United States Congress of Fail (Part 3)

[apple1]

11 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

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

  Hide contents

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.

This - among other items - is one of the things that angers me about this tax bill. And is very likely to affect my personal purse.

[GreyhoundFan]

Lindsey Graham has his nose firmly up the orange backside. I love how the former ethics chair calls him out and Bill Kristol sums it up:

[GrumpyGran]

On 12/10/2017 at 8:55 PM, GreyhoundFan said:

I'm sure at least some Repugs, especially the teabaggers, would say that we should just let these people die of their illnesses.

Unless it's them. Then the government better come to their rescue. Because they deserve it!

[Howl]

Talking Points Memo has an op-ed title Graham Goes Full Trump Loyalist, about Lindsey Graham's big 180 turn on Trump, from sometimes critic to BFF.  The first two tweets referenced in the article are linked in topic, so essentially one tweet.

Spoiler

I had missed this. But it’s a significant development. Sen. Lindsey Graham has oscillated between being a fierce Trump critic to being increasingly supportive of the President. But he now seems to have moved firmly into the Trump loyalist camp.  I base that on a number of recent events but particularly on these two tweets from Friday.

8 Dec  Lindsey Graham✔@LindseyGrahamSC:  Was there collusion between DOJ and Fusion GPS to use Democratic funded dossier for political and legal purposes?  We need to know the answer to those questions. 

Lindsey Graham✔@LindseyGrahamSC: It’s long past time for a Special Counsel to investigate Clinton email scandal, Uranium One, role of Fusion GPS, and FBI and DOJ bias during 2016 campaign.  9:38 AM - Dec 8, 2017

Lindsey Graham✔@LindseyGrahamSC:  I will be challenging Rs and Ds on Senate Judiciary Committee to support a Special Counsel to investigate ALL THINGS 2016 -- not just Trump and Russia.  9:38 AM - Dec 8, 2017

 Note here the things that Graham is including in his call. They range from things that are fairly unreasonable or without significant merit to things that are totally crazy. He is asking for a Special Counsel to reinvestigate Clinton’s private server, the Uranium One story, which is completely ludicrous, and anti-GOP bias at the FBI, which is not only factually nonsensical but seems intended to lay the groundwork for ideological purges of the primary national law enforcement agency which already has a very Republican-leaning political culture.

While Graham has many flaws, he’s also been capable of a significant amount of heterodoxy and even an amount of dissension from party political positions, if perhaps often for effect or positioning. Why he would now swing so hard and so totally in a Trumpite direction is, frankly, not clear to me. He’s up for reelection again in 2020, which is a ways off. Few Republican senators show much willingness to get seriously on to the President’s bad side. But this is way, way beyond what is necessary for that. There’s some story here. I don’t know what it is. We don’t know that it’s nefarious. But this is something that would be very helpful to have explained.

Also, in celebrating FJ's snark roots, someone on another forum referred to Blake Farenthold as Farenthold (R-Golden Corral).  

[GrumpyGran]

3 hours ago, Howl said:

Few Republican senators show much willingness to get seriously on to the President’s bad side. But this is way, way beyond what is necessary for that. There’s some story here. I don’t know what it is. We don’t know that it’s nefarious. But this is something that would be very helpful to have explained.

Having been forced to watch him more closely in the last eighteen months, I can only say he seems to wake up with a different idea every day. Seriously, I think he has decided he would be best at reining in and controlling Dump. So he is sucking up to get a close position where he can influence dumpy.

As for him becoming Sec. of State, yea, fine. No way he would get voted out in 2020 so the replacement McMasturbator would come up with would be easier to throw out next year.

[AmazonGrace]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/11/news/economy/tax-bill-warning-europe/index.html

Europe's five biggest economies have warned the Trump administration that its tax plan may violate international trade rules

[fraurosena]

Schumer calls cops after forged sex scandal charge

Quote

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he was the victim of a fake news hit on Tuesday, and has turned over to Capitol Police a document that purports to detail lurid sexual harassment accusations by a former staffer.

Why it matters: This was an apparent effort to dupe reporters and smear a senator — both symptoms of an amped-up news environment where harassment charges are proliferating and reporters have become targets for fraud.

• The former staffer told me in a phone interview that she did not author the document, that none of the charges ring true, and that her signature was forged.
• She said she had never heard of the document before Axios took it to Schumer's office for comment on Tuesday.
• Matt House, Schumer's communications director, told me: "The document is a forged document and every allegation is false. We have turned it over to the Capitol Police and asked them to investigate and pursue criminal charges because it is clear the law has been broken."
• House continued: "We believe the individual responsible for forging the document should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law to prevent other malicious actors from doing the same."

The backstory:

• A password-protected PDF of the 13-page document was shopped to Axios and other outlets. The document, which is dated 2012 and has the file name "Schumer_Complaint," looks like a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
• One of many red flags: No lawyer for the staffer is named.
• The woman named in the document was a legislative staffer for Schumer from 2009 to 2012, and is now a career employee of the federal government.
• The former staffer said she took the matter to Washington, D.C. police on Tuesday. She said the police told her they were unsure of their jurisdiction in the case. She said she now plans to go to Capitol Police.
• She told me in a statement: "The claims in this document are completely false, my signature is forged, and even basic facts about me are wrong. I have contacted law enforcement to determine who is responsible. I parted with Senator Schumer's office on good terms and have nothing but the fondest memories of my time there."
• Axios agreed to her stipulation that she not be named, because she said she is the victim of a crime.

A source close to Schumer said the document is full of errors:

• "The document contains an allegation of inappropriate behavior on September 16th 2011 in Washington, but Schumer was in New York City."
• "It contains an allegation of inappropriate behavior by Schumer on August 25th 2011 in Washington, but Schumer was in France."
• The source tells Axios that reporters from the Washington Post, CNN, BuzzFeed, The New Yorker and ABC all inquired about the document Tuesday.

