I’m wondering if Mario’s sudden hemming and hawing has to do with all the those displaced Puerto Rican’s now living in Florida.
So… McCain is in the hospital, and it sounds serious. Thad Corcoran has missed all votes this week (had some surgery, but it doesn’t sound serious enough to keep him away from a vote). Corker is a no, Collins is not committed. Rubio is having a tantrum, and Lee seems to be waffling with Rubio (although I have no doubt Lee will vote for it in the end). If Corker is a no and McCain isn’t present, Collins might rescue the GOP from themselves…
I see the Byrd rule knocked out the amendment to allow charities (like churches) endorse political candidates. But maybe they knew that would happen, and were just trying to get their base to believe they have the base’s interest at heart.
I think you mean the Johnson Act about churches endorsing political candidates. I’m very glad it didn’t pass. Not that I’m worried about established and legit churches so much. But anyone could get ordained, proclaim themselves a religion, and use the overturning of the Johnson Act to funnel dark money towards getting someone elected.
OK mods, is this new heavy black outline around the comment box (as you are typing) a new thing that we can hopefully get rid of, or make a bit lighter? My eyes are bugging out…
No, I mean the Byrd rule that keeps non-tax extraneous stuff out of the bill. (Yes, they were trying to get around the Johnson Act, but I did mean what I said). :). We are all getting a bit buggy by this point!
Here is a description of the Johnson Amendment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Amendment
Effects of removing it would go far beyond a church leader advocating something to vote for or against. It could allow a backdoor around campaign finance laws with tax deductible spending on political campaigns (not necessarily involving a church, but using any other type of charitable organization that one can make tax deductible donations to).
Yes. And the Byrd Rule is what made them drop that amendment.
Right—the Byrd Rule got rid of the (effective) repeal of the Johnson Amendment, because there wasn’t a placeholder for it in the budget. However, because there was a placeholder in the budget for it, the Byrd Rule can’t block Murkowski’s push to open ANWR to oil drilling.
WA impact of the fake cut:
And then there are the education department things…is it Prosper? The higher education things are absurd.
But I guess we need another thread for that!
The news is reporting the conference committee is signing off on the final bill. No reports on if they met Rubios demands.
Interesting thought from someone on Marketplace this morning: That the cut of the top tax rate to 37% served two purposes—first, it was signaling to the donor class that they were being taken care of, and second, it gave wiggle room to accommodate last-minute demands like Rubio’s. The thinking was that they could, say, raise the refundable amount of the child tax credit, get Rubio back on board, and raise the top rate to 38% or even 39% (which would still be a cut, but wouldn’t look as much like one to low-information voters).
Low information voters got us into this pickle to start with. Sigh.
More evidence that the bill is for the donor class only
No, this bill is not for the donor class only. What is that, the top 0.1%? If it was, they would make it easy and get rid of all capital gains and estate tax completely. It lowers the tax rate for most people, though if you’re paying little in taxes, you will get a tiny cut. Many people will barely even notice the tax cut, but some will. Higher income from low tax states will get a good sized tax cut, along with very high income earners.
But if they were going to focus on a business tax cut, they should have done only that, instead of passing this off as a middle tax cut.
A fascinating report on income inequality related to tax policy and other factors:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/14/business/world-inequality.html
This tax policy will increase the disparities.
When are the details supposed to be released?
That article refers to this report (for those who do not want to deal with the subscription paywall on nytimes.com):
Strikes me as more correlation than causation.
Well, it’s only correlation, yes, but once you’ve got a whole lot of correlations (not just in Europe and the USA), it seems to me that you can start saying there’s a likely causal connection somewhere, even if it isn’t that the one leads directly to the other.
So you may be able to argue causation but not establish extent or magnitude.