a large and largely female bench of up-and-coming candidates, three of whom are seeking the party’s 2018 gubernatorial nomination.

“Minnesotans deserve a senator who can focus all her energy on addressing the challenges they face every day,” he said in his speech.

The drive to purge Franken was a dramatic indication of the political toxicity that has grown around the issue of sexual harassment in recent months. It also stood as a stark — and deliberate — contrast with how the Republicans are handling Moore’s candidacy in Alabama, where voters will cast ballots next week in a special Senate election

Multiple women have accused Moore of pursuing them romantically when they were teenagers and he was in his 30s. One of the women, Leigh Corfman, alleged Moore touched her sexually when she was 14.

Although most of the alleged actions took place before he was a senator, Franken was becoming a growing liability to his party, and Republicans had seized upon the allegations against him. Doug Jones, Moore’s Democratic opponent in Alabama, had also called for him to step aside.

At Moore’s Tuesday night rally, conservative pundit Gina Loudon declared that Republicans did not need lectures on morality from Democrats who had struggled with their own sex scandals, and cited both Conyers and Franken.

Trump, himself the target of multiple allegations of sexual assault, has enthusiastically endorsed Moore, and the Republican Party is once again pouring money into the race after initially pulling back. Leading Senate Republicans have also toned down their negative comments about Moore, saying his fate should be up to the voters of Alabama and — if he is elected — the Senate Ethics Committee.

Democrats said they agreed with Franken’s decision and called on Republicans to reject members of their party facing similar accusations.

“Now, Republicans must join Democrats in holding their own accountable,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said. “The American people should take notice of national Republicans’ support for a morally degraded Senate candidate in Alabama and a president in the Oval Office facing equally credible charges.”

The move by Senate Democrats to oust Franken marked a dramatic turnaround in the fortunes of the onetime “Saturday Night Live” star. The senator from Minnesota had emerged as one of the Trump administration’s sharpest foils on Capitol Hill — and as a potential 2020 presidential contender.

The latest allegation against Franken came in a report published Wednesday by Politico. A former congressional aide whose name was withheld by the publication claimed that Franken had tried to forcibly kiss her after a taping of his radio show in 2006, two years before his election to the Senate.

The woman claimed that Franken had told her, “It’s my right as an entertainer.”

Franken denied this allegation and said during his floor speech that while he did not believe other accusations or remember the encounters in the same way, he wanted to be sensitive to the growing national discussion over sexual harassment and misconduct.

“I was shocked. I was upset,” he said of the allegations against him in recent weeks. “But in responding to their claims, I wanted to be respectful of that broader conversation because all women deserve to be heard and their experience taken seriously.”

Franken’s alleged offenses were arguably less serious than those attributed to Moore, or to Conyers, the longest-serving member of Congress, who was accused of demanding sexual favors from the women who worked for him. Until late last week, it appeared that Franken’s fellow Democrats would allow his case to work its way through the Senate Ethics Committee, a process that would take months and perhaps years to reach a resolution.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

From Jennifer Rubin: "Don’t celebrate Franken’s disgrace. And don’t let Trump and Moore off the hook."

Spoiler

Bowing to political reality, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) announced his resignation on the Senate floor. The Post reports:

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) announced on the Senate floor Thursday that he is resigning in the coming weeks following multiple allegations that he sexually harassed women.

Franken’s decision comes a day after a majority of Senate Democrats called for his resignation after determining that they could no longer tolerate his presence.

They turned on one of their party’s most popular figures with stunning swiftness, led by the Senate’s Democratic women, who were joined in short order by more than half of the Democratic caucus.

Franken struck a defiant tone during his remarks on the Senate floor.

“Some of the allegations against me simply are not true, others I remember very differently,” he said.

But Franken said the situation had become too much of a distraction and would prevent him from fully fulfilling his duties as a senator if he stayed in office.

“But this decision is not about me. It’s about the people of Minnesota,” he said. “It’s become clear that I can’t both pursue the Ethics Committee process and at the same time, remain an effective senator for them.”

He also pointed to two other politicians who have been accused of far more serious sexual misconduct. “There is some irony that I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate with the full support of his party,” he said.

A couple points are in order.

