The world is really becoming very ugly and scarey or maybe, it's just that it's
always been that way and I'm just realizing it now? I say that only because
each time I read a bit of detailed history, I discover how little of the truth
was really evident to me at the time that things were happening. Well, one bit
about our revolution that I came across twice after providing my cynical
summary of it to Roger the other day is that another reason for it was to
retain slavery. England had already decided to outlaw slavery. American slave
owners did not want this new English law to be imposed on them and they were
afraid that it would be, if they remained an English colony. And just now I'm
listening to yesterday's edition of Flashpoints on which there's a description
of precisely what kinds of things are being done to that Muslim minority in
Burma. One of the things is that people are being burned alive. Another bit of
disgusting information that I acquired last night, listening to a Real News
report on the Clinton deal with the DNC, the reason that the DNC was in such
bad shape was that Obama disbanded the party's fundraising mechanism after he
was elected. He organized it to serve his campaign, but he didn't want it to
become independent and work toward other goals after he was elected. Therefore,
the party became bankrupt. There are lots of statements to the effect that
there's a silver lining to all this increasing misery, and it's that people are
joining together, organizing, finding common ground. Sorry, that isn't cheering
me up because the bad stuff is increasing at an intolerable rate of speed.
These immigration raids, the imprisonments, and the fact that people are so
frightened about the possibility of terrorist attacks that they'll accept
removal of our civil liberties. Two people who were planning trips, told me
that they're uneasy about traveling because of the possibility of attacks. The
statistics say that you have a better chance of being killed by being struck by
llightening than by a terrorist attack. But one can't convince people of that.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 10:58 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Republican Tax Plan Milks Blue States to Pay for
Cuts for the Rich
This proposal is not merely the Trump Privateers thumbing their collective
billionaire noses at the American People, it is a full salute by the Middle
Finger that shouts out, "Fuck You Working Class America".
The thing that should scare the pants off all of us is what will happen when
Donald Trump's faithful voters realize that they've been sold out, and are
worse off than they had been under Barack Obama.
Odds on that they will not turn to the Democratic Party. And all the time the
Trumpsters are raking in their booty, an ugly stirring is beginning to bubble
up.
Carl Jarvis
On 11/3/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
C First Look Media. All rights reservedTerms of use UNITED STATES -
NOVEMBER 02: House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady,
R-Texas, center, Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., left, GOP leadership and
members of the committee, conduct a news conference in Longworth
Building to unveil the Republicans' tax reform plan on Nov. 2, 2017.
Tax paying citizens also attended. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll
Call) (CQ Roll Call via AP
Images)
Photo: Tom williams/CQ Roll Call/AP
Republican Tax Plan Milks Blue States to Pay for Cuts for the Rich
Kate Aronoff November 2 2017, 5:20 p.m.
The most recent version of the Republican tax plan unveiled Thursday
leaves Republicans representing blue states in a tough spot,
threatening to derail the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act train just as it's leaving
the station.
Subsidizing tax cuts for the wealthy by making middle-class people in
Democratic-leaning states pay more might make for satisfying politics
for House Republicans, but the math will be difficult for them. The
issue comes down to state and local taxes. Blue states tend to have
higher rates, along with the better social outcomes that come with
them. Taxpayers are able to write off the amount they pay in state and
local taxes on their federal taxes.
Some Republicans want to end that entirely, but the House Committee on
Ways and Means indicated last week that it would likely preserve a
more limited version of the state and local tax, or SALT, deductions.
The version of the plan released Thursday morning, however, eliminated
them entirely, leaving only some relief - capped at $10,000 - for
property owners. Now the question is whether Republicans from high-tax
states like New York, New Jersey, and California, which were opposed
to the repeal, will ultimately decide to support what could be their
party's first major legislative achievement of the year.
Twenty Republicans, many of whom have constituents who benefit from
SALT deductions, already voted against the budget resolution last week
after Sen.
Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., inserted a last-minute amendment
outlining its removal. The defections made the resolution's passage a
narrower victory than Republican leadership might have hoped and set
the stage for debates that will now begin in earnest this week.
