Yes, The GOP And Trump Want To Give Even Bigger Tax Cuts To The Already Rich

It seems clear with every move they make the GOOPs are determined to toss this country into history's dumpster, certainly financially - as well as in their protection of Traitor Trump. But it is the first that concerns us here.  Namely the news,
House Republicans Move to Extend Individuals' Tax Cuts - WSJ

The feckless GOP plans are now to extend the existing Trump tax cuts, despite massively growing  deficits .  Clearly these poltroons believe that at least making a show for an extension will win them the hearts and minds of their GOP base- who will then turn out in greater numbers for the midterms. But I have news for them: that base doesn't care one way or other, they are already complacent with the crumbs they've received and will not turn out like the Dems.

Meanwhile we learn (ibid.):

"On top of last year's $1.5 trillion tax cut, the new proposal would reduce federal revenue by $613 billion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. Most of that cost is packed into the end of the  next decade and the cost beyond that would be much higher."

And bear in mind, that means your kids and grand kids will be paying the freight - mainly to support the lifestyles of the rich, the famous and the corporate - since they will reap the greatest rewards by the extension as they have the 2017 cuts. (Politifact has found that median income families received only about 6.6 percent of the $1.5 trillion tax cut, while 93.4% went to the corporations and top earners.)

In the words of Lloyd Bloggett, a Texas Dem quoted in the above piece:

"We have something that is truly disastrous headed our way and it's not just a hurricane."

What is it?  How bad? In a separate piece in the same issue ('Deficit Widens On More Spending'), we learn:

"The U.S.  federal deficit nearly doubled in August from a year ago, as government spending swelled and revenues decline".

And again, let us make note here the GOP's planned tax cut extension will starve revenues even more.

We also learn:

"The government ran a $214 billion deficit last month, compared with a $107.7 billion budget gap in August, 2017... the Treasury Department said Thursday."

So, even as the great jobs and growth narrative is spreading, we are being undermined by massive deficits, debt.    The biggest revenue -starving culprit?  The ill-advised cut in corporate income taxes.


As we further note (ibid.):

"Corporate income taxes in particular have dropped off. The Treasury said Thursday
gross corporate taxes have fallen 20 percent so far this fiscal year, while indiviudal
tax receipts are up 1 percent"

The loss in corporate tax revenue might  - in a stretch - be worth it - if the bastards paid decent wages to their workers, but as per my previous post, we know this isn't the case.  Worse, because the Congressional Budget Office now projects a total deficit of $793 billion for fiscal year 2018.

The "big picture" of U.S. debt isn't any better, as the CBO notes. As per a WSJ op-ed reveal (Sept. 15-16, p. A15):

"The U.S. owes $21.5 trillion of Treasury debt, the majority of which is scheduled to be refinanced in the next eight years. - disregarding the additional $1 trillion required by the 2017 tax reform and an estimated $100 trillion of unfunded entitlement spending ahead."

Incredibly, three days ago there we beheld one of the biggest tax cuts propagandists (Stephen Moore,  'The Corporate Tax Cut Is Paying For Itself', WSJ, p. A13) scribbling:

"Thanks to the magic of compounding the corporate tax cuts will yield more than $6 trillion in additional GDP over the next decade..."

But seems unable to reckon in that additional GDP growth doesn't translate to revenue growth, i. e. to pare back growing deficits as the CBO forecasts, though he does add:

"Perversely, because the economy is bigger now than expected, the CBO has revised upward  its estimated cost of the tax cut..."

Well, duh, of course they've revised it upward given - as pointed out above - corporate tax revenue has fallen off 20 percent this year, and will continue to fall off each year it's in effect.  In other words, never mind the GDP growth, it will not overtake the loss in revenue growth (including from individual income tax cuts).  But this is the sort of fantasy land we now inhabit where 'up' is down, and 'down is 'up'. Blame a lot of it on the lying landscape imparted by Trump and his pack of maggots,

Folks, let's not  accept bullshit or pretend: we are not swimming in a literal sea of red ink. In this environment the proposal of an extension of tax cuts borders on the derelict and criminal, and those pushing it need to have both their sanity and patriotism questioned.

See also:

Another Tax Scam for the Rich

"Impounding" - The Right's Vile Plan To Claw Back Domestic Spending From Omnibus Bill

Harpy and Right wing provocateur Kim Strassel, proposed the original idea for Trump and Repukes to apply "rescission"  to remove domestic spending from the recently passed $1.3 trillion Omnibus bill.

Let us concede at the outset, the Reptiles, aka, Republicans or Repukes, are a thoroughly detestable lot as they refuse to play on an even wicket, always trying to tilt the political tables to their advantage. In the latest illustration we behold an effort to invoke an obscure law: The Impoundment Control Act of 1974, to claw back over a hundred billion dollars of social spending from the $1.3 trillion Omnibus budget bill.

Why? Well, the conservos have been livid ever since the huge budget bill was passed,  decrying the "criminal" level of spending, especially on the parts the Dems wanted, and allowing "the deficits to reach obscene heights". NO thought or consciousness whatever of their own misbegotten tax cut legislation which will easily add $800 b to the deficit, and the Congressional Budget Office now estimates another $1 trillion if the cuts are extended to 2028.  The CBO also estimates the debt will reach 105 % of GDP if that plan goes forth.  But that is the level of cynical rat we're dealing with: deficits don't matter an iota for their side, only for the progressives - denounced as "tax and spend liberals".

Enter now long time WSJ bomb thrower and resident harpy Kimberley Strassel and her column from a week ago: 'In For A Penny, In For Impound',  in which she broaches the idea for the GOP to use the aforementioned law to temper the Omnibus spending spree by ....you guessed it, clawing back the DEMOCRATS' spending provisions!   As she put it:

 "It's a chance for Republicans to honor their promises of spending restraint and redeem themselves with a base turned off by the Omnibus  blowout  It's an opening for the GOP to highlight the degree to which Democrats used the bill to hold the military hostage to their own domestic boondoggles."