First, it is not “irony” that President Trump remains and Roy Moore may join the Senate, but an outrage, an offense to decency, a moral stain on the GOP. This is not “what-aboutism,” which would excuse Franken because Trump stays. It’s a glaring injustice that Republicans and voters should not ignore. There is no reason Trump’s alleged crimes shouldn’t be investigated and why he should not step down if some or all of the approximately 20 women accusers are shown to be credible. And for giving Moore money and endorsement, the GOP should earn the permanent enmity of decent Americans.

Second, good people do bad things, and bad people do bad things. They both should be punished. However, the former is cause for sadness and regret but not for clemency. Franken should go, but I find no joy in seeing him disgraced. We should be prepared for people we like, admire and respect to be laid low by the rolling thunder of the backlash against sexual harassers. Some will insist they played by one set of rules in one profession and now are being held to another. That ignores a central point: There must be a universal standard for decency. The fact that they did not recognize it at the time does not mean they should get off the hook now.

If the whole Franken episode leaves you sad and/or disgusted, you’re in good company. Now that has to be turned into righteous anger to remove other, more serious alleged sexual predators.

She is correct.

[AmazonGrace]

Is anybody asking for Farenthold to resign?

[GreyhoundFan]

54 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Is anybody asking for Farenthold to resign?

Of course not, he has the magic R after his name.

[AmazonGrace]

On 6.12.2017 at 10:53 PM, Cartmann99 said:

Gotta pay for those tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans:

 

Wait what? I thought the tax breaks are going to pay for themselves. 

 

[Cartmann99]

To tie in with @AmazonGrace's comment:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Why Democrats decided Franken had to go"

Spoiler

It seems like a distant memory now, but Al Franken’s arrival in the U.S. Senate eight years ago marked the very moment when Democrats’ control of Washington reached its highest point in a generation.

After an eight-month recount, the one-time “Saturday Night Live” star had been declared the narrow winner of the 2008 election in Minnesota — and Democrats, who also held the House and the White House, had gained the 60th Senate vote they needed to push their agenda through without fear of a filibuster.

Franken’s announced departure Thursday, amid allegations of sexual misconduct, came at another inflection point for Democrats.

Shut out of power completely, they are looking for a way out of the wilderness.

Toward that end, getting rid of Franken was both a moral and political calculation. It was the Democrats’ strongest declaration yet that they — unlike the Republicans — are willing to sacrifice their own in the interest of staking out the high ground.

As the country moves into the midterm election season, it remains to be seen whether a new sensitivity toward sexual misconduct, which has found a voice in the #metoo movement, will become a more potent force than partisan loyalties.

In his speech on the Senate floor where he announced his plans to resign, Franken pointed out what, to his supporters, is a bitter irony: “I am leaving, while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office, and a man who has repeatedly preyed on young girls campaigns for the Senate, with the full support of his party.”

That, in fact, is precisely the contrast that Democrats hope to present — as House leaders did in forcing the resignation of Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the longest-serving member of Congress, who was accused of demanding sexual favors from female staffers.

President Trump was elected last year, despite his crude boasts about mistreating women picked up on a now-famous “Access Hollywood” video from 2005, and despite claims by nearly a dozen women that he had behaved that way toward them.

Next Tuesday will answer another question: Will Bible-Belt Alabama send to the Senate a Republican who faces credible accusations of having made sexual advances on teenagers when he was in his 30s?

After Trump enthusiastically endorsed GOP nominee Roy Moore this week and the Republican National Committee resumed its financial support, GOP senators are bracing for an exceedingly awkward situation if he wins.

“Clearly, part of the wager here was to try to force Franken out before Tuesday, to draw a bright line around Moore’s alleged transgressions. Tuesday will be the test,” said David Axelrod, who was former president Barack Obama’s chief political strategist.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) told reporters that Franken’s resignation also establishes a “new standard,” in which behavior that predates an official’s election can be used to judge fitness to hold office.

Some say that while Franken’s forced resignation might give the Democrats a momentary advantage, it will not be enough to overcome the deeper dynamics that drive the electorate, and will instead make voters even more disillusioned.

“Right now, Democrats have a little traction on the moral front, but we have now taken away the notion of calibration here,” said political scientist Norman J. Ornstein, a close friend of Franken. “The fact is, people are going to vote on the basis of their tribes at the moment, and the larger idea here is, they are all bad.”