"The language is too explicit about cutting state and local taxes," Rep.
Tom
MacArthur, R-N.J., told reporters in the Capitol recently, referring
to the budget resolution. "I don't think it can pass the House. If
deductibility of state and local taxes is wholesale gone, I don't
think it can pass." That state and local property deductions remain
mean the deduction is not yet wholesale gone - but that may not be
enough to make MacArthur and others change their minds.
As of Thursday morning, several Republicans held reservations. Rep.
Dan Donovan, R-N.Y., told the New York Times that the "people of New
York City deserve a tax break." Another New York Republican, Rep. Pete
King, is also among the most strongly opposed to the plan. "Almost
half of my constituents benefit from the SALT tax deduction, and
taking away these deductions would be crippling to New Yorkers," King
said in a press statement last week. "I will do anything I can to
prevent any attempt to take away these important deductions from Long
Islanders."
In an interview with radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday,
House Ways and Means Committee Chair Rep. Kevin Brady dismissed the
idea of a compromise on SALT deductions: "The answer is 'no.' . Our
lawmakers in those high-tax states really believe their families are
being punished most by property taxes."
In other words, Brady is saying that by removing the deduction, towns
will be pressured to cut property taxes. Balancing tax cuts for the
rich by forcing towns and cities to slash property taxes would
effectively be using school funding to pay for those tax cuts.
WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 02: Flanked by Speaker of the House Paul
Ryan and House Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Kevin Brady
(R-TX), President Donald Trump speaks about tax reform legislation
during a meeting with members of the House Ways and Means Committee in
the Cabinet Room at the White House, November 2, 2017 in Washington,
DC. Also pictured at left is Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) On Thursday,
Republican lawmakers unveiled their plans for a massive rewrite of the
U.S. tax code. (Drew Angerer/Getty
Images)
Flanked by Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and House Ways and Means
Committee chairman Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), President Donald Trump
speaks about tax reform legislation during a meeting with members of
the House Ways and Means Committee in the Cabinet Room at the White
House, November 2,
2017
in Washington, DC.
Photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Rolling back SALT deductions is seen by the GOP as a way to balance
out the estimated $1.3 trillion the plan's tax cuts for corporations
and the wealthy could add to the deficit, with state and local
deductions accounting for about a third of that amount. Republican
representatives in blue states already see themselves as subsidizing
the rest of the country with high tax rates, meaning a repeal of the
state and local deductions could be seen as adding insult to injury.
"The issue is that states like mine . pay more than we get back,"
MacArthur said. "Of course, [other states] have lower taxes in some
cases because we're not only paying for our poor people, we're paying
for their poor people."
Publicly, Republicans in Congress and the White House have remained
stalwart that the amount their tax plan would add to the deficit would
be more than balanced out by its potential to drive growth through
corporate tax cuts.
Discussing an initial version of the plan with CNBC, Chief White House
Economic Adviser and former Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohn said,
"We think we can pay for the entire tax cut through growth over the cycle,"
predicting tax reform and deregulation would drive growth
"substantially over 3 percent."
There is little empirical evidence to suggest that will be the case.
As Roosevelt Institute Fellow and Research Director Marshall Steinbaum
told me recently when talking about the Republican tax plan, "We have
run a four-decade-long experiment in reducing effective marginal tax
rates on the rich, both in the individual and corporate tax systems,
and it has definitely failed to fuel economic growth."
That's largely because cutting taxes for the rich doesn't increase
their spending, because they are already buying whatever they want.
That's what it means to be rich.
Other proposals have invited pushback, as well. Developers and real
estate interests have aligned against proposed changes to the mortgage
interest deduction, which would cut the benefit in half by capping it
at mortgages of $500,000. That plan would further eliminate the
ability to deduct medical expenses, and - in a coup for top income
earners - would just about double the cutoff at which households
become eligible to pay the estate tax - exempting a family's first $22
million.
Republicans say they hope to have a bill on the president's desk by
Christmas.