There are dumb people that believe the lies spread about the MSM. Alas for them that try to trip them up, they're wrong. Good journalism fact checks, so if you send them a forged document full of factual errors, you will be caught out.

[GrumpyGran]

Tina Smith! Fuck yes! I was sad about Al Franken but this! This! Senator Tina Smith.

It's my birthday and I am happy. Even though my husband is recovering from surgery so there will be no dinner out and such but in the last 24 hours, a new Democratic Senator and a new female Democratic Senator. Happy Birthday me!

[fraurosena]

20 minutes ago, GrumpyGran said:

Tina Smith! Fuck yes! I was sad about Al Franken but this! This! Senator Tina Smith.

It's my birthday and I am happy. Even though my husband is recovering from surgery so there will be no dinner out and such but in the last 24 hours, a new Democratic Senator and a new female Democratic Senator. Happy Birthday me!

Happy Birthday, Grumpy!

[GreyhoundFan]

16 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

Europe's five biggest economies have warned the Trump administration that its tax plan may violate international trade rules

Um, that would make him more excited to sign it.

Happy Birthday, @GrumpyGran! 

[GreyhoundFan]

The Repugs are in a panic to screw over America before Doug Jones is seated: "On their tax bill, Republicans are making a risky, desperate gamble"

Spoiler

This morning, Democrats held a press conference to demand that the Republicans put off final votes on the GOP tax bill until Doug Jones can take his seat in the Senate. “It would be wrong for Senate Republicans to jam through this tax bill without giving the duly elected senator from Alabama a chance to cast his vote,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

You will be shocked to learn that Mitch McConnell and other Republicans are unpersuaded. Instead, Jones’s win has only made it more urgent that they pass their tax bill immediately. They’re running out of time, and they’ve got lots of problems to solve. Complete failure is a greater possibility right at this moment than it has been at any point in the process.

Which is why it isn’t surprising that this just happened:

House and Senate GOP leaders have forged an agreement on a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s tax laws. That paves the way for final votes next week to slash taxes for businesses and give most people tax cuts starting next year.

Top GOP aides say the deal was reached on Wednesday. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the deal. Details still need to be drafted and assessed by congressional scorekeepers but the final House-Senate compromise is on track to be unveiled this week.

Details are sketchy at this point; it’s been reported that they may lower the top tax rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent, and that people may be allowed to deduct $10,000 of state, local, or property taxes — not as much of a tax increase for those in blue states than we thought, but still a hit. Those are just a couple of hundreds of decisions they’ll have to make, and it seems pretty obvious that Doug Jones’ victory freaked them the heck out. They’re in a panic to pass a tax bill while they still can.

That means, first and foremost, passing the bill before Jones’s victory gets certified by the state of Alabama, which the secretary of state says won’t happen before December 26. As of now, Congress is scheduled to leave for its holiday break on December 22, next Friday. Once they return and Jones takes his seat, they’ll have only a 51-49 advantage in the Senate, meaning they can lose only one vote.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) already voted against the Senate version of the tax bill, so if he doesn’t change his vote, that would mean they couldn’t lose any others. But what emerges from the conference committee will inevitably move in the direction of the House bill, which is full of cruel provisions that punish middle class people in order to help corporations and the wealthy.

That would put them in danger of losing Susan Collins (R-Maine), who said she voted for the Senate bill only because she got promises that its elimination of the individual health insurance mandate would be made up for with the passage of other bills to stabilize the insurance markets.

Pretty much everybody except Collins herself thinks she got played, and those bills are never going to pass, particularly in the House. She’s coming under huge pressure to change her vote, and let’s not forget that this is already one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation in history.

But if they can pass the bill by next week, they can lose Corker and Collins and still have a 50-50 tie, which Vice President Pence would break.

That’s still a high-risk strategy. While it’s possible that the compromise bill will remove some of the more horrifying provisions, it’s certain to retain many of them, and perhaps insert some new ones that make it even more clear who wins and who loses. All of that will be the subject of plenty of news reports as journalists and experts pore over the details, which will likely serve to make it even less popular than it is now.

That makes it all the more urgent for Republicans to pass it this week, no matter how much of a turkey it is. But you could easily imagine Collins getting spooked and John McCain or someone else objecting to the haste with which it’s being jammed through, which would be enough to kill it.

There’s a solution to that problem, but it looks like Republicans closed it off when they were frantically rewriting the bill at the last moment before it passed the Senate. It’s what Democrats did in 2010 with the Affordable Care Act, and what some (including myself) have predicted Republicans might do now as a last resort: just take the Senate bill, pass it through the House, and they’d be finished.

The trouble is that when they were writing the Senate bill, Republicans screwed up in a way that now makes that course of action all but impossible.

It’s a somewhat complex tale (you can read an explanation here), but the short version is that when they were scrambling to insert hand-written provisions at the last moment, they reinstated the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) at the same 20 percent rate as the regular corporate income tax (the House bill repeals the AMT). That means that corporations wouldn’t be able to reduce their taxes any lower than 20 percent. They wouldn’t be able to take advantage of the R&D credit or any of the other delicious loopholes that remain in the code. So the Senate half-inadvertently removed as much as $300 billion in corporate tax cuts they wanted to dole out.

Keep in mind, cutting corporate taxes is the centerpiece of this whole bill. Since this problem was identified, Republicans have been saying that they’ll figure out how to eliminate the corporate AMT and still make the numbers work out. But this mistake means that they won’t be willing to default to the version of the bill that passed the Senate.

Which means it’s the conference committee bill or nothing. And as they frantically put that bill together, what are the chances it’ll be free of provisions that the public is going to recoil at the sight of? Writing a gigantic, sweeping reform of the tax system in just a few days might enable you to pass it before opposition can coalesce and mobilize, but it also might cause just enough relatively sane senators to want to hit the pause button.