Ok, first, no one was "holding the military hostage". The Pentagon made out like bandidos with  $80 billion awarded  for the new fiscal year, catapulting the US of A into the questionable position of spending more on defense than the next eight nations combined. All the Dems wanted was some domestic spending balance, like for CHIP and food stamps, especially if they were going to give way for the Pentagon's largesse. (Especially given the Pentagon still can't account for $1.2  trillion in spending from the 1990s.)   So never mind her bitching about the "domestic boondoggle", what really has Kim 's panties in a twist is that the Dems got the Rs to AGREE to their own spending priorities to pass the bill.  Kim's refrain , "Why must we deliver so many millions to hungry kids and elderly if we could get them to work for it?" just doesn't hold water in today's economically unjust landscape.

She goes on into specifics for her proposal and names the law (ibid.):

"It's called the 1974 Impoundment Act, which allows the president to order the rescission of specific funds so long as Congress  approves those cuts within 45 days. "

Never mind Kim didn't get the full name of the Act down, she became excited by the end of her piece as she blabbed:

"This is the kind of victory the GOP needs to show it can govern, and to motivate voters to turn out in November."

Never let anyone say Kimberley isn't given to wishful thinking, especially in terms of motivating the "base" of the GOP for November - particularly after they learn many of the benefits they depend on would be up for grabs....errrr....rescission.

Barely 4 days after her colmnn a piece appeared on page A3  of the WSJ, headed, White House Aims To Roll Back Spending', in which the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is cited. Also, Larry Kudlow  - the newly -hired  TV personality doubling as a WH  "economist" is quoted, where we learn he is involved in "planning what he called an advanced rescission package".    This is given "it's really not a bad idea to trim some spending because after all, spending can lead to deficits and spending interferes with the economy"

Of course, all the "bad spending"  is tagged on the Dems' domestic side of the ledger, as are the bad deficits.  No thought how the GOP  originally raised the level of deficits dramatically with its tax cut bill..

Trump in a separate action, reported yesterday (WSJ, p. A3) , went one better by "signing a broad executive order urging a revamp of government aid programs"   This would presumably be part of the rescsission effort and include "requiring participants" (e.g. in Medicaid or the SNAP food stamp program) to "prove they are working or trying to find jobs".

Failing to grasp most participants in SNAP are children or the elderly, and most of those affected in Medicaid are disabled or seriously ill - too much so to be "looking for work".

But this is what it's come to: reneging on budget deals already made in order to appease the "bottom half of the IQ curve" that put Trump into office, in the words of Harvard lecturer Harvey Mansfield (WSJ,  Weekend Interview, March 31).

The good news is that some Republican Senators of conscience - like Susan Collins- recognize such a fell move defeats any further appeals to bipartisanship - given the Omnibus bill is based on a bipartisan agreement. Further, with Sen. John McCain recovering from brain cancer treatments in Arizona, the Republicans can't afford to lose a single vote - as all Dems will surely vote against this treachery.

We can therefore conclude the impoundment and rescission idea is just another odious brain fart emanating from the nether regions of Repuke trolldom which will gain no traction. And if it does, by some odd happenstance, the blue wave coming in November will transform to an even bigger tsunami.
 

Donald Dotard Can Keep His Tax Cut "Christmas Gift"- I Don't Want It

Earlier yesterday, as is usual for the dolt masquerading as a president in the White House, he engaged in another snake oil salesman performance.  This time appearing before a stack of thousands of tax pages and cutting the phony yards of red tape  (actually a ribbon) while aping a Barbary ape.

He then bellowed: "I wanna give the American people a really biiiiiiigg tax cut for a Christmas present."   He couldn't help grinning like a shit-eating Cheshire cat - probably just antsy to get back to his 10 hour a day cable TV -watching. (He reportedly hides when any WH visitors pass by the TV room where he's glued to FOX  on a 60" set- - since he doesn't want them to see him doing nothing.)

But I will make this clear again, as an American who understands something of the nation's financial issues, and its already exploding debt, I want no part of Dotard's tax cut gift.  It is literally a gift of "chocolates" all laced with arsenic.  The so called GOP tax cuts are just a straight gimmick to give more to the richest who don't need (and already admitted they will not create more jobs) and provide an excuse to implement massive social spending cuts under 'pay-go' when the deficits explode in the next year or two as they surely will.

These "tax cuts" Donnie Dope sees as a "gift" amount to perhaps $450 all told for wifey and me. And yeah, that lump of dough would make a nice little gift - IF there were no downsides or strings attached.  But that isn't true. Getting that dough would subsequently mean suffering spending cuts to my Medicare much much greater than the value of the tax cut.

Meanwhile. Donnie Dotard and the pukes are betting you won't grasp that with inflation still low the value of any new debt taken on will remain high.   Also, that any marginal gains in economic growth are purchased at the cost of raising our debt to 99 per cent of the GDP.  That means the pukes and Dotard know full well revenue won't outpace spending anytime soon -including $700b  they want for more defense in the next fiscal year. In effect, the only way these rats can even halfway claim their phony bill will work is by: a) putting a "sunset" provision on most middle class tax cuts, and b) savaging the social safety net to pay for giving the rich and the corps. money they don't need.

By all rights and standards, raging citizens ought to be burning them in effigy right now - and protesting in front of their stupid homes.

As I examined the CMS Summary sheets 6 weeks ago for the procedures carried out this past year I noted a total of more than $60,000 for the 3D staging biopsy and cryotherapy cancer treatment at UCHealth.  The ultrasound guidance part of the cryo treatment alone came in at $16,000 and the anesthesia just for that treatment, not including the 3D biopsy anesthesia, was $3,149..