Initially, Senate Democrats had said the Franken matter should be dealt with by the Ethics Committee. But the urgency mounted, as more accusers came forward, alleging acts of varying severity.

When a handful of female Democratic senators called on Wednesday for Franken’s resignation, most of their caucus followed suit within a matter of hours. People who know the Minnesota senator but who do not want to be identified speaking about his private anguish say he was stunned by the sudden turnaround of his colleagues.

Notably, Franken did not use his speech to apologize to the women who said he groped and kissed them against their will, in incidents that mostly predated his time in the Senate.

He lamented that his response to the claims “gave some people the false impression that I was admitting to doing things that, in fact, I haven’t done. Some of the allegations against me are simply not true; others, I remember very differently.”

That Franken’s resignation has put Republicans off balance can be seen in the fact that some unlikely voices had risen to his defense.

“This is a party which is losing its mind,” former speaker Newt Gingrich said of the Democrats who had turned on Franken. “They suddenly curled into this weird puritanism that feels like a compulsion to go out and lynch people without a trial.”

His comments were a contrast to Trump’s reaction when the first allegation against Franken became public three weeks ago.

After broadcaster LeeAnn Tweeden posted a photo that appeared to show Franken with his hands poised to grope her breasts as she napped, Trump tweeted: “The Al Frankenstien [sic] picture is really bad, speaks a thousand words. Where do his hands go in pictures 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 while she sleeps?”

Franken apologized for his behavior in the photo, which he said was a misguided effort to make a joke, and for having offended Tweeden by attempting to kiss her during a rehearsal for a USO show in 2006, two years before he was elected to the Senate. Tweeden said she accepted his apology.

On the other hand, Trump’s reaction to allegations against him has been to brand as liars the women who have made them. It worked, as evidenced by the outcome of the election.

In Alabama, Moore has taken the same approach.

“There seems to be a double standard in place where the people who acknowledge their behavior leave, and the people who don’t get to stay and be rewarded,” Axelrod said. “That’s a strange situation.”

I still can't believe Newt. I wish Pope Francis would tell Calista that Newt has to maintain silence for the next four years. Or, better yet, the next forty years.

[Howl]

I'll take y'all along for a trip though Texas politics, old money and influential families. 

Blake Farenthold -- he's the  step grandson of Sissy Farenthold, a University of Texas law school grad (1949) and past major Democratic feminist firebrand in Texas politics and still alive in her 90s.  Sissy Tarlton Farenthold herself is from a long line of prominent Texans, but there is a lot of tragedy in that family line, a lot of mental health issues, drug and alcohol addiction, incredibly weird/tragic deaths, bipolar disorder.  

Blake's father was Randy Farenthold, Sissy's stepson.  Randy (who I think was in his mid 30s when he died) washed up on a beach on the Texas coast wearing heavy chains and concrete feet, reportedly for having "issues" with organized crime/gambling.  The person convicted of his death was sentenced to 16 years, served six and was found murdered a few years later on the anniversary of Randy Farenthold's death. 

As far as I can put together, Blake's been independently wealthy since birth, but did graduate from law school, probably the same one Sissy went to, which has a law library named after Sissy's father.  Early on, Blake worked for the Kleberg and Head law firm.  Head was a wealthy philanthropist (old money) and Blake's step-grandfather (I think) on the Farenthold side.  Note the Kleberg name --  a King Ranch tie in.  The daughter (Alice) of the original King Ranch founders married a Kleberg and those Kleberg descendants have run the south Texas ranch empire (well over a million acres) since 1853 to this day, with a heavy emphasis on stewardship and even some environmental awareness, and it's still going strong. 

Moving right along -- Blake, he's from serious old money on both sides and no doubt his family connections landed him at Kleberg and Head.  Blake may have made even more $$$$ from some kind of IT bidness and was a conservative radio host in Corpus Christi; he's a tea party bagger conservative.  

Blake is under investigation by the House ethics committee and I'm guessing will have to be forced out; he seems to be a man with zero shame. 

As a commenter noted on a political forum, he couldn't understand why the working class people of Corpus Christie elected a man who's never worked a day in his life. 

[onekidanddone]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Damn it: "Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes cleared of wrongdoing in House ethics probe"

Spoiler

The House Ethics Committee announced Thursday that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes had not disclosed classified information or violated House rules when he publicly discussed foreign surveillance reports earlier this year, formally ending its investigation of him.

