Trump Promised A Tax Cut Aimed At The Middle Class. Looks Like He Missed — Badly.

HuffPost

Trump Promised A Tax Cut Aimed At The Middle Class. Looks Like He Missed — Badly.

S.V. Date, HuffPost             December 20, 2017 

WASHINGTON ― Donald Trump promised as he ran for president that the middle class would get a “massive” tax cut of 35 percent. After taking office, he promised that cuts would be aimed squarely at the middle class. His top economic aides promised a tax system no less progressive than the one in place today.

With a Republican Congress on the cusp of approving that tax cut legislation, Trump has failed to deliver on all three.

The bill reduces federal taxes by about 10 percent for the middle class, not the promised 35 percent, and only for eight years. What’s more, if the president was aiming to help the middle class, he missed wildly: Federal taxes as a percentage of income will go down most for the wealthiest.

And because the tax cuts for individuals expire after 2025, while the 40 percent reduction in the corporate income tax rate is forever, the end product will be a tax code significantly less progressive than today’s.

“It’s disgusting smash and grab. It’s an all-out looting of America, a wholesale robbery of the middle class,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a Tuesday news conference. “The GOP tax scam will go down, again, as one of the worst, most scandalous acts of plutocracy in our history.”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders on Tuesday insisted that the final bill is designed to primarily benefit typical Americans. “Our focus has been on the middle class, and that is what we think is delivered in this tax package,” she told reporters at the daily press briefing.

That claim, though, is belied by an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which shows that a middle-class household with $67,000 of income will receive an average tax cut of $930 next year ― $77.50 per month – while a family with $348,000 of income will get an average tax cut of $7,640.

Senate Republicans, hoping to boost the bill, sent out of a chart showing that those earning between $200,000 and $1 million a year would actually get a larger percentage tax cut than households making between $50,000 and $200,000 ― essentially making the bill critics’ argument for them.

There were additional claims Trump and fellow Republicans made about the bill that wound up being untrue.

Trump has claimed multiple times that the proposal will make him pay more in taxes ― a claim that is almost certainly false. Rather, Trump and his family stand to benefit by millions of dollars thanks to lower top rates for the rich, as well as a big deduction for precisely the sort of businesses that Trump claims generated more than $200 million in income last year.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), meanwhile, began their push for “tax reform” with statements that it would be revenue-neutral ― that is, that the changes would neither increase nor decrease the amount of money flowing into the Treasury.

“It will have to be revenue-neutral,” McConnell told Bloomberg in May. “We have a $21 trillion debt.”

But even using the “dynamic scoring” that tax-cut aficionados have pushed for years because it accounts for economic growth that cuts purportedly will generate, the Joint Committee on Taxation still sees more than $1 trillion in new debt at the end of 10 years. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget believes the figure could be twice that.

“This is a huge lost opportunity where we could’ve done real reforms that would simplify the tax code, grow the economy, and improve the debt,” said the group’s president, Maya MacGuineas. “Instead there was an end run around the actual reform part of broadening the tax base and getting rid of tax breaks.”

That enormous price tag is because of the reduction in corporate tax rates ― from a top rate of 35 percent down to 21 percent ― that never expires.

Republicans argue those cuts will give corporations more money they can use to invest in their businesses and hire more employees. But most economists reject that idea and point out that corporations have been sitting on trillions in cash for years, not investing it, because of a lack of demand for additional goods and services.

The prevalent economic view holds that the vast majority of money saved in taxes will be distributed instead as dividends to shareholders or used to buy back stock, which increases the value of the remaining shares. And because the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans own more than 90 percent of all stock, they will be the overwhelming beneficiaries of the corporate tax cuts.

Republican authors of the bill could not leave in place all of their tax cuts for more than 10 years because of Senate rules that would have required them to win over at least eight Democrats to pass a bill projected to generate a deficit in the 11th year. Republicans leaders chose to make the corporate rate cuts permanent but “sunset” the tax cuts for individuals.