Right now though, that’s a risk Republican leaders are willing to take. They’re desperately hoping that they can pass their bill before anyone realizes what it actually does. They’re going to hand the bill to their caucuses in both houses and give them only a couple of days to decide whether to vote on something with gigantic implications for every American. It may succeed, but it’s a big gamble.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Yet another way the Repugs are trying to screw the American people: "House GOP higher ed bill moves ahead, despite cries to slow down"

Spoiler

House Republicans are pressing ahead with a sweeping overhaul of the federal law that governs almost every aspect of higher education, without hearings and despite mounting pressure to provide more time for analysis and input.

On Tuesday, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce considered amendments to the Promoting Real Opportunity, Success and Prosperity through Education Reform Act, introduced by Chairman Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) and Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.). The process known as “markup” was expected to take two days as Democrats and Republicans plan to introduce nearly 60 amendments, according to congressional staffers.

The legislation is the first significant step in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which has remained largely untouched for nearly a decade. As a result, university, student and consumer groups are pleading with the committee to slow down. Barely two weeks have passed since Foxx released the 542-page bill, a tome that would change everything from the way families finance education to the way colleges are held accountable for their performance.

On the eve of the markup, Republicans tucked in more provisions, including giving the education secretary greater flexibility to cut off federal grants to students and barring campuses from regulating fraternities and sororities.

“Despite the fact that reauthorization is already several years behind schedule, this bill is suddenly being rushed through committee,” Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, wrote to committee leaders Monday in a letter signed by 36 other organizations. “This expedited time-frame limits the ability to analyze the bill and consult with affected parties, leaving the committee in the position of asking its members and the public to support legislation before knowing its full impact.”

Mitchell, who served as undersecretary of education during the Obama administration, said the organizations have significant reservations about the legislation, although there are elements they support — a position echoed throughout the higher education community.

Many have praised the legislation for simplifying the financial aid application, using grants to provide incentives for students to graduate in four years, eliminating student loan origination fees and expanding work-study opportunities for low-income students. But some worry the bill could raise the cost of college for those who can least afford it by ending the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant and no longer paying the interest on low-income students’ loans while they are in school. The grant provided $732 million in aid to 1.6 million students in the 2014-2015 academic year, according to the Education Department.

“Eliminating the supplemental grant without channeling the funds directly into another need-based grant program, like the Pell Grant, is simply a cut to students trying to pay for college,” said Michelle Asha Cooper, president of the nonprofit Institute for Higher Education Policy, in a review of the legislation. And ending the interest subsidy, she said, “ultimately means that students will pay more for college.”

A preliminary analysis by the American Council on Education, which represents colleges and universities, supports Cooper’s observation about abolishing the subsidy. The council said an undergraduate who borrows $19,000 over four years and makes all payments on time would see a 44 percent increase in the cost of the loan, if subsidized loans go away. A student who attends for five years and borrows $23,000 would see a 56 percent increase. By most estimates, nearly 6 million students would be affected.

Mary Clare Amselem, an education policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, argues that taxpayers will benefit if the federal government reduces its role in financing higher education.

“Students and taxpayers win in the scenario where you have private lenders actually competing in the market, and ultimately we would hope that puts more pressure on inflated tuition prices,” Amselem said. “The federal role in education should only be to lend to students that the private markets wouldn’t.”

She applauded provisions to end subsidized loans and Public Service Loan Forgiveness, a program that wipes away federal student debt for people in the public sector after they have made 10 years’ worth of payments. But instead of House Republicans imposing borrowing caps for parents and graduate students, Amselem said she hoped lawmakers would end all government lending to both groups. Banks and other private lenders, she said, are well-equipped to meet their needs. Advocacy groups have argued that private loans lack adequate consumer protections.

Critics of the federal Parent and Graduate Plus loan programs say they are in part responsible for the rising cost of college. They contend colleges and universities have little incentive to keep costs down as long as people can access unlimited amounts of money from both programs, a claim that has been disputed by some education researchers.

The graduate program, in particular, has been blamed for the explosion in student debt, with roughly 40 percent of student loans held by people with advanced degrees. Conservatives have also called for caps on the amount of graduate student debt eligible for loan forgiveness in a federal income-based repayment program that is designed to lower the skyrocketing costs of discharging debt. As it stands, borrowers can restrict their monthly student loan payments to 10 percent of their discretionary earnings, with the remaining balance of the debt forgiven after 20 to 25 years.

Instead of limiting eligibility, House Republicans would end loan forgiveness altogether, raise monthly payments to 15 percent of income and eliminate the fixed number of years for repayment. But in exchange, the plan caps interest payments so that after 10 years, borrowers are paying only principal.

Preston Cooper, an education analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank, said he has mixed feelings about the controversial provision.

“Some of the loan forgiveness programs are shaping up to be really expensive and having a cap on interest will give students peace of mind,” Cooper said. “But one of the negatives is getting rid of loan forgiveness, which is a big subsidy. But you’re kind of introducing this new subsidy for people who take a long time to pay off their loans.”

House Republicans would also require people in an income-based plan to pay at least $25 a month, ending a practice that allows struggling borrowers to pay nothing. An analysis released Tuesday by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, said restructuring the repayment plan could increase monthly debt bills for borrowers — and the amount they pay overall — without a fixed number of years for repayment.

House Democrats are introducing nearly 40 amendments to combat changes to loan forgiveness, financial aid and accountability measures for colleges. Democrats say they were not consulted on any aspect of the legislation, despite drafting bipartisan bills addressing elements of the Higher Education Act in the last Congress. Members plan to paint the GOP bill as a continued attack on American families, much like the tax overhaul, according to a Democratic committee aide.

Democrats are especially concerned about the repeal of regulations targeting for-profit colleges. The legislation would end the 90/10 rule, which bars for-profit colleges from getting more than 90 percent of their operating revenue from federal student aid.

It would also get rid of the gainful employment regulation that threatens to withhold student aid from vocational programs that have graduates who consistently end up with more debt than they can repay.

And House Republicans are proposing to limit loan discharges afforded to students defrauded by their colleges, through a statute known as borrower defense to repayment.

“The House GOP proposal guts key safeguards designed to protect students and taxpayers from predatory schools, like the gainful employment rule and the 90/10 provision — and then to make matters worse, it eliminates protections around the borrower defense process, making it far more difficult for students to get relief on their debt when they get scammed by those schools,” said Jen Mishory, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, a Washington-based nonprofit organization.

Shaking my head here.

[GrumpyGran]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

The Repugs are in a panic to screw over America before Doug Jones is seated: "On their tax bill, Republicans are making a risky, desperate gamble"

  Reveal hidden contents

This morning, Democrats held a press conference to demand that the Republicans put off final votes on the GOP tax bill until Doug Jones can take his seat in the Senate. “It would be wrong for Senate Republicans to jam through this tax bill without giving the duly elected senator from Alabama a chance to cast his vote,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

You will be shocked to learn that Mitch McConnell and other Republicans are unpersuaded. Instead, Jones’s win has only made it more urgent that they pass their tax bill immediately. They’re running out of time, and they’ve got lots of problems to solve. Complete failure is a greater possibility right at this moment than it has been at any point in the process.

Which is why it isn’t surprising that this just happened:

House and Senate GOP leaders have forged an agreement on a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s tax laws. That paves the way for final votes next week to slash taxes for businesses and give most people tax cuts starting next year.

Top GOP aides say the deal was reached on Wednesday. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the deal. Details still need to be drafted and assessed by congressional scorekeepers but the final House-Senate compromise is on track to be unveiled this week.

Details are sketchy at this point; it’s been reported that they may lower the top tax rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent, and that people may be allowed to deduct $10,000 of state, local, or property taxes — not as much of a tax increase for those in blue states than we thought, but still a hit. Those are just a couple of hundreds of decisions they’ll have to make, and it seems pretty obvious that Doug Jones’ victory freaked them the heck out. They’re in a panic to pass a tax bill while they still can.

That means, first and foremost, passing the bill before Jones’s victory gets certified by the state of Alabama, which the secretary of state says won’t happen before December 26. As of now, Congress is scheduled to leave for its holiday break on December 22, next Friday. Once they return and Jones takes his seat, they’ll have only a 51-49 advantage in the Senate, meaning they can lose only one vote.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) already voted against the Senate version of the tax bill, so if he doesn’t change his vote, that would mean they couldn’t lose any others. But what emerges from the conference committee will inevitably move in the direction of the House bill, which is full of cruel provisions that punish middle class people in order to help corporations and the wealthy.

That would put them in danger of losing Susan Collins (R-Maine), who said she voted for the Senate bill only because she got promises that its elimination of the individual health insurance mandate would be made up for with the passage of other bills to stabilize the insurance markets.

Pretty much everybody except Collins herself thinks she got played, and those bills are never going to pass, particularly in the House. She’s coming under huge pressure to change her vote, and let’s not forget that this is already one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation in history.

But if they can pass the bill by next week, they can lose Corker and Collins and still have a 50-50 tie, which Vice President Pence would break.

That’s still a high-risk strategy. While it’s possible that the compromise bill will remove some of the more horrifying provisions, it’s certain to retain many of them, and perhaps insert some new ones that make it even more clear who wins and who loses. All of that will be the subject of plenty of news reports as journalists and experts pore over the details, which will likely serve to make it even less popular than it is now.

That makes it all the more urgent for Republicans to pass it this week, no matter how much of a turkey it is. But you could easily imagine Collins getting spooked and John McCain or someone else objecting to the haste with which it’s being jammed through, which would be enough to kill it.

There’s a solution to that problem, but it looks like Republicans closed it off when they were frantically rewriting the bill at the last moment before it passed the Senate. It’s what Democrats did in 2010 with the Affordable Care Act, and what some (including myself) have predicted Republicans might do now as a last resort: just take the Senate bill, pass it through the House, and they’d be finished.

The trouble is that when they were writing the Senate bill, Republicans screwed up in a way that now makes that course of action all but impossible.

It’s a somewhat complex tale (you can read an explanation here), but the short version is that when they were scrambling to insert hand-written provisions at the last moment, they reinstated the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) at the same 20 percent rate as the regular corporate income tax (the House bill repeals the AMT). That means that corporations wouldn’t be able to reduce their taxes any lower than 20 percent. They wouldn’t be able to take advantage of the R&D credit or any of the other delicious loopholes that remain in the code. So the Senate half-inadvertently removed as much as $300 billion in corporate tax cuts they wanted to dole out.

Keep in mind, cutting corporate taxes is the centerpiece of this whole bill. Since this problem was identified, Republicans have been saying that they’ll figure out how to eliminate the corporate AMT and still make the numbers work out. But this mistake means that they won’t be willing to default to the version of the bill that passed the Senate.

Which means it’s the conference committee bill or nothing. And as they frantically put that bill together, what are the chances it’ll be free of provisions that the public is going to recoil at the sight of? Writing a gigantic, sweeping reform of the tax system in just a few days might enable you to pass it before opposition can coalesce and mobilize, but it also might cause just enough relatively sane senators to want to hit the pause button.

Right now though, that’s a risk Republican leaders are willing to take. They’re desperately hoping that they can pass their bill before anyone realizes what it actually does. They’re going to hand the bill to their caucuses in both houses and give them only a couple of days to decide whether to vote on something with gigantic implications for every American. It may succeed, but it’s a big gamble.

 

 

42 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Yet another way the Repugs are trying to screw the American people: "House GOP higher ed bill moves ahead, despite cries to slow down"

  Reveal hidden contents

House Republicans are pressing ahead with a sweeping overhaul of the federal law that governs almost every aspect of higher education, without hearings and despite mounting pressure to provide more time for analysis and input.

On Tuesday, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce considered amendments to the Promoting Real Opportunity, Success and Prosperity through Education Reform Act, introduced by Chairman Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) and Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.). The process known as “markup” was expected to take two days as Democrats and Republicans plan to introduce nearly 60 amendments, according to congressional staffers.

The legislation is the first significant step in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which has remained largely untouched for nearly a decade. As a result, university, student and consumer groups are pleading with the committee to slow down. Barely two weeks have passed since Foxx released the 542-page bill, a tome that would change everything from the way families finance education to the way colleges are held accountable for their performance.

On the eve of the markup, Republicans tucked in more provisions, including giving the education secretary greater flexibility to cut off federal grants to students and barring campuses from regulating fraternities and sororities.

“Despite the fact that reauthorization is already several years behind schedule, this bill is suddenly being rushed through committee,” Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, wrote to committee leaders Monday in a letter signed by 36 other organizations. “This expedited time-frame limits the ability to analyze the bill and consult with affected parties, leaving the committee in the position of asking its members and the public to support legislation before knowing its full impact.”

Mitchell, who served as undersecretary of education during the Obama administration, said the organizations have significant reservations about the legislation, although there are elements they support — a position echoed throughout the higher education community.

Many have praised the legislation for simplifying the financial aid application, using grants to provide incentives for students to graduate in four years, eliminating student loan origination fees and expanding work-study opportunities for low-income students. But some worry the bill could raise the cost of college for those who can least afford it by ending the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant and no longer paying the interest on low-income students’ loans while they are in school. The grant provided $732 million in aid to 1.6 million students in the 2014-2015 academic year, according to the Education Department.

“Eliminating the supplemental grant without channeling the funds directly into another need-based grant program, like the Pell Grant, is simply a cut to students trying to pay for college,” said Michelle Asha Cooper, president of the nonprofit Institute for Higher Education Policy, in a review of the legislation. And ending the interest subsidy, she said, “ultimately means that students will pay more for college.”

A preliminary analysis by the American Council on Education, which represents colleges and universities, supports Cooper’s observation about abolishing the subsidy. The council said an undergraduate who borrows $19,000 over four years and makes all payments on time would see a 44 percent increase in the cost of the loan, if subsidized loans go away. A student who attends for five years and borrows $23,000 would see a 56 percent increase. By most estimates, nearly 6 million students would be affected.

Mary Clare Amselem, an education policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, argues that taxpayers will benefit if the federal government reduces its role in financing higher education.

“Students and taxpayers win in the scenario where you have private lenders actually competing in the market, and ultimately we would hope that puts more pressure on inflated tuition prices,” Amselem said. “The federal role in education should only be to lend to students that the private markets wouldn’t.”

She applauded provisions to end subsidized loans and Public Service Loan Forgiveness, a program that wipes away federal student debt for people in the public sector after they have made 10 years’ worth of payments. But instead of House Republicans imposing borrowing caps for parents and graduate students, Amselem said she hoped lawmakers would end all government lending to both groups. Banks and other private lenders, she said, are well-equipped to meet their needs. Advocacy groups have argued that private loans lack adequate consumer protections.

Critics of the federal Parent and Graduate Plus loan programs say they are in part responsible for the rising cost of college. They contend colleges and universities have little incentive to keep costs down as long as people can access unlimited amounts of money from both programs, a claim that has been disputed by some education researchers.

The graduate program, in particular, has been blamed for the explosion in student debt, with roughly 40 percent of student loans held by people with advanced degrees. Conservatives have also called for caps on the amount of graduate student debt eligible for loan forgiveness in a federal income-based repayment program that is designed to lower the skyrocketing costs of discharging debt. As it stands, borrowers can restrict their monthly student loan payments to 10 percent of their discretionary earnings, with the remaining balance of the debt forgiven after 20 to 25 years.

Instead of limiting eligibility, House Republicans would end loan forgiveness altogether, raise monthly payments to 15 percent of income and eliminate the fixed number of years for repayment. But in exchange, the plan caps interest payments so that after 10 years, borrowers are paying only principal.

Preston Cooper, an education analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank, said he has mixed feelings about the controversial provision.

“Some of the loan forgiveness programs are shaping up to be really expensive and having a cap on interest will give students peace of mind,” Cooper said. “But one of the negatives is getting rid of loan forgiveness, which is a big subsidy. But you’re kind of introducing this new subsidy for people who take a long time to pay off their loans.”

House Republicans would also require people in an income-based plan to pay at least $25 a month, ending a practice that allows struggling borrowers to pay nothing. An analysis released Tuesday by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, said restructuring the repayment plan could increase monthly debt bills for borrowers — and the amount they pay overall — without a fixed number of years for repayment.

House Democrats are introducing nearly 40 amendments to combat changes to loan forgiveness, financial aid and accountability measures for colleges. Democrats say they were not consulted on any aspect of the legislation, despite drafting bipartisan bills addressing elements of the Higher Education Act in the last Congress. Members plan to paint the GOP bill as a continued attack on American families, much like the tax overhaul, according to a Democratic committee aide.

Democrats are especially concerned about the repeal of regulations targeting for-profit colleges. The legislation would end the 90/10 rule, which bars for-profit colleges from getting more than 90 percent of their operating revenue from federal student aid.

It would also get rid of the gainful employment regulation that threatens to withhold student aid from vocational programs that have graduates who consistently end up with more debt than they can repay.

And House Republicans are proposing to limit loan discharges afforded to students defrauded by their colleges, through a statute known as borrower defense to repayment.

“The House GOP proposal guts key safeguards designed to protect students and taxpayers from predatory schools, like the gainful employment rule and the 90/10 provision — and then to make matters worse, it eliminates protections around the borrower defense process, making it far more difficult for students to get relief on their debt when they get scammed by those schools,” said Jen Mishory, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, a Washington-based nonprofit organization.

Shaking my head here.

It's like a Congressional version of Black Friday. I think it wouldn't be too difficult at this point to have someone covertly sneak in a very different version of all of these bills without these Repubs noticing. You know, just slide something else into the papers on their desks. Repubs do nothing for, oh, ten, fifteen years and now the house is on fire.

So, it wasn't proper for Obama to ask for a vote on a Supreme Court nomination in his last year in office but it's okay to rush legislation through before a duly elected official can be seated.

[Cartmann99]

 

Quote

One comment from the congressman was especially personal. Rekola was about to leave town to get married in July 2015, when, he said, Farenthold, standing within earshot of other staffers in his Capitol Hill office, said to the groom-to-be: "Better have your fiancée blow you before she walks down the aisle -- it will be the last time." He then proceeded to joke about whether Rekola's now-wife could wear white on her wedding day -- a clear reference, Rekola said, to whether she had had premarital sex.

Elizabeth Peace was hired to help with Farenthold's communications efforts in May 2015 when Rekola was sometimes out of the office to deal with his stomach ailment. Peace, who eventually became a full-time communications director, confirmed in an interview that Farenthold regularly called aides "f**ktards." She also said she was present when Farenthold made the oral sex comment about Rekola's then-fiancée.

"Every staffer in that area heard it," Peace said. "It was the most shocking thing I'd heard him say at that point."

 

[47of74]

Commander Ducky Pajamas has decided not to run for reelection

Quote

Rep. Blake Farenthold, who's under fire for accusations of sexual harassment, is not planning to run for re-election, a Republican source familiar with situation told CNN on Thursday.

House Speaker Paul Ryan spoke with Farenthold, a Texas Republican, twice late Wednesday. Rep. Steve Stivers, who chairs the House campaign arm, also met with Farenthold.

"Look, I had a couple of conversations with Blake Farenthold," Ryan said at his weekly news conference. "I think he's making the right decision to retire. There are new stories that are disconcerting. Unacceptable behavior has been alleged in those stories. And I think he's made the right decision that he's leaving Congress. And that reflects on the conversations we've had."

Farenthold did not respond to request for comment from reporters when asked Thursday about when he'll resign.

 

[LeftCoastLurker]

Haven't seen this posted. Apparently Ly'in Ryan has a way to solve funding for Social Security and Medicare...more babies!

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I won't believe it until I see that his name isn't on an actual ballot in 2018: "Paul D. Ryan exiting as speaker? It only makes sense."

Spoiler

Will Paul D. Ryan call it a speakership after the 2018 election? After the HuffPost pointed to such speculation Wednesday, Politico reported Thursday that Ryan has indeed “got his eyes on the exits.”

The latter story has enough caveats that were Ryan to decide to stick around for a while, it wouldn't really be wrong. The denials from Ryan's (R-Wis.) office thus far don't seem to really dispute its central claims.

... < tweets >

The first denial leans heavily on the definition of the word “soon,” while the second only specifies Ryan is committed to the agenda for 2018. Politico isn't reporting Ryan will resign before next year's election — that would be highly unorthodox and potentially deadly for a party that is facing an increasingly fraught midterm — but rather he might quit afterward.

Whether that happens or not, it would be completely understandable, and perhaps even predictable.

So predictable, in fact, that The Post's Paul Kane did predict it back in 2015 when Ryan first became speaker. “I think he'll do this for three or four years,” Kane said in October 2015, more than three years before the 2018 election. That three-plus-year tenure would also be completely in line with other recent speakerships. Looking back, six of the last seven speakers have served fewer than five years in the job (three voluntarily and three because their party lost the majority). Ryan committing to another two-year Congress would put him over that five-year mark, which is a very long time to be in that job even for a relatively youthful 47-year-old.

... < chart >

Even without that history, Ryan's rumored exit makes plenty of sense.

He is a man who took that job, after all, even as he repeatedly insisted he didn't want it. At the time, conservatives effectively forced then-Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) out, and there didn't seem to be anybody else who could win the support of both sides of his party.

If the job was thankless for Boehner, Ryan was about to find out just how much more thankless it would become. While Boehner had to deal with an unruly caucus, Ryan has found himself having to deal with an unruly and unpredictable Republican president as well. Frequently during the campaign and since, Ryan has been asked to answer for President Trump's conduct. While his answers are usually meant to deflect and he's outwardly declined to comment at times on Trump's comments and tweets, it is clear this is not fun for him. For a guy who built a reputation as a policy wonk more interested in being chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee than House speaker, he has found himself dealing with Trump's perpetual reality-show dramas as much as policy details.

Trump's presidency may have seemed like a golden opportunity for Ryan in one way, though. The GOP, after all, has joint control of Congress and the presidency, and for a guy who has long dreamed of entitlement reform and making conservative fiscal policy a reality, the chance is there in a way Ryan couldn't have expected when he took the job in late 2015.

Trump has already turned Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) into a pariah with a newly imperiled majority, and it seems only a matter of time before the House's failure to meet Trump's expectations causes him to truly turn his fire on Ryan too. (Nobody around Trump is guaranteed loyalty, especially if they make him look bad.) And, not only that, but given Trump's problems, Ryan cannot even be sure he will be able to stay speaker in 2019, given Republicans could well lose the House.

Given that, why not spend the next year going for your golden goose — entitlement reform — and not worry about having to stay in a job that you never really wanted and might not even exist next year?

Sadly, I can't imagine anyone the Repugs would throw our way being any better. The only hope is for the Dems to win back the majority.

[Howl]

My concern with the tax bill, aside from all of our major concerns about it ultimately tanking the economy, is that there are amendments, riders and tank traps out the kazoo.  For example, Ted Cruz has attached an amendment that would allows parent to deduct the cost of private school tuition and homeschool materials.   

Quote

Rep. Blake Farenthold, who's under fire for accusations of sexual harassment, is not planning to run for re-election, a Republican source familiar with situation told CNN on Thursday.

Sheesh, does this piss me off.  Al Franken was supposed to resign STAT, but Republicans just decide to "not run for re-election," meaning they'll be around for another YEAR, minimum. 

[GrumpyGran]

2 hours ago, LeftCoastLurker said:

Haven't seen this posted. Apparently Ly'in Ryan has a way to solve funding for Social Security and Medicare...more babies!

 

I've got a better idea. How about you perverted, white racist old men have the babies? Then you can spend YOUR billions of dollars raising them. Ole' Roy can tell you how to find breeders for yourselves.

Oh, wait, what? Too much hard work for you? Not surprised. Or you could just PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES! 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Profiles in cowardice on a rotten tax deal"

Spoiler

If you thought that the tax bill was bad before, the process rushed and secretive, wait until the final version gets jammed through days from now, with no score, no hearings and no understanding among most Republicans of what’s actually in the bill. The details remain sketchy, but it’s clear that the GOP figured out how to tip the bill even further in favor of the super-rich.

The Post reports:

House and Senate Republican leaders have reached an agreement in principle that would lower the corporate tax rate to 21 percent beginning in 2018, several people briefed on the plan said, a central component of the $1.5 trillion tax plan they hope to vote into law by next week.

The agreement would also lower the top tax rate for families and individuals from 39.6 percent to at least 37 percent, a change that would deliver a major tax cut for upper-income households. . . .  Democrats mounted a last-ditch effort to pressure the GOP to delay votes on the bill, arguing they should wait for Democrat Doug Jones — who defeated Republican candidate Roy Moore on Tuesday in an Alabama special election for a U.S. Senate seat — to join the chamber.

But Republicans rebuffed those attempts and are hoping to pass a final bill early next week.

If anything, Jones’s upset win in Alabama has stoked panic in the GOP ranks, not that their bill is a dud but that they must jam it through before Jones arrives.

I asked Sen. Susan Collins’s (R-Maine) office whether she felt compelled to wait for Jones. “Senator Collins doesn’t believe that the Alabama election should delay the timetable for tax reform,” her communications director, Annie Clark, said. ” The Senate has always planned to pass the tax bill before the end of the year, regardless of whether Moore or Jones won. Alabama will continue to be represented by Senator Strange until the election is certified, which might not be until after Christmas. It is typical for lame-duck members to continue voting until their replacements are sworn in.” Uh-huh.

Initial language emerging for the year-end spending bill did not appear to include aspects of two bills that Collins demanded, Alexander-Murray and Collins-Nelson, intended partially to offset the expected premium increases resulting from repeal of the individual mandate. If Collins goes along, she will make a mockery of her promises to protect the Obamacare exchanges. Clark told me, “She is going to look at the final package (like she always does).”

It doesn’t sound as though Collins or other senators are standing firm on elements they once deemed essential. (“[Collins] has expressed concern about lowering the top tax rate, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has complained that Republicans did not do more to further expand the Child Tax Credit. But neither has said whether they would oppose the bill.”) For Rubio, it’s another instance (as when he endorsed President Trump and voted to confirm Secretary of State Rex Tillerson) when big talk and high-minded principles crumble in the race of a vote.

GOP tax-cut advocates know full well that Rubio’s lack of spine will mean a vote for whatever the leadership puts under his nose. The Post reported:

“I have no idea why he didn’t stick to his guns. I’m sort of at a loss to explain it,” said Joshua McCabe, a tax expert at Endicott College who has written about the history of the Child Tax Credit.

Republicans appear ready to make that calculation again.

Rubio hasn’t publicly vowed to vote against the bill if the tax credit isn’t increased, and both Rubio admirers and critics are skeptical he’d do it.

“This isn’t a guy who wants to be off the reservation. [Rubio] wants to be a team player, and wants to be supportive of tax relief in general,” said April Ponnuru, a senior adviser at the Conservative Reform Network and a Jeb Bush adviser who has worked closely with Rubio’s office on trying to expand the credit.

Here we see the four defining features of the GOP — indifference to substance, anti-populism (the bill is right-wing, supply-side economics in its most cartoonish form), contempt for voters and intellectual incoherence. The result will be a hugely unpopular bill that favors the rich, grows the debt and widens inequality. Voters already have figured this out. Whether it is the USA Today-Suffolk University poll (32 percent approve, 48 percent do not), the Marist poll (52 percent say it will hurt them, 30 percent say it will help) or the Quinnipiac University poll (26 approve, 55 percent do not; 65 percent think it will favor the rich), voters are telling us that they don’t like the bill and think it’s a gift for the rich and big corporations.

Republicans seem determined to press on. One cannot help but think back to late 2009, when Democrats pushed through the Affordable Care Act, a bill they did not completely understand and that was very unpopular (until Trump came along). Democrats lost the House in 2010, and four years later, the Senate. Republicans should expect no less a drubbing.

I have thought highly of Susan Collins, but she's either naive (thinking that leadership will actually include her demands) or just as bad as the rest (if she votes for it anyway).

[GrumpyGran]

8 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Profiles in cowardice on a rotten tax deal"

  Reveal hidden contents

If you thought that the tax bill was bad before, the process rushed and secretive, wait until the final version gets jammed through days from now, with no score, no hearings and no understanding among most Republicans of what’s actually in the bill. The details remain sketchy, but it’s clear that the GOP figured out how to tip the bill even further in favor of the super-rich.

The Post reports:

House and Senate Republican leaders have reached an agreement in principle that would lower the corporate tax rate to 21 percent beginning in 2018, several people briefed on the plan said, a central component of the $1.5 trillion tax plan they hope to vote into law by next week.

The agreement would also lower the top tax rate for families and individuals from 39.6 percent to at least 37 percent, a change that would deliver a major tax cut for upper-income households. . . .  Democrats mounted a last-ditch effort to pressure the GOP to delay votes on the bill, arguing they should wait for Democrat Doug Jones — who defeated Republican candidate Roy Moore on Tuesday in an Alabama special election for a U.S. Senate seat — to join the chamber.

But Republicans rebuffed those attempts and are hoping to pass a final bill early next week.

If anything, Jones’s upset win in Alabama has stoked panic in the GOP ranks, not that their bill is a dud but that they must jam it through before Jones arrives.

I asked Sen. Susan Collins’s (R-Maine) office whether she felt compelled to wait for Jones. “Senator Collins doesn’t believe that the Alabama election should delay the timetable for tax reform,” her communications director, Annie Clark, said. ” The Senate has always planned to pass the tax bill before the end of the year, regardless of whether Moore or Jones won. Alabama will continue to be represented by Senator Strange until the election is certified, which might not be until after Christmas. It is typical for lame-duck members to continue voting until their replacements are sworn in.” Uh-huh.

Initial language emerging for the year-end spending bill did not appear to include aspects of two bills that Collins demanded, Alexander-Murray and Collins-Nelson, intended partially to offset the expected premium increases resulting from repeal of the individual mandate. If Collins goes along, she will make a mockery of her promises to protect the Obamacare exchanges. Clark told me, “She is going to look at the final package (like she always does).”

It doesn’t sound as though Collins or other senators are standing firm on elements they once deemed essential. (“[Collins] has expressed concern about lowering the top tax rate, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has complained that Republicans did not do more to further expand the Child Tax Credit. But neither has said whether they would oppose the bill.”) For Rubio, it’s another instance (as when he endorsed President Trump and voted to confirm Secretary of State Rex Tillerson) when big talk and high-minded principles crumble in the race of a vote.

GOP tax-cut advocates know full well that Rubio’s lack of spine will mean a vote for whatever the leadership puts under his nose. The Post reported:

“I have no idea why he didn’t stick to his guns. I’m sort of at a loss to explain it,” said Joshua McCabe, a tax expert at Endicott College who has written about the history of the Child Tax Credit.

Republicans appear ready to make that calculation again.

Rubio hasn’t publicly vowed to vote against the bill if the tax credit isn’t increased, and both Rubio admirers and critics are skeptical he’d do it.

“This isn’t a guy who wants to be off the reservation. [Rubio] wants to be a team player, and wants to be supportive of tax relief in general,” said April Ponnuru, a senior adviser at the Conservative Reform Network and a Jeb Bush adviser who has worked closely with Rubio’s office on trying to expand the credit.

Here we see the four defining features of the GOP — indifference to substance, anti-populism (the bill is right-wing, supply-side economics in its most cartoonish form), contempt for voters and intellectual incoherence. The result will be a hugely unpopular bill that favors the rich, grows the debt and widens inequality. Voters already have figured this out. Whether it is the USA Today-Suffolk University poll (32 percent approve, 48 percent do not), the Marist poll (52 percent say it will hurt them, 30 percent say it will help) or the Quinnipiac University poll (26 approve, 55 percent do not; 65 percent think it will favor the rich), voters are telling us that they don’t like the bill and think it’s a gift for the rich and big corporations.

Republicans seem determined to press on. One cannot help but think back to late 2009, when Democrats pushed through the Affordable Care Act, a bill they did not completely understand and that was very unpopular (until Trump came along). Democrats lost the House in 2010, and four years later, the Senate. Republicans should expect no less a drubbing.

I have thought highly of Susan Collins, but she's either naive (thinking that leadership will actually include her demands) or just as bad as the rest (if she votes for it anyway).

I'm hoping she is just playing their game to avoid the annoying meeting with Dumpy and when vote time comes, she'll do the right thing.

They are quiet about McCain but you know they have to be sweating it. That's why they are desperate to get it done before they have to let Jones in the door.

[candygirl200413]

Welp I guess I'll just sew up my uterus just to spite weasel man!

Also Rubio is "planning" to vote no but I doubt it cause he's spineless.

[Cartmann99]

6 hours ago, LeftCoastLurker said:

Haven't seen this posted. Apparently Ly'in Ryan has a way to solve funding for Social Security and Medicare...more babies!

 

Listen you little shitweasel, if you actually want to encourage people to have larger families, then you need to quit beating off in front of your Ayn Rand poster and start working on introducing policies that help those of us who didn't marry someone who inherited a seven figure trust fund. 

Dear Rufus,

Can you please fix it so that Paul Ryan ends up shilling catheters and reverse mortgages on one of those networks that only shows reruns? 

[AmazonGrace]

 

[Howl]

7 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

Also Rubio is "planning" to vote no but I doubt it cause he's spineless.

Yuppers, Li'l Marco Rubio is doing some passive aggressive acting out as a nice FU Christmas present to SCROTUS.  He's hoping someone will grovel a bit for his "yes" vote.  Marco, here's my Christmas present to you: My hope, as a fellow human, that there are some scruples involved in your decision. 

I do not get the Republicans.  When the populace goes to do their taxes and realizes what comprises "tax reform" there will a seething rage among the screwed that I hope is reflected at the ballot box in 2018. 

There was an idiotic letter to the editor in yesterday's paper.  The writer was steamed that the tax bill was getting bad press, everybody is beating up on Trump, and why can't we all just have faith and trust that this is for the best? 

I guess because a version of this was tried during the Reagan era and was a complete disaster for the economy, with the result that taxes were raised again?