If I had to operate under a $20,000 per annum GOP voucher plan- say implemented under a pay-go cut to Medicare- I'd have ended up shelling out nearly $40,000 out of pocket for the uncovered procedures. And none of that even includes the cost for wife's hip replacement surgery, including 7 days in rehab.. By contrast, the estimated "payoff" I\we can expect in tax cuts from the proposed GOP tax reform is about  $450. 

Do the math and compare that chump change promised as a Xmas "gift" by Donnie Dotard with the $40,000 cited earlier and you will see why I'd rather pay the taxes - any day, twice on Sunday - just like our European friends are happy to do. Given they know which side their economic bread is buttered on, and it ain't the tax cuts side!

My trepidation is reinforced by that of economist Bruce Bartlett who pointed out one month ago ('Last Word') that once the tax reform plan itself passes the stage is set for worse. This is because the next step will be reconciliation with the budget that has already passed.Why is this an atrocity? Because the budget the Republicans passed to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion , in Bartlett's words: "also contains 4 trillion dollars in cuts to Social Security and Medicare".

Thus a BIG part of what's paying for this egregious tax cut are future spending cuts to the most needed safety nets, including Medicaid as well.  Bartlett also sought to alert viewers that once this perfidy passes, the  worst is still to come. In his words:

"The Congressional Budget Office pointed out yesterday that because of existing law called 'pay go' automatic spending cuts will take place the minute this legislation takes effect and $25 billion will be cut out of Medicare in fiscal 2018  and for many years to come - and that's already in law."

We also expect some of these cuts to Medicare will be indirect, in the form of cuts to  physicians' reimbursement by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  This means many Medicare beneficiaries  will no longer be able to get medical access because doctors will no longer accept them. As it is, millions of Medicare recipients have to do arduous searches to find providers because Medicare doesn't reimburse at private insurance rates. It also lays the ground for the implementation of a voucher system.

Apart from the other vile aspects of this REPUKE excrement, it's little wonder two thirds of  the nation is against it. They know they will be robbed by the pukes to pay for this damned thing when it goes south in deficits - as it will. So NO, spare us the Christmas "gift"!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/76434/orrin-hatch-s-bullcrap-on-taxes-is-exactly-that

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jack-lessenberry/76454/how-the-gop-tax-bill-would-ruin-michigan

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/steven-rosenfeld/76431/why-arent-dems-in-congress-raising-more-hell-to-oppose-the-worst-gop-tax-bill-ever

The Toxic GOP "Tax Reform" Atrocity That May Well Eliminate The Safety Net - HEADS UP!!

"It's hard to imagine  a more venal and hard-hearted device to pay for a tax cut for the wealthy than what the GOP has on offer" - Ron Klain

"This is the most irresponsible tax legislation in the history of the United States...there is absolutely no justification for this legislation." - Economist Bruce Bartlett

It is a curious feature of the human brain that it is easily overwhelmed by a torrent of bad news, or even news of a particular type. Much of this also plays into the current narrative of "information overload", or the fact that too many are confronted by so much new information it's like trying to drink water through a firehose.

Alas, there are times when this tendency to take the eye off the ball is understandable - but not now. Not with this latest iteration of the GOP tax "reform" bill which is as close to a political atrocity as we've seen in recent times. Thus, people need to grasp the warp and woof of this abomination - especially the fact - as economist Bruce Bartlett pointed out last night ('Last Word') that once the tax reform plan itself passes the stage is set for worse. This is because the next step will be reconciliation with the budget that has already passed!

Why is this an atrocity? Because the budget the Republicans passed to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion , in Bartlett's words: "also contains 4 trillion dollars in cuts to Social Security and Medicare".

Thus a BIG part of what's paying for this egregious tax cut are future spending cuts to the most needed safety nets, including Medicaid as well.  Bartlett also sought to alert viewers that once this perfidy passes, the  worst is still to come. In his words:

"The Congressional Budget Office pointed out yesterday that because of existing law called 'pay go' automatic spending cuts will take place the minute this legislation takes effect and $25 billion will be cut out of Medicare in fiscal 2018  and for many years to come - and that's already in law."

We expect these cuts to Medicare will be indirect, in the form of cuts to  physicians' reimbursement by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  This means many Medicare beneficiaries  will no longer be able to get medical access because doctors will no longer accept them. As it is, millions of Medicare recipients have to do arduous searches to find providers because Medicare doesn't reimburse at private insurance rates. It also lays the ground for the implementation of a voucher system.

The scale of the spending cuts cited is mind boggling and it is likely that the first Social Security target - as has often been cited in the WSJ - will be Social Security disability insurance. Since the Great Recession this has increasingly become the final financial backstop for millions of unemployed - many laid off in the wake of the 2007-08 financial meltdown. After that as David Leonhardt has pointed out in the NY Times, the template is set for the CPI (Consumer Price Index) to be shifted to a less inflationary measure so that the Social Security COLA can be reduced. This will effectively be a higher tax on seniors as well as an increase in Medicare premiums.

All of this adds to an economic atrocity.

The GOP tax reform is even more hard- hearted and dastardly  as we've recently  learned that 46 percent of the world's wealth is controlled by 0.07 percent of its population.  Added to the sheer economic savagery are two poison pill insults  embedded into this misbegotten,  legislative  farrago masquerading as help to the middle class.

1. It includes a provision for drilling in the Arctic Refuge. Yep, you read that correctly - and these miscreants are hoping you aren't conscious of it.

2. It includes yet another effort to validate "personhood".  (Since so many state referenda efforts have failed like here in Colorado).

As Slate author Christina Cauterucci points out:

"In a provision about tax benefits for college savings accounts, a section wholly unrelated to health or pregnancy, the bill’s authors proposed a new definition of life itself:

'Nothing shall prevent an unborn child from being treated as a designated beneficiary or an individual under this section,' the legislation reads. 'For purposes of this paragraph…the term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero. … The term ‘child in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

Adding:

It takes some audacity to slide ostensibly “pro-life” language into a bill whose egregious tax cuts for the wealthy would be funded by life-threatening cuts to Medicaid and Medicare.

Consider this anomaly on its own merits: these GOOPr dweezils are inserting this "pro life"  bafflegab even as they seek to terminate any life potential for the elder citizen - given his Medicare and Medicaid (for those in nursing homes) will now be on the chopping block. How perfidious does it get? Well, much more!  Rationale? As Cauterucci observes:

"Giving fetuses access to tax benefits could trigger an If You Give a Mouse a Cookie situation that ends with microscopic clumps of human cells getting birth certificates, marriage licenses, and political appointments.."

Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that no sane person   in his or her right mind (pro-life GOOPs excepted)  can possibly regard a "zygote" as a person, or a fetus as an "unborn child". There is simply no standard by which that passes even elemental laws or tests of logic, or science.  A child cannot be "unborn" because by definition it is already born!  Thus, we send the 'child' to school, to take his medicine and so on. If unborn, it's a fetus, not a "child". Don't these ignorant Reeptard tax reform twits know any better?

Meanwhile, a person, a human person, must have at least minimal capacity for basic cognition and rudimentary choice. It must possess a brain, at the very least, which evinces definite brain waves. Anything that doesn't is a proto-human entity, but clearly not a person. The logical error made is called the "genetic fallacy". That is, arguing that because a thing is going to become something, it IS something. It would be like me picking up an acorn and claiming it's an oak tree. Nope. No way.

Apart from this refuse, on which basis this slop that passes for a bill ought to be DOA anyway, there is this overarching axiom: This tax bill is solely designed to rob most of America of its social safety nets in order to deliver an average tax cut of $58,000 to each millionaire  What might these entitled ones do with their extra loot - compliments of raiding the health plans of the rest of us (the CBO forecasts 13.8 m will lose their health care in the first year after this piece of shit passes - if it does)?  

Well, let's see now, the 1 percenter wives might jet off to special villas in the Caribbean (e.g. St. Lucia) where they can partake of "chocolate scrubs" and "rose wine wraps".

Pretty good, eh? While some poor elder schmuck is dying of caner -  because it's regarded now as a "pre-existing condition" - which will no longer be covered.  But hey,  the extra $$$ will allow a fatcat and his pal to jet off to the same destination for 18 holes of golf in idyllic surroundings

- Say while a kid perishes from a peanut allergy because his mom could no longer afford epi-pens and their ACA benefits were nixed because of terminating the Obamacare mandate.

On getting home, these wealthy scions and recipients of GOP tax fortunes  can check their portfolios again, and ensure their hedge funds are still making money while all the little guys are losing with their pathetic and pedestrian mutual funds.

Ah yes, the life of the typical one percenter. How sweet it is under the Trump-  GOP Reich!

But we haven't even gotten started yet - at least I haven't. Let me reference that while many of the Dems are scratching their heads about how pulling the ACA mandate got into a tax plan, a WSJ editorial two weeks ago ('Tax Reform and Obamacare') first dropped the sordid seed, declaring:

"Republicans are looking under every seat cushion to finance tax cuts....One surprising potential 'pay for' - believe it or not - would be repealing Obamacare's individual mandate."   

Adding:

"Killing the mandate now would also make it easier to revisit health reform next year."

Asserting then that "with the mandate already gone, the CBO would most certainly find there would be fewer uninsured under any new reform the GOP would propose."

Well, of course! And the CBO on weighing this new iteration has found that 13.8 million will lose coverage - hence be "uninsured". But that is most certainly not a good thing as the Journal tries to portray it, other than being more expeditious for the GOP in their next health care try. It means those 13. 8 million people will be without a health safety net and will risk losing everything should a bread winner be in a car crash or even come down with this serious H3N2 flu due to flare up soon.  In terms of the sheer tax benefit, i.e. finding the cash to cover what is given to the rich so they can enjoy their chocolate scrubs and golf  - the CBO estimates a $330b "savings". Transl. $330 b less to spend on citizen health so it can be transferred to the rich who can now enjoy more private Caribbean villa getaways.  (And we aren't even reckoning in the $4 trillion future cuts to Medicare, S.S. to further fund the lifestyles of the Trumpian rich.)

The next piece of germinating codswallop that surfaced around the same time, also appeared in the WSJ ('Corporate Tax Reform Is The Key To Growth') in an op-ed by Martin Feldstein (Nov. 6, p. A17).  In it we read:

"The most important reform is to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent - the highest among major industrial nations - to 20 percent. This will increase corporate capital directly by reducing the tax burden. Cutting the corporate  tax rate to 20 % would raise retained earnings by $2 trillion over ten years"

Adding:

"Capital in the U.S. will move from low productivity uses in agriculture and housing to corporate investments that can create good jobs and raise real wages."

I don't know what planet Marty is living on, but the one I inhabit badly needs affordable housing - also enough food to eat! If he regards agriculture and housing as "low productivity" it must mean he wishes to shift capital away from those economic activities. But in the real world that means lower supply of food and housing, hence higher prices for each because the demands of a larger population will drive it. (The rents in Denver are already at a whopping high of $1,800 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment).

So he is asking us to believe that these fantasy potential "higher wages" will cover the costs of ever scarcer housing units, and less food. Is he nuts, or merely gobbling too much MJ candy?

Now, let's cut the crap and interject some reality, in the form of actual fact pertaining to the corporations.  As I've posted on before, the corporate profits are at near record levels but they are not being used to invest in labor capital or even infrastructure. Companies are in fact spending most of their loot on stock buybacks or issuing dividends rather than creating new jobs. So it is the epitome of delusion that with even more profits - compliments of tax cuts - they'd all of s sudden become noble corporate citizens.   No they would not, you can take it to the bank.

More reality:

While it is true the U.S. has the highest statutory tax rate for corporations among developed nations, this is not what they actually pay. Thanks to the thousands of deductions and exemptions in state and federal tax codes many corporations pay zero . That is how desperate many states are to secure jobs (say from Amazon) that they are prepared to give the CEOs whatever they want - even as their states suffer.

Further, as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) the total U.S. tax burden - covering all levels of government - was ranked 28th out of 32 developed nations.  Read that again, as the fourth LOWEST overall tax rate in the freaking world!

Let's drill this down one more time that supply side tax cuts never work. In previous posts I already went over how Gee Dumbya Bush cut taxes deeply and growth effectively collapsed. A Financial Times analysis even confirmed it. The end result is that real GDP rose barely above what it was in the 1990s.

Also the idea that corporate tax rates create jobs is utter nonsense.  Sara Anderson of the Institute of Policy Studies looked at 92 profitable large corporations what already pay at or less than the 20 percent rate the GOP humpers want - thanks to loopholes in the existing code. But know what? these same 92 corps have been laying off - not adding workers over the past three years.

In the end if this abomination of a tax reform plan goes through it means that the tax cuts will be paid for via vicious cuts to government spending that affect many millions of citizens.  These cuts will involves not only ACA access but also Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts as well. People who stand to get maybe $15 in tax cuts, will be dinged in the ER for thousands of bucks in medical fees once they're no longer covered under the ACA - once the individual mandate goes.

But as we know there is always political payback. The results of the state elections last week, especially in VA and NJ, showed people - voters are paying attention and they have not liked what they've seen with GOP efforts at cutting their health care. The GOP thereby paid at the polls with significant Dem wins. They will pay in ever bigger form in next year's mid terms, if this atrocious GOP tax bomb passes. 

After that, I look for the steady decent of the GOP into political oblivion, just like the Whigs. Because it will show once and for all these reprobates can't be trusted with citizen welfare or security. And the ultimate citizen security is having good health  - hence having access to affordable health care.  As Sen. Patti Murray put it:

"The elections last week clearly showed the American people are paying attention and they don't want their health care taken away."

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/chuck-collins/76270/stop-talking-about-winners-and-losers-from-corporate-tax-cuts

Excerpt:

"The driving motivation behind this bill, rhetoric and packaging aside, is to deliver a whopping $1 trillion tax cut for a few hundred badly behaved global corporations — and another half a trillion to expand tax breaks and loopholes for multi-millionaires and billionaires.

All the other features of proposed tax legislation are either bribes (“sweeteners”) to help pass the bill or “pay fors” to offset their cost. The news media has been talking about “winners and losers” like this were some sort of high-minded tax reform process with legitimate trade-offs, as in 1986.
But this isn’t tax reform. This is a money grab by powerful corporate interests."

GOP Invites "Pitchforks and Torches" Blowback With Sham "Health Care" Bill

While the GOP House denizens practically broke their arms patting themselves on the back for barely passing (217 to 213) their foolish "American Health Care" bill - to repeal Obamacare and install their own non-version, millions of citizens saw this travesty for what it really was: A blatant giveaway to the richest 1 percent in terms of nearly $600 b in tax benefits.  So to ensure the wealthiest got their even larger bite of the good life, even basic  health services (ER admission, mental health care, maternal care, etc.) had to be cut for those barely hanging on - the sickest and most vulnerable among us.

To be sure, as a number of pundits have observed, the GOOPrs had basically only two unattractive options : 1) piss off their hardcore base of Trumpies by failing on their pledge to repeal and replace Obamacare - this when the GOP had total control of government, or 2) forcing Repub "moderates" based in swing districts to vote for a deeply unpopular bill that will definitely put many of their seats at risk next fall. Indeed, after this "moral atrocity" - to use Nancy Pelosi's term  - I am fully convinced the Reepos will lose their House majority in 2018.

This latest chapter in the Repukes' tax reform saga (which is what this bill is really about) is how cheaply the GOP moderates could be bought off. All Paul Ryan and the right wing extremists had to do is mollify them using the promise of an "$8 billion"  slush fund by which states could fund exchanges to permit acceptance of pre-existing conditions.  This reminded me of how cheaply the "moderate" climate change skeptics could be bought off by the specious nonsense that CO2 is "just a trace gas that helps plants grow".   No acknowledgement at all of the thermal properties of CO2 that enables it to trap long wavelength (e.g. infrared) radiation even at concentrations of 200 parts per million. (As shown by Gale Christianson there has never been an ice age when CO2 concentrations have reached 200 ppm or greater.).

But the most vile aspect leading up to the vote came from those like Alabama's Mo Brooks who insisted that "good people don't get pre-existing conditions". Tell that to all the young children that get cancers of the brain or leukemia - kids barely  4 or 5 years old. What does Brooks and his ilk believe they did to deserve those cancers? Rob a kiddie bank or utter a curse word?

Brooks' codswallop is part of the larger, loopy, quasi-religious trope that noble and goodly people prosper on account of their "goodness" and hence can afford their health care because they "earned" the jobs to pay for it via their righteousness. This helps explain the belief of many conservatives - such as one who blurted to Adam Schiff that "if people can't afford their health care they shouldn't have any."  This despite the fact the U.S. was a signatory to a UN Declaration making health care a human right in 1994.

All of which is pointing to even more hostile, recriminating town meetings as the assorted Reepos go home to their constituencies over the next two weeks. Will they be prepared for the pitchforks and torches that come out after this week's moral travesty? I doubt it. But they should be given their bill gives several hundred thousand of the richest parasites an added enormous tax break while gutting the health care of tens of millions. The belief, one every bit as stupid as the one of climate skeptics that CO2 is a "good gas" - is that giving this largesse to the wealthiest will generate economic growth.

None of the nitwits seem to process the fact we're in an ongoing crisis of aggregate demand, whereby GDP support is falling because too many normal, working mortals have much less to spend. The answer wasn't to give more to those who don't spend because they have it all, but to those who need financial support - especially to pay for their health care.

Allowing the states to "take over" is merely political posturing and a blatant dodge since the states - given the choice - will do nothing, as in nada. Why would they when most are on shoestring budgets and even here in Colo. we've been told we're facing over a $1.3 b deficit and so cuts need to be made - to school funding, health care and public services.

So no, there's no doubt the people are smart enough to see through this sham and the inevitable blowback will haunt these Reeptard nitwits for the next year into next fall's midterms. And I'm asserting that even before the Congressional Budget Office has scored this latest iteration of the original farce - which is likely to show an even more forlorn rating. Even The Denver Post editorial today expressed "surprise that so many House Republicans voted for an overhaul of Medicaid and the health system before a more recent budget update".  Well, bottom line, they didn't give a damn. It kind of reminded me how the vile GOOPs rammed through the "Medicare Modernization Act"- a huge corporate welfare bonanza- back in 2003.

Some pundits have opined that this bill will face "uncertain prospects" in the Senate, but I look for McConnell and company to try to ram it through - with very minor changes - using budget reconciliation (where only 51 votes are needed). The Reeps have been too desperate for a massive tax cut to the rich for too long, and this travesty of a House bill gives them a leg up that the Reep Senate isn't likely to sacrifice at this stage. Oh yeah. they'll tweak it a bit but the basic heinousness will remain and up to 124 m Americans with "pre-existing conditions" could pay the price. Meanwhile more than 24 m could lose their Obamacare via the Medicaid cuts alone by 2020.

For readers interested in further analysis, columnist Michael Hiltzik offers a handy guide to “all the horrific details”

Excerpt:

'Under the GOP plan, Medicaid expansion, which currently provides coverage to some 10 million low-income Americans, would be killed as of 2020. It also converts Medicaid into a block-granted program, stripping more than $800 billion from the program over 10 years. Because block-granted program can’t keep up with the needs of beneficiaries, this means that states would have to respond to fiscal stringencies by cutting benefits or throwing enrollees out.'

Cheers to the Democrats who sang “na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, hey, hey, goodbye” to GOP members facing reelection in 2018. Will they pay a price?   I'd lay Vegas odds of three to one that they will and it'll be steep.

See also these articles:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/72629/how-many-people-will-die-for-each-rich-american-s-trumpcare-tax-cut

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/72628/the-moral-travesty-of-trumpcare

Excerpt:

'House Republicans say they have protected people with pre-existing health problems. Baloney. Sick people could be charged premiums so high as to make insurance unaffordable. Trumpcare would even let states waive the Obamacare ban on charging higher premiums for women who have been raped — which actually occurred before the Affordable Care Act.
 
America has the only healthcare system in the world designed to avoid sick people. Private for-profit health insurers do whatever they can to insure groups of healthy people, because that’s where the profits are. They also make every effort to avoid sick people, because that’s where the costs are'

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/steven-rosenfeld/72630/why-the-gops-vote-to-repeal-obamacare-could-send-a-democratic-majority-to-washington-in-2018

TrumpCare Flops - Will The "Fuhrer's" Tax Code Effort Be Next?

"The Democrats are to blame for Trumpcare going down! The Democrats are to blame! BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!"

Let's admit that if I deliberately give you a 44-stone advantage  playing 'GO',  the onus is on you to win, i.e. surround my men so they've no place to move and do so pretty quickly. No excuses! Given this sort of handicap, if you still lose, then you are the one to blame.  Even with a massive piece (and position) advantage you were not competent enough to marshal your forces to best advantage and instead let victory slip through your fingers.

In like manner, if your political party enjoys a 44-seat advantage in the House of Representatives, the largest in modern history, then the onus is on your party to get its desired piece of legislation passed. It is emphatically NOT on my party to lend you its numbers or support, especially if your legislation is designed to repeal my party's original bill.   If you blame my party because your party failed - though they enjoyed a 44-seat advantage- then you are either an idiot, psychotic, stoned drug addict  or drunk.

But such was the case yesterday after Trump's (aka "Der Fuhrer's")  much ballyhooed "health care" (repeal and replace) of Obamacare came crashing down. After seven long years of vowing to kill Obamacare, and months of Trump's yapping on the campaign trail he'd do it (making it one of his main promises), e.g.

"On my first day in office I am going to ask congress to send me a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. Immediately!"

The supposed vote had to be mercy -killed before it could even commence. Why? Because a quick, informal tally showed it as much as 34 votes short.   No, there were no Dem votes for it, but why should there have been?  As Rep. Joe Kennedy put it last night, to Chris Hayes on MSNBC: "The message from hundreds of thousands of Americans was 'don't do something stupid and vote on a bad bill."  Adding: "Doctors hated this bill, patients hated this bill, nurses hated this bill, hospitals hated this bill and seniors hated this bill, It was a bad piece of legislation"

And, indeed, had any Dems been stupid enough to vote for this misshapen mutation (which killed 10 health care requirements) they'd have paid dearly at the polls in the 2018 midterms.  So anyone with more than air between the ears certainly couldn't have expected them to cooperate to pass an odious bill that hurt far more than it helped. (Actually the only ones it helped were the hyper wealthy because it was actually a tax cut bill to deliver $330b in cuts on the backs of those whose ACA benefits, Medicaid were cut). Further, no sane person could expect Democratic  cooperation to kill a bill they had sacrificed to get through seven years ago! Hell, get real!  But then remember, Trump - now playing the blame game - isn't sane, but a psychotic. So he would say anything to get the monkey of loss off his back.  While President Harry Truman was the first to say "The buck stops here", Trump has now revised that to: "The buck stops with those guys there, not me!"

But what would one expect of a two-bit real estate weasel who built his "empire" on cons, bankruptcies and suspect money from Russian oligarchs.

Add in Sean Spicer's false bravado and optimism that a vote would be held, not to mention Trump's absurd  "ultimatum"  to get the Tea Baggers (Freedom Caucus) on board, and you had all the makings of a grade B drama about to unfold.  Adding to the suspense, an emergency meeting of the House Republican Caucus was called shortly before the scheduled vote. As it was announced, the House went to recess, with Democrats shouting in a taunting manner, “Vote, vote, vote”, daring Republicans to bring the bill up.  Democrats had reason to needle these Reepo miscreants as it was mainly their people - at assorted town hall meetings- who brought the shame on the Repukes as they recounted how their loved ones would be adversely affected by repeal. Did the Repukes care? Hell no!

In a short meeting that ensued, Paul Ryan announced that the bill was being pulled from the floor in a terse statement to members. What ought not have been surprising, as I noted in the previous post, is that the 'pukes ended up playing whackamole tryin to appease the Tea Baggers by adding more and more refuse to their bill. (Namely eliminating ten cornerstones of sound health care, including everything from hospitalizations, ER visits, and maternity care to prescription drugs and mental health services. )

So no wonder a losing wicket emerged with any moderates in swing districts wary of supporting the legislation, which included major cuts to Medicaid. The original bill  was estimated by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to lead to 24 million fewer Americans having health insurance over the next 10 years, and the final mutated, tortured product was even worse. So why in hell would any Dem help provide cover for these termites by adding a 'yea' vote?

The real blame for the loss, if one could be singled out, had to be the 24-odd member Freedom Caucus.  So committed were they to ideological principle and purity that they absolutely refused the opportunity to send the ACA into the annals of history, even after Paul Ryan removed all ten health requirements they asked for. They didn't want a bloody half loaf, by golly, it had to be the whole enchilada or nothing at all. The WSJ Editorial yesterday (p. A14, 'The Freedom From Reality Caucus')  put it this way:

"By insisting on the impossible over the achievable, these self-styled guardians of conservative purity could become the worst friends conservative ideas and free markets have had in decades."

Meanwhile Trump, who bragged endlessly about his ability to make this happen and his deal making, couldn't budge one single Tea Bagger. Not one. This left him bellyaching over issues of "loyalty" in the wake.  SO much for the art of the deal, but as one pundit put it last night:

"This bill isn't some abstraction. It's the entire health insurance market for a nation of 330 million people. You can't just negotiate it like you're doing a development deal in Atlantic City."

But see, with Trump the Reepos had a turkey who (unlike Obama with the ACA) didn't even keep up with the changing content of the bill or what those changes meant for individual congressional districts and their reps. One Goopr Rep even complained to Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker:

"We're astonished how in over his head Trump is. He seems to neither get the politics or the policy of this."

But what would one expect of an ignorant, arrogant, psychotic asshole? Especially one with delusions of grandeur and authoritarian narcissism issues that rival those of his Onkel Adolf.

As far as Trump was concerned it was as if he was just dealing with so many below par properties to be fobbed off on gullible suckers.  Trouble was the would be victims weren't gullible, and by the end of the recent recess most of the Reepos knew it. At least those who had the balls to attend their town halls, as opposed to hiding or inventing the lamebrain excuse those gathered were "paid protesters".

Trump's other egregious claim in washing his hands of the bill, is that he would "just let Obamacare explode". Of course, he's on some kind of drug or else losing even more gray matter. There is no "explosion" as the CBO noted in its report. But, there is a danger of erosion of benefits given the Reepos did manage to nix the mandate which paid for the benefits most people value the most, such as for pre-existing conditions and keeping adult kids on parents' plans.

This is why, as Michael Moore warned last night, the Dems can't spend too much time gloating or in jubilation mode. They - we- have to get to work and ensure those provisions are made more secure.  This is especially given the final iteration of the AHCA that almost went for a vote last night was the most extreme form possible eliminating such things as emergency services, hospitalization, pregnancy and newborn care, rehabilitation services, lab services, prescription drugs, outpatient care, pediatric services and preventive services (e.g. colonoscopies, PSA testing etc)

Moore emphasized the nature of the bill on offer was that health insurance wouldn't have to provide the above services even for those with regular health insurance!  That is how sweeping the bill was and how devastating the repercussions would have been if passed: None of the listed service would have had to be covered by insurance companies. (All were put in to sweeten the bill for the Freedom Caucus assholes. )

Moore's solution is that we now need to push for a "Medicare for all"  type of healthcare, similar to what oldsters like me already have, as well as most citizens of the planet. But he isn't unrealistic concerning what would be needed, i.e.the Ds winning next year with veto-proof majorities. A long shot to be  sure, but after Trump's election it was also regarded as a long shot that the ACA would remain in place  after the first year.  Everyone on the R-side, and certainly Trump supporters, expected it to be repealed as per his campaign promise. (But given how his Mexican wall promise also fell down, i.e. getting the Mexicans to pay for the thing and not U.S. taxpayers, we ought not express too much surprise.)

At the very least, Dems need "to fix those parts of Obamacare that cost us votes last year."  Moore also advised the resistance now needs to shift focus from the congress critters to the for profit insurance companies.  So, we need to exert as much political pressure as possible on the money-grubbing bastards.

Trump, ignoramus that he is (apart from being a psycho) actually believes now he can pivot to tax reform and have better success. But I have news for him, he won't. As Rep. Karen Bass (CA) put it last night:

"If Trump thought this was tough wait until he comes to tax reform"

The same issues that divided Reepos with their foolish AHCA will also divide them on the tax reform - why?  Because they again will need the votes of the same Freedom Caucus extremists to get anything through. But, those extremists - as per their performance yesterday - will demand far greater cuts than Ryan will put up, and more centrist Reeps will tolerate.

The WSJ today ('GOP Focus Shifts To Tax Code Revamp', p. A5) also pointed out an overlooked little fact: the healthcare bill was to be the lead-in for the tax code revamp, i.e.:

"Repealing Obamacare would cut spending on health care subsidies and cut $1 trillion in taxes."

With their stupid AHCA bill having bitten the dust, most of the momentum is lost for the tax bill. As a policy strategist for Cornerstone Macro LP quoted in the piece notes:

"Defeat on healthcare is a blow that could make it harder to pass a more ambitious tax plan such as proposed by House Republicans."

Indeed. And because the Reepos are going to use budget reconciliation again (where only a simple majority is needed, so they don't have to depend on Dems) they will have to adhere to the reconciliation rules. Those "forbid any plan from increasing budget deficits beyond the current budget window."

So, not only will Ryan and Trump likely have to contend with the touchy twerp Tea Baggers....errr....'Freedom Caucus', but also the budget hawks. That lot that won't tolerate one more cent added  to the deficit.

If Ryan and Co. expect Dem cooperation for this next round they won't get it. Because the Dems are smart enough to know that any tax bill put out by Ryan & Co. will have "bombs" buried inside. As  Rep. Bass observed: "We must be on our guard because another way for them to come after health care is by cutting the taxes that pay for health care coverage."  In other words, she recognizes a party of rats when she sees it, and also that -  like rats- they will keep coming after the 'cheese' by new and varied avenues if a primary one is denied. Dems can't rest and neither can the resistance movement.

Rep. Bass may also have nailed the basis for the Republican anti-ACA campaign most accurately, noting it was probably "political rhetoric to gin up their base" and "this was really sad because it misled an awful lot of people".     As she further observed, many of the ACA problems in states were self-inflicted, because when given the chance for Medicaid expansion and federal subsidies, they demurred - tossing their citizens into the crapper.

Bass, like Moore, did leave room for the Reeps to "come back to the table" - and maybe even work with Dems to improve Obamacare.  BUT that has to be for an affirmative (not destructive) objective. Dems will never cooperate so long as the mission is to deny healthcare to millions and toss people off what they have, then use the money saved for tax cuts to give the upper 1 percent.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/71804/its-official-donald-trump-is-a-loser


And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/steven-rosenfeld/71803/why-the-republicans-bizarre-and-failed-efforts-to-repeal-obamacare-is-a-major-defeat-for-trump-and

"Spending Cuts?" REPUKES Need to Make 'Em!

As noted in multiple prior blogs, despite all the palaver over the national debt, and $16 trillion deficits, it has really been the GOP, aka the Repukes, that created it over the past 11 years. The charts shown illustrate the primary contributors to the massive debt, and where we'd really be minus the "wars" (actually prolonged occupations) and Bush tax cuts. And yet, the obscene narrative promoted by Neoliberal stooges and hacks in the Beltway is that it's been "entitlements" such as Social Security that have caused the massive deficit, and debt. Not by a frickin' longshot!

Looking at the left side chart we see that (current)  debt without the tax cuts and the wars would have been about 40% of GDP.  Without the tax cuts, wars plus the 2009 stimulus the debt would've been around 37% of GDP. I have always argued that the stimulus was needed, to help us escape another Great Depression, so I don't deem that factor as useless like the other ones. (Military types might argue that the "wars"-occupations were not useless additions to the debt but my point is they ought to have been paid for by higher taxes as all other wars have. Real wars, that is!)

On Friday, I wanted to punch Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) right in the face for saying on national TV (MSNBC, Rachel Maddow show with Ezra Klein standing in) that the debt was now "160% of GDP" thereby arguing for major entitlement cuts. The truth is disclosed by the chart at the right, which shows in fact the total of all contributors to be roughly 68% of GDP at 2012 - with two of the contributors (again tax cuts and "wars") unjustified. Factoring in the stimulus, which was justified, one arrives at debt at about 42% of GDP. Add in Medicare ongoing over -expenses, and it rises to about 50% of GDP. (Over -expenses means the money Medicare must shell out over and above what the beneficiaries themselves pay for treatments, etc. Much of this arises from the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act and introduction of Medicare Advantage plans which yearly runs higher imbalances than standard Medicare.)

See also:http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/47383/deficits-were-on-purpose-to-cause-this-crisis


All of the above discloses that the hair-on fire screeching of the Repukes to cut "entitlements" is so much PR codswallop fueled by the shameless Neoliberal media and politicos. It is not entitlements - other than the misbegotten "Medicare Modernization Act" of 2003 (which essentially sought to privatize Medicare and increase premium costs on standard beneficiaries) that have contributed to the massive debt load but rather unpaid for wars and military expenditures- many of which have actually siphoned off Social Security monies to try to make deficits appear smaller.

Let's also recall here that the end-of-decade $5.6 trillion surplus forecast by the Congressional Budget Office in 2000 was more than eviscerated by the two unfunded "wars",  plus two indefensible rounds of Bush tax cuts, and the unpaid for Medicare prescription drug benefit along with the TARP bank bailout. By all standards of reason, NO tax cuts ought to have been implemented once two invasions and occupations had been planned, as we now know ad been the case even before Bush Jr. entered the WH.

Lastly, please recall that in order to accommodate those "spend and not tax" (e.g. massive credit increase) policies, Bush and his GOP allies in Congress voted seven times to raise the U.S. debt ceiling. As it turns out, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) voted for all of it. And yet now, the Repukes - dastardly vermin that they are - plan to use the debt ceiling to take the country hostage as they did last year. Refusing to raise it unless Obama and the Dems give in to them! (Which is why I say this time Obama must cease showing them any "respect", or treating them as rational equals, thus invoking the 14 th amendment to raise it on his own. Thereby for once acknowledging his Reepo opposition in the House as economic terrorists!)

Given this, it makes sense that a last ditch effort by these shameless Reep-turds to interject Social Security cuts into a late, limited "fiscal cliff" deal  (via the chained CPI)was shot down by the Dems.

At least it shows they have some cojones. As I've said before, if a terrible deal is on the table, it's better to dive over that cliff one time and let all the tax rates rise - since there's no way the Repukes would ever have willingly voted for them with Norquist holding a phoney no-tax pledge gun to their heads.

Brace yourselves people, and be ready for whatever comes next!