Senator Chris Van Hollen: Tax Bill Video

I'm angry. I just got back from witnessing one of the biggest legislative heists in American history. For days, Republicans were huddled behind closed doors, surrounded by lobbyists for the rich and powerful. And now, under the cover of darkness, Senate Republicans voted to ram this tax scam through the Senate. Do you know why they don't want to wait to read the bill? Because the more the public sees their plan, the more they hate it. The faster they rush it, the easier it is for them to score a political win with their donors—which a Republican Congressman conceded was the goal of their bill.And despite what Republicans have promised, this legislation will not spur economic growth—it will cause our national debt to explode and slow economic growth as time goes on. The claim that workers will get a $4,000 pay raise will soon be shown for the farce that it is. Meanwhile, millions of middle-class families will pay more. And for those middle-class families who do get tax cuts, they will be puny compared to the $70,000 a year average tax cut for millionaires. Moreover, the tax cuts for families will be temporary while the giant tax cuts for corporations are forever. Don’t just take it from me, the facts have been clearly laid out by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation: This bill increases the debt by more than $1 trillion and the biggest beneficiaries are millionaires and big corporations. And when this bill is fully phased in, the small tax cuts for families expire while the big tax cuts for corporations are forever. In fact, ten years from now American families who make less than $75,000 will be paying higher taxes, on average, in order to pay for a permanent tax cut for multinational corporations—including a huge tax cut for foreign stockholders.It’s shameful that the greatest deliberative body in the world just prioritized a windfall giveaway to multinational corporations and billionaires while real priorities like CHIP, community health centers, disaster relief, the Dream Act, TPS, pension security, and funding our government remain unresolved.

Posted by Chris Van Hollen on Tuesday, December 19, 2017

I’m angry. I just got back from witnessing one of the biggest legislative heists in American history. For days, Republicans were huddled behind closed doors, surrounded by lobbyists for the rich and powerful. And now, under the cover of darkness, Senate Republicans voted to ram this tax scam through the Senate. Do you know why they don’t want to wait to read the bill? Because the more the public sees their plan, the more they hate it. The faster they rush it, the easier it is for them to score a political win with their donors—which a Republican Congressman conceded was the goal of their bill.

And despite what Republicans have promised, this legislation will not spur economic growth—it will cause our national debt to explode and slow economic growth as time goes on. The claim that workers will get a $4,000 pay raise will soon be shown for the farce that it is. Meanwhile, millions of middle-class families will pay more. And for those middle-class families who do get tax cuts, they will be puny compared to the $70,000 a year average tax cut for millionaires. Moreover, the tax cuts for families will be temporary while the giant tax cuts for corporations are forever. Don’t just take it from me, the facts have been clearly laid out by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation: This bill increases the debt by more than $1 trillion and the biggest beneficiaries are millionaires and big corporations. And when this bill is fully phased in, the small tax cuts for families expire while the big tax cuts for corporations are forever. In fact, ten years from now American families who make less than $75,000 will be paying higher taxes, on average, in order to pay for a permanent tax cut for multinational corporations—including a huge tax cut for foreign stockholders.

It’s shameful that the greatest deliberative body in the world just prioritized a windfall giveaway to multinational corporations and billionaires while real priorities like CHIP, community health centers, disaster relief, the Dream Act, TPS, pension security, and funding our government remain unresolved.

Socialism Comes to Iowa

The Nation

Socialism Comes to Iowa

An unusual coalition may be a template for the growing American left.

By Nicolas Medina and Rebecca Zweig       December 20, 2017

Iowa gubernatorial candidate Cathy Glasson, second from left, at a campaign event in September. (Photo via Facebook)

Iowa City, IowaOn the morning of Labor Day, a crowd gathered outside Mercy Hospital in Des Moines to hear health-care workers speak about their worsening labor conditions. After a number of hospital employees had spoken, Mike Carberry, a Democrat serving as supervisor for Johnson County, took the stage.

“Do we have any good liberals here?” he asked.

Carberry was met with tepid applause.

Then someone shouted: “We’re communists!”

The crowd exploded in cheers.

“Okay! Communists and socialists!” Carberry conceded.

The rally was a joint action between organizers of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the local chapter of Fight for $15, which earlier that morning organized a strike at a local Burger King. But the event of the day was a speech by Cathy Glasson, a recent entrant to the Democratic gubernatorial primary. 