The Ethics Committee said Thursday that “classification experts in the intelligence community” determined that when Nunes (R-Calif.) suggested to the press in March that Trump transition-team members’ identities may have been improperly revealed in foreign surveillance reports, he was not disclosing classified information.

“The committee will take no further action and considers this matter closed,” the ethics panel’s chairwoman, Susan Brooks (R-Ind.), and ranking Democrat, Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), wrote in a statement announcing the panel’s decision. They noted that the committee deferred entirely to intelligence community experts in making its determination about the classification of the materials and that members did not weigh in on that question.

Nunes welcomed the news but criticized the committee in a statement for taking eight months to clear him of allegations that he argued “were obviously frivolous and were rooted in politically motivated complaints filed against me by left-wing activist groups.”

He would not say Thursday whether the Ethics Committee’s decision would prompt him to resume his full duties as chairman in the Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation.

When the Ethics Committee launched its Nunes inquiry in April, Nunes stepped back from his panel’s probe of Russian meddling in the election, handing the day-to-day operations over to Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Tex.), with the understanding he would be assisted by Reps. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.). Democrats have criticized Nunes for continuing to act as chairman when it comes to matters such as approving subpoenas for the investigation, but Nunes has repeatedly insisted he never intended to fully recuse himself from the Russia probe.

Spokesmen for Conaway and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) did not respond to requests to clarify whether Nunes’s role vis-a-vis the Russia probe would change now that he has been cleared by the Ethics Committee.

Nunes, however, is not accepting the favorable verdict quietly.

In his statement, he called on the committee “to publicly release all its transcripts related to my case,” while noting that he was “concerned by public statements made by four of the Ethics Committee’s five Democrats that appeared to prejudge this matter before they began investigating the complaint.” He did not name the members he referenced.

He also challenged the committee’s decision to take up the allegations against him in the first place, arguing that determining whether material was classified or not was normally the purview of committee staffers, making the Ethics Committee’s decision to weigh in on the matter “unprecedented.”

 

[GreyhoundFan]

From Jennifer Rubin: "A to-do list for the new congressional reform caucus"

Spoiler

A good-government group, Issue One, announced on Wednesday that “19 bipartisan lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives launched the Congressional Reformers Caucus, the first organization of its kind on Capitol Hill to focus exclusively on discussing political reform ideas and legislation. Co-chaired by Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY) and Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), the Caucus aims to address ethics and accountability issues in Congress, as well as the roots of dysfunction in the current political system.” Well, it has no shortage of material.

The group’s agenda includes promoting transparency and disclosure; increasing participation in elections; reducing pay-to-play; strengthening enforcement of existing laws; and improving government integrity and accountability. Let me offer some suggestions for each, a challenge if you will, to see whether this group is ready to do more than issue press releases.

On transparency and disclosure, we need legislation mandating release of 10 years of the president’s and vice president’s tax returns; a hearing on the president’s receipt of foreign emoluments; and improved ethics disclosures so that every senior executive branch member must identify foreign sources of money, including loans. A complete White House visitors’ log must be maintained and released at regular intervals. Congress needs to shape up as well. A prohibition on middle-of-the-night drafting sessions where lobbyists hand-write in the margins of bills goodies for their clients must be enforced. (No votes on major legislation should be undertaken without an appropriate score from the Congressional Budget Office and/or Joint Committee on Taxation.) If, for example, this group really wants to break the current system, they should refuse to pass the current tax bill, insist on full and open hearings and a period of deliberative debate. Finally, all settlements for discrimination and harassment paid in whole or in part by taxpayer money should be disclosed.

As for participation in elections, Congress should defund and send packing the phony voting integrity commission, a thinly disguised attempt to prove nonexistent voter fraud and then throw up barriers to voting. Congress can promote automatic voter registration (which exists in eight states and the District of Columbia) and impartial redistricting panels to redraw districts in order to promote competitive elections. In addition, entities such as the Commission on Presidential Debates, which perpetuate the duopoly of the two major parties and keep out legitimate third parties and independents, must be eliminated or reformed. (Litigation is ongoing to challenge the Commission on Presidential Debates and the Federal Election Commission for creating rules that make this effectively impossible, according to Hoover Institution senior fellow Larry Diamond.)

With regard to pay-to-play, the president and all White House employees (including Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner) must entirely divest of any active businesses. They must liquidate and put the proceeds in a legitimate blind trust. A president under no circumstances should be allowed to own facilities that are rented by government agencies or to which business is funneled by virtue of the president’s travel schedule.

As for strengthening existing laws, the Office of Government Ethics should be expanded, properly funded and given authority to police and enforce ethics agreements signed by executive branch employees. Enforcement should not depend on the ethics officers at the various departments and agencies, which ultimately report to the same executive branch officials whom they are supposed to be monitoring.

Finally, with regard to integrity and accountability, ethics rules applicable to executive branch employees should be extended to the president and vice president, including anti-nepotism rules. As for lawmakers, they must not be allowed, as Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) did, to trade in stocks related to any oversight committee on which they sit. And finally, no executive branch employee should be permitted to travel by charter airplane when commercial transportation is available.

There is plenty of work to be done. We hope the 19 lawmakers are serious about doing it — and about challenging members of their own parties.

Sadly, I can't see the larger body of congress agreeing to implement any of the suggestions.

[GreyhoundFan]

Another good one from Jennifer Rubin: "Republicans are tied up in knots — and it’s only just beginning"

Spoiler

Sen.  Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) got himself tied up in knots over the alleged sexual predations that have convulsed his party. Commenting on the resignation of Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), he told NBC’s Chuck Todd he was “very glad women have had the courage to step forward.” He declared that men “need to be held accountable.” He even invoked his own his daughters. This behavior is “reprehensible,” he intoned.

What about President Trump? Oh, he was “duly elected,” said Johnson. Huh? Wasn’t Franken? Well, he doesn’t want Roy Moore in the Senate, right? “The voters of Alabama will choose,” he said. Then the ethics committee will deal with it.

This moral incoherence is understandable, given that the GOP has chosen to stand by Trump. You’re going to sound fairly hypocritical if you can tout courageous victims and insist on holding men accountable, while not demanding that Trump resign or at the very least give the women a forum to have their allegations heard. And how in the world could Johnson and other Republicans support him for a second term?

Johnson isn’t the only human pretzel on this issue. Both Sens. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) are terribly disturbed, very insistent that the National Republican Senatorial Committee not endorse or spend money to support Moore. If it did, they’re out of there! Umm. Why aren’t they leaving the Republican Party, then? The Republican National Committee is spending tens of thousands of dollars on Moore. In addition, Trump has endorsed Moore. So why aren’t Sasse and Gardner bugging out the GOP? Well, the RNC’s actions, says Sasse, are merely “bad and sad.” Gardner told the Weekly Standard, “Roy Moore will never have the support of the senatorial committee. We will never endorse him. We won’t support him. I won’t let that happen. Nothing will change. I stand by my previous statement.” And what about Trump’s endorsement? Oh, “We’ve taken a different position. I think our position is right,” he says meekly. He does vow to expel Moore, though. But — why is Trump still there?

Again, the moral coherence is lost in a series of contradictory impulses. (Get Moore out! But don’t offend the base! But get on record as opposing Moore! Wait — don’t break with Trump!) The lack of political courage and consistency is quite striking.

These Republicans look ridiculous, but they won’t be the only ones. Every single Republican in every single federal race (and maybe some state races, too) will be asked how he or she can condemn Moore and stick by Trump, or favor Franken’s resignation but not call for Trump’s. There is no good answer to explain away these glaring inconsistencies. It won’t go unnoticed by voters or Democrats in next year’s elections. The point will be made in interviews, debates and ads that Republicans tolerate and therefore enable a president who allegedly assaulted women. The point will be underscored that the party itself endorsed and funded an accused child molester.

So what’s a Republican to do or say? It would be refreshing to hear one of these guys say flat-out that they made a bargain with the devil, that getting a cruddy health-care bill is more important than victims of sexual assault. Spare the hypocrisy, in other words, and just spell out the rationalization you’ve come up with. That, however, will be quite off-putting to many voters . But Gorsuch! But a 20 (or is it 22?) percent corporate tax rate! It sounds crass, amoral and small to pine for political gains with not even a nod to human decency.

So instead, Republicans will spin and squirm, as Johnson, Moore, Sasse and Gardner have done. We’ll see if that repulses voters enough to knock out the party of Trump and Moore from the House and Senate majorities and, in 2020, out of the White House. In the meantime, these guys should try listening to themselves — or reciting their talking points to their wives.

 

[CTRLZero]

After reading about the abrupt resignation of Rep. Trent Franks, my husband and I were discussing seriously how one would approach a co-worker/subordinate in the workplace and ask them to be a surrogate mother.  We couldn't come up with much besides, "I notice you have a uterus..."  Fortunately, Alexandra Petri beat us to it (with way more snark than we could muster):

WaPo article re approaching co-workers to bear your child

[GrumpyGran]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Damn it: "Intelligence Committee chair Devin Nunes cleared of wrongdoing in House ethics probe"

  Reveal hidden contents

The House Ethics Committee announced Thursday that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes had not disclosed classified information or violated House rules when he publicly discussed foreign surveillance reports earlier this year, formally ending its investigation of him.

The Ethics Committee said Thursday that “classification experts in the intelligence community” determined that when Nunes (R-Calif.) suggested to the press in March that Trump transition-team members’ identities may have been improperly revealed in foreign surveillance reports, he was not disclosing classified information.

“The committee will take no further action and considers this matter closed,” the ethics panel’s chairwoman, Susan Brooks (R-Ind.), and ranking Democrat, Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), wrote in a statement announcing the panel’s decision. They noted that the committee deferred entirely to intelligence community experts in making its determination about the classification of the materials and that members did not weigh in on that question.

Nunes welcomed the news but criticized the committee in a statement for taking eight months to clear him of allegations that he argued “were obviously frivolous and were rooted in politically motivated complaints filed against me by left-wing activist groups.”

He would not say Thursday whether the Ethics Committee’s decision would prompt him to resume his full duties as chairman in the Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation.

When the Ethics Committee launched its Nunes inquiry in April, Nunes stepped back from his panel’s probe of Russian meddling in the election, handing the day-to-day operations over to Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Tex.), with the understanding he would be assisted by Reps. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.). Democrats have criticized Nunes for continuing to act as chairman when it comes to matters such as approving subpoenas for the investigation, but Nunes has repeatedly insisted he never intended to fully recuse himself from the Russia probe.

Spokesmen for Conaway and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) did not respond to requests to clarify whether Nunes’s role vis-a-vis the Russia probe would change now that he has been cleared by the Ethics Committee.

Nunes, however, is not accepting the favorable verdict quietly.

In his statement, he called on the committee “to publicly release all its transcripts related to my case,” while noting that he was “concerned by public statements made by four of the Ethics Committee’s five Democrats that appeared to prejudge this matter before they began investigating the complaint.” He did not name the members he referenced.

He also challenged the committee’s decision to take up the allegations against him in the first place, arguing that determining whether material was classified or not was normally the purview of committee staffers, making the Ethics Committee’s decision to weigh in on the matter “unprecedented.”

 

What an arrogant piece of shit. This is the epitome of that rich little prick you knew in high school who's parents always whined and screamed and threatened to sue everybody when their little precious got in trouble and got caught.

Reason number 452 why we need term limits, need to take away the ability of anyone to decide if they give themselves raises, take away pension for life paid by tax payers, take away health care paid by taxpayers. And require anyone who profits at cost to the taxpayer reveal their sources of income. Oh, let's throw drug testing in there. If they want other people who receive government funds to be drug tested, they should be too.

[Cartmann99]

17 hours ago, Howl said:

Blake Farenthold -- he's the  step grandson of Sissy Farenthold, a University of Texas law school grad (1949) and past major Democratic feminist firebrand in Texas politics and still alive in her 90s.

@Howl, do you know if Sissy is still in possession of all of her faculties? I tried Googling a few days ago, but my searching skills failed me. If Blake was my step-grandson, I'd be raising all sorts of hell over his behavior. Just wondering if she's aware enough to be upset about Blake.

4 hours ago, CTRLZero said:

After reading about the abrupt resignation of Rep. Trent Franks, my husband and I were discussing seriously how one would approach a co-worker/subordinate in the workplace and ask them to be a surrogate mother.  We couldn't come up with much besides, "I notice you have a uterus..."  Fortunately, Alexandra Petri beat us to it (with way more snark than we could muster):

WaPo article re approaching co-workers to bear your child

My husband hadn't heard about Franks, and he was incredulous when I explained what the allegations were. I've had this song in my head since I heard about Franks:

 

[Howl]

5 hours ago, Cartmann99 said:

@Howl, do you know if Sissy is still in possession of all of her faculties? I tried Googling a few days ago, but my searching skills failed me. If Blake was my step-grandson, I'd be raising all sorts of hell over his behavior. Just wondering if she's aware enough to be upset about Blake.

In 2012, someone with Bexar County Democratic Women assumed that she was dead and wanted to honor her at an event for other kick ass Texas women who had, shall we say, crossed the Brazos (Lady Bird, Molly Ivins, Ann Richards), and subsequently discovered when Sissy answered the phone that she was still alive and going strong.  

Sissy told the  [Houston] Chronicle in February 2017 that she supports her step-grandson [Blake Farenthold] personally, despite their political differences and the Chronicle reported this in July 2017

Quote

"I've always found him to be respectful of family and other people," she said. "I think a lot of him." And Farenthold told the Dallas Morning News [July 2017] that his remarks were "clearly tongue in cheek" and decried the "left-wing biased media" for "trying to make something out of nothing."

The making something out of nothing was over this statement by Blake: 

Quote

His latest off-color gaffe came in a radio interview Friday, where said he would settle differences with a group of senators in an "Aaron Burr-style" duel — if only they were men from south Texas and not "some female senators from the Northeast."

I'm guessing that, at 90, she is not failing mentally, although she's obviously taken on her step grandson's take on the media. IMO, at 90, she gets to think and say whatever the hell she wants to.  

The Austin American Statesman reported this morning that Blake now has 9 (!) Republican primary challengers for his district.  

[VixenToast]

Nebraska's democrat senatorial candidate just picked up an big endorsement this last week! I can't remember which group, but it's a start.  

[47of74]

The Iowa version of Fuck Face is spewing twitter diarrhea again;

Quote

Republican Congressman Steve King said that America’s strength has nothing to do with diversity in a series of tweets Friday night.

King, a representative of Iowa, linked to an article from the Voice of Europe that quoted Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban saying that all cultures should not be mixed because it’s “against common sense.”

“Diversity is not our strength,” King tweeted. “Assimilation has become a dirty word to the multiculturalist Left. Assimilation, not diversity, is our American strength.”

His list of controversial statements doesn’t stop there. Last year, King wondered what "subgroups" outside of white people contributed to civilization during an interview on MSNBC’s All In With Chris Hayes.

Every time this ass wipe spews his written diarrhea my urge to move out of Iowa rises.  King especially makes Iowans look like a bunch of backwoods idiots who only engage in intimate relations with various farm animals.

[Cartmann99]

39 minutes ago, 47of74 said:

Every time this ass wipe spews his written diarrhea my urge to move out of Iowa rises.  King especially makes Iowans look like a bunch of backwoods idiots who only engage in intimate relations with various farm animals.

 I think those of us in the red states who aren't batshit crazy have a special bond. We work so hard to present ourselves to the world as good and decent people, and then one of our nutters starts squawking and we have to start all over again. 

It sucks, and I'm sorry. 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"‘Very, very scary’: 8.8 million Americans face big tax hike if Republicans scrap the medical deduction"

Spoiler

Anne Hammer is one of millions of elderly Americans who could face a substantial tax hike in 2018 depending on the final negotiations over the Republican tax bill.

In her retirement community in Chestertown, Md., it’s the big topic of conversation.

Hammer is 71. Like many seniors, her medical bills are piling up. There are doctor visits, insurance premiums, drugs, a colonoscopy, a heart scan, an unexpected trip to the emergency room that lasted three days, ongoing monitoring for breast and ovarian cancer that run in her family and the costs of medical staff at her retirement community. Her out-of-pocket medical expenses vary, but she estimates they are about $20,000 a year.

Under current law, she can take a big medical deduction on her taxes. Last year, she was able to reduce her total taxable income by $16,000 because of the medical deduction alone, saving her over $3,000 on her tax bill.

The House tax bill would eliminate the deduction, while the Senate bill would keep it (and even make it a bit more generous). It’s a key difference that must be reconciled before the final legislation goes to President Trump.

“I have enough money to last until I’m 95,” says Hammer, who has carefully saved for decades. “But if I have to pay that much more in taxes, I might run out of money by 85.”

The medical deduction started in 1942 to help Americans deal with what lawmakers at the time called the “extraordinary” costs of medical care, the kind that hit when someone in the family has cancer or needs round-the-clock care. Currently, anyone can deduct medical expenses that account for more than 10 percent of their adjusted gross income (income minus deductions and exemptions). The Senate bill would expand that to 7.5 percent of income for this year and next.

In 2015, 8.8 million Americans used the deduction. Over half were older than 65, according to AARP.

As soon as Hammer, a former university administrator and MetLife compliance manager, read about the House plan, she realized it would alter not just her taxes, but possibly her life. She has income from Social Security, a modest pension and private retirement accounts. She pulls in about $55,000 a year, enough to pay for her retirement community and her medical bills.

But if she loses the medical deduction, her taxable income would jump — and so would her taxes. Her home state of Maryland bases its taxes off the federal ones, so losing the medical deduction at the federal level would lead to more taxes at the state level as well. The more money that goes to taxes, the less she has to live on later in life.

“It’s very, very scary,” says Hammer. It would be even worse if her medical costs go up. She already anticipates eye surgery and a dental procedure next year.

Trump promised that the middle class would be better off under his plan, but scrapping this deduction hits some in that group. Nearly 70 percent of the people claiming the deduction made $75,000 or less, according to AARP.

“This isn’t a high-income deduction,” says Cristina Martin Firvida, director of financial security and consumer affairs at AARP, which has been running ad campaigns to urge Congress to keep the deduction.

House Republicans had previously argued that their tax overhaul would be so beneficial to families that individual provisions such as the medical deduction would no longer be necessary. But more recently, they have acknowledged the significant impact of eliminating this particular tax break.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.), the lead author of the House bill, said last week that the medical deduction is on his radar heading into the conference committee because  many of his fellow GOP lawmakers have contacted him about it.

“That issue is being raised a lot by our lawmakers as very important,” Brady said.

Eliminating the medical deduction raises $10 billion a year — about 7 percent of the cost of reducing the tax rate for corporations from 35 percent to 20 percent, as the tax overhauls do.

Losing the deduction is especially burdensome for families caring for someone with a chronic disease. Cecilia “Sis” Tunnell is 88 and has Alzheimer’s. Her daughter Mary Pagel runs a thriving accounting practice in San Luis Obispo, Calif., and moved her mom to a nursing home nearby. The facility, specialized care and a nurse cost over $130,000 last year, a hefty sum the family can pay because of years of careful planning.

Pagel handles her mother’s taxes and estimates that Tunnell would go from paying less than $2,300 in taxes last year to paying more than $50,000 if the House plan went into effect and the medical deduction went away, because her mother’s taxable income would jump by six figures.

Many other clients of Pagel’s have been calling her with similar concerns. It alters the math dramatically, even for families that have saved for years to fund top-notch care that doesn’t rely on the government.

“It freaks me out,” says Pagel. “The costs of medical care are not going to go down, and you just don’t know how long someone will need care with Alzheimer’s or another chronic illness.”

While most of the focus has been on the elderly, Americans of all ages would be affected if the tax deduction is lost.

Randy Sherfy was a former college athlete and a rising star at a law firm when he left his home on a Saturday morning in 1992 to go on a bike ride with friends. A driver hit him a few miles from his home. He was 41.

Many surgeries later, his body has been mostly repaired, but Sherfy never recovered from the brain injury. He has been living in a traumatic care facility in Texas that costs over $60,000 a year. He pays for it from income from a settlement with a driver and from disability insurance he had from his law firm.

His brother, an accountant in Austin, estimates Sherfy’s taxes would go up substantially without the medical tax deduction. In most years from 2007 to 2014, he paid almost no taxes because of the medical deduction, his brother says. Under the House bill, he would suddenly have taxable income of $60,000 a year.

About a quarter of people who claim the medical deduction are younger than  50, according to AARP.

“Most of the people in nursing homes don’t have a lot of choice of how they’re spending their dollars,” says Joe Sherfy, Randy’s brother. “He was the victim of an accident.”

I'm sure at least some Repugs, especially the teabaggers, would say that we should just let these people die of their illnesses. It's appalling that people with massive medical bills are likely going to lose out to the corporate tax cut.