“If you work in healthcare in Des Moines, you probably work two jobs,” Glasson told the crowd. “That’s why I’m here with you, to fight for $15 and a union!”

Glasson’s path to the governor’s mansion is far from clear. Her rivals in the primary include business-friendly centrists with close ties to establishment Democrats. But Glasson is the farthest left candidate in recent memory to mount a serious campaign for the state’s highest office.

She is betting on her campaign’s ability to build a coalition of unlikely conspirators: service workers, many of whom are immigrants and people of color; members of manufacturing unions, many of whom are white and some of whom supported Trump; and young members of the ascending Democratic Socialists of America.

Glasson and her staff are full of youthful energy, blending “Iowa Nice” with political rage. Yet their approach is old-school. They conceive of electoral politics as an extension of labor organizing, hoping to use the techniques that once made the Midwest a hotbed of union activism in order to convince voters to support progressive politics.

If proven right, the prairie progressives could augur a path forward for the American left.

Iowa was once a true swing state, where conservative farm owners and organized workers vied for power. Over the last decade, however, the state has drifted rightward: Though Democrats controlled the governor’s mansion and the two houses of the state legislature between 2007 and 2010, Republicans have held the governorship since 2011 and took over the legislature in 2017.

Narratives about “flyover country” often attribute this shift to the supposedly intractable bitterness of uneducated white voters. But local political observers insist that the state’s transformation was due in large part to state Democrats’ support for Big Agriculture and their neglect of workers’ concerns.

In an attempt to attract independent voters, Iowa Democrats have toed a centrist line, alienating voters who have grown tired of unfulfilled promises to enact progressive economic policies. The result is a vicious cycle: Republicans enact policies that harm the working class; Democrats prove inept at addressing that harm; and Iowa workers either stop voting or turn to Republicans.

Today, the state is in shambles. Manufacturers have left. Iowa’s once affordable public universities plan to raise tuition by 40 percent over the next five years. The state has the lowest-paid nurses and has some of the unhealthiest drinking water in the nation. Even Iowa’s famously fertile fields are dying: Researchers from Iowa State University recently found that parts of the state are losing topsoil at a rate 12 times faster than what the US Department of Agriculture considers tolerable.

Glasson conceives of her candidacy as a response to the apathy bred by moderate politicians. Her progressive populism owes much to Bernie Sanders, but it is equally a product of state political dynamics that brewed for decades before Sanders rose to national prominence.

“Centrist politics aren’t going to get us out of this mess,” Glasson recently told us in an interview. “Iowans are working hard and not feeling it in their pocketbook. They aren’t just Democrats, they’re Republicans too. We have career politicians in Des Moines who try to fix issues with half measures, and it’s not working.”

Glasson, who is white, was born in 1958 in the northwestern farming community of Spencer, Iowa. In 1982 she earned a nursing degree from the University of Iowa, and spent 20 years working in intensive care at the university hospitals.

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration began to push “managed-care” health-care reform, which proposed policies to reduce costs for taxpayers and patients. In practice, Glasson said, the policies damaged the working conditions of nurses.

Concerned for their jobs and the quality of patient care, Glasson and some of her co-workers decided to form a union. The challenge then became convincing their colleagues.

“I put a lot of miles on my car and spent hours talking to my fellow nurses,” Glasson said. “The reception was good, but organizing is difficult. By publicly supporting a union, you’re putting your neck on the line.”

Nurses had reason to be tentative. In Glasson’s telling, the hospital resorted to strategies intended to intimidate organizers.

“They hired an outside security firm to keep people like me from talking to nurses,” Glasson said. “A nurse told me she saw an armed security guard walk into a unit where patients were being cared for, just to make sure there wasn’t any subversive activity going on.”

(A spokesperson for the University of Iowa said the hospital occasionally retains external security firms, but not ones that “arm their employees.” He said the school could not confirm whether it hired security at the time of Glasson’s union drive, because it does not keep records for more than five years. He added that the university “follows all labor relations laws.”)

The hospital’s tactics backfired. In 1998, the University of Iowa’s hospital workers voted to join the SEIU. Glasson was elected president the following year and has since remained in the position.

The experience of union organizing proved foundational to Glasson’s political worldview. In contrast to some mainstream Democrats, who appear to assume voters’ convictions are stubbornly correlated to demographic markers, Glasson believes that people can be persuaded to change their minds.

In 2016, the Clinton campaign neglected areas where statistical models suggested few would support her. Glasson wants to run her campaign like a union drive, sending volunteers to conduct one-on-one conversations with all kinds of voters, even those who might initially reject her message.

“I know this sounds corny, but we need to have conversations with people,” Glasson said. “We need to ask them, ‘What are you worried about?’ We need to listen to them and help them realize what’s in their best interest.”

On October 7, Glasson’s campaign headed to Ottumwa, a city of 25,000 in south-central Iowa. Once a powerhouse of meatpacking and manufacturing, Ottumwa embodies the dynamics that have decimated Iowa Democrats. Many of the city’s factories have closed, reducing the city’s median household income to roughly $38,000—$16,000 less than the state average, which is close to the national figure.

This collapse of living standards had consequences. Wapello County, of which Ottumwa is the seat, voted Democrat in every presidential since 1976. In 2016 it cast nearly 60 percent of its ballots for Trump.

Steve Siegel, a social worker and former Wapello County Supervisor, attributed part of Ottumwa’s political shift to Republican positions on gun rights and abortion, but emphasized Trump’s opposition to free trade agreements.

“People were attracted by Trump’s message about jobs, how he was going to bring them back by getting rid of NAFTA and TPP,” Siegel told us.

The mood at the Oktoberfest parade, however, was festive. Residents lined the streets for miles, cheering for the high-school marching band, the American Legion, and employees from local businesses such as a restaurant that calls itself “the originator of the Pizza Taco.”

Glasson marched alongside the members of United Auto Workers Local 74, which represents machinists at John Deere Ottumwa Works. The union doesn’t usually participate in the parade, but this year its members decided to make community events a priority. The state legislature recently passed a law reducing collective-bargaining rights for public-sector employees (including our union United Electrical Local 896, which represents graduate instructors at the University of Iowa), and the UAW workers are worried they’re next.

Holding the union’s banner was Tim Walker, a 52-year-old native of Ottumwa who has worked at the plant for more than a decade. Walker, who is white, told us he didn’t vote for Trump, but some of his co-workers did.

Walker said many of his colleagues had grown frustrated not just with Democrats but also with the leadership of their union, which they felt was increasingly powerless in negotiations with management. The company, according to Walker, has taken to hiring “college kids,” many of them from countries like India and France, who “wave their engineering degrees” and side with their superiors in hopes of promotion and relocation. (John Deere did not respond to a request for comment that included questions about how many foreign employees work at the Ottumwa plant.)

“The people who voted for Trump felt he was going to clean the house,” Walker said. “Just like we did with our leadership. We voted almost all of them out back in May.”

Unlike the presidential election, Local 74’s protest vote pushed union leadership to the left. Their new president, Chris Laursen, a 47-year-old native of Ottumwa, is a self-described socialist with big plans for his union.

Laursen, who is white, joined the army at 17 and served in the first Gulf War. By the time he came home to work at John Deere, he was convinced the conflict had only served to enrich the military-industrial complex. Last year, he went to the Democratic National Convention as a “Bernie-or-Bust” delegate. To say Clinton’s nomination disappointed him would be an understatement. “I couldn’t vote for her,” he said. “She’s a warmonger in bed with big business.”

Laursen went on to run Jill Stein’s Iowa campaign, but after Trump’s election he decided third parties weren’t the answer. One of his first actions as president was to “go rogue” and announce his support for Glasson, breaking with the common practice of UAW locals to wait for an endorsement from their national leadership. (The UAW did not respond to a request for comment)

“The national union betrayed us when they supported Clinton despite her stance on TPP,” Laursen said. “We don’t need more corporate Dems.”

Ottumwa has become increasingly diverse in recent years. The 2000 Census recorded its population as 95 percent white, with less than 3 percent of its residents identifying as Hispanic. Ten years later, the survey found that 90 percent of the town identified as white, while 11 percent said they were Hispanic.

None of the white residents of Ottumwa who spoke to us felt that they harbored animosity toward immigrants. Walker, the UAW member, insisted that his problem with the engineers who work at his plant had nothing to do with their nationality. Siegel, the former Wapello County Supervisor, said he didn’t think that “immigration was a big problem” in Ottumwa, because the city has welcomed recent arrivals.

But members of Ottumwa’s Latino community tell a different story. Ramon Lopez, the 43-year-old proprietor of a Mexican grocery store, told us that he has felt a marked increase in racial tensions since Trump’s election. He has also noticed an uptick in deportations, which brings back dark memories.

Before Lopez lived in Ottumwa, he ran a grocery store in Marshalltown, a city in central Iowa that in 2006 was witness to one of the worst immigration raids in US history. The decimation of his community proved so traumatic that Lopez returned to Mexico, returning to the United States only years later. Now, he worries that another Marshalltown is in the works.

“If people in New York or Washington are listening,” he told us in an interview conducted in Spanish, “would ask them to please see if there’s anything they can possibly do to stop the raids.”

Glasson and her supporters are acutely aware of the role that anti-immigrant sentiments have played in Iowa’s rightward turn. In a visit to her hometown of Spencer, the candidate witnessed a survey in which people used corn kernels to signal key voting issues. Education came first. Immigration came second.

To build a winning coalition, Glasson needs to convince large swaths of Iowa’s electorate to set aside anti-immigrant views. She believes this can happen through the same personal conversations that can persuade hesitant workers to support a union.

“There isn’t a one-size-fits-all way to talk about immigration that doesn’t turn people off,” she said. “But we need to help people understand that ‘They are taking our jobs’ is a Republican lie.”

Laursen, the UAW president, has a similar line. He recently formed a labor action committee and is taking steps to politically educate his mostly-white membership. The discussions focus on labor, but he believes that convincing people to move to the left on workplace issues will result in broader political conversions.

Glasson also needs to earn the support of the growing number of immigrants eligible to vote in Iowa. But her campaign and supporters, many of whom are white, face challenges in reaching Latinos. Laurens said he has tried to organize Ottumwa’s Latino community by advertising political events in immigrant business, but the response was not what he expected.

“Nobody showed up,” Laursen said. “We didn’t have a translator.”

Still, there’s reason to hope. Some of Glasson’s staunchest supporters are members of Fight for $15. Though the group does not endorse electoral campaigns, its organizers advocate for pro-union candidates who support increases to the minimum wage.

Angelica Serrano heard about Glasson’s campaign through Fight for $15 organizers. Serrano, a 47-year-old US citizen of Mexican origin, said she came to Des Moines 26 years ago, 19 of which she has worked at McDonald’s. Despite her seniority, she makes $10.50 an hour and has no vacation, paid sick days, or health insurance.

“I think the Hispanic community is going to come out strong for Cathy,” Serrano said. “She has joined us our demonstrations and strikes. I think she’ll make a great governor.”

Though a newcomer, Glasson is a disciplined candidate. Asked whether she believes she can overtake her better-funded rivals, she answers without hesitation: Of course she can win.

Iowa’s electoral peculiarities could give solidity to her bravado. To choose their nominees, state Democrats first hold caucuses in neighborhood districts, then a primary. If a candidate wins with more than 35 percent of the vote in the election, the caucuses are rendered obsolete. But if the primary proves too close, the party holds a convention, in which delegates from each district support their caucus’s candidate. In a crowded election—10 candidates are currently running—this unpredictable system can transform a long-shot candidate into a strong contender.

Yet Glasson works hard to de-emphasize the office of governor. She often tells voters that the only way to change Iowa is to build a movement at every level of government. No office is too small: She wants progressives to take over city councils and school boards.

Her message has an optimistic implication: Even if Glasson doesn’t win, her run will have served to build connections among the Iowa Left. Activists who had been working in isolation are coming together in her campaign. And, as Serrano put it, “entre más seamos, más fuertes seremos.” Numbers make us strong.

Many liberals and leftists bristle at the idea of engaging white working-class voters who may have reactionary views on social issues. Some people of color rightly feel disinclined to put themselves at risk to reason with people who may wish them ill, but white progressives often appropriate that discourse as a cop-out. The possibility that progressives could win red states by promoting the idea that working class people of all backgrounds deserve good jobs then falls by the wayside.

Glasson and her supporters, in part because they come from a progressive tradition that emphasizes action over theory, are less afraid to have frank conversations with people who, to misquote Ronald Reagan’s dictum about Latinos, are leftists who don’t know it yet. As the American left rallies around the realization that it has nothing to lose, its members on the coasts should emulate the prairie progressives.

“I like the DSA kids a lot,” Laursen said. “But you can’t just sit in the library sipping coffee and talking about Marxist theory. You have to get out there and convince people to stop voting against their own interests.”

Equifax: The company that screwed consumers the most in 2017

Yahoo Finance

Equifax: The company that screwed consumers the most in 2017

Ethan Wolff-Mann         December 20, 2017

FILE – This July 21, 2012, file photo shows signage at the corporate headquarters of Equifax Inc. in Atlanta. Attacks launched by cybercriminals wreak havoc and cause disruption as more of everyday life moves online. The U.S. attorney’s office in Atlanta has worked hand-in-hand with the local FBI office to prosecute a number of high-profile cybercrime cases. They’re currently investigating the breach at Atlanta-based Equifax, which exposed the personal information of 145 million Americans. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart, File)

The biggest lesson consumers learned this year is that your data is probably not safe. 2017 was the year of the hack.

Throughout the year, company after company disclosed data breach after data breach. Some had email addresses and phone numbers — get ready for more spam robocalls — and others had the really bad stuff like Social Security numbers.

But there is only one winner of the not-at-all coveted Yahoo Finance “company that screwed you the most this year” award: Equifax (EFX).

First off, the amount of people potentially involved was staggering. After a second disclosure of a few more million, the final number stood at up to 145.5 million people. This is three out of every five adults in the U.S.

Making matters worse, the information involved was extremely sensitive. This wasn’t only phone numbers or emails that were stolen, but Social Security numbers. You can’t change 145.5 million Social Security numbers, which means that the use of SSNs as a security measure should be completely cast away — not that it should have ever been anything other than a tool for the Social Security program.

There are so many more compounding factors

Equifax is a credit bureau, the guardian and gatekeeper of intensely personal financial data. Not only is there potential injury — consumers will have to be looking over their shoulders forever, constantly checking their credit reports for fake charges and accounts — but insult.

Like Wells Fargo and its 2 million accounts they made without customer permission, Equifax has squandered trust, a pillar of its existence, by allowing itself to have incredibly shoddy security that should have been addressed.

But unlike Wells Fargo, you didn’t choose to be a customer. By participating in the financial system, you – by default – opt in. This is how it works, they have your data, they sell it, and they make money. They do not work for you.

The response? Even more insult.

A hack this bad would be enough to top the other hacking scandals of 2017. (Here is a great and exhaustive list.) But the company’s response made it even worse from a consumer point of view.

Immediately following the public disclosure, Equifax sent consumers to a sketchy-looking website, “Equifaxsecurity2017.com,” that asked consumers to put in their SSN to check if they were hacked. It didn’t work for many consumers.

The company also offered free-for-now credit monitoring but required consumers to consent to forced-arbitration, voiding their rights to sue. Though the company maintained that this forced-arbitration was not connected to this monitoring product, Equifax’s acting CEO later told Congress that the company still may block consumers’ rights to sue.

Anyway, consumer advocates say this may be much, much worse.

Ethan Wolff-Mann is a writer at Yahoo Finance.

Happy Democratic New Year!

New Year (2018), Will Be ______???

Please fill in your own “best” words.

John Hanno       December 19, 2017

We’re approaching the one year mark for the trump administration. Depending on your position on the left – right political spectrum, the score board results are utterly controvertible.

Those on the Ult-Right, believe trump’s been a smashing success. They believe he’s been especially adept at seeming to overturn reams of Obama era accomplishments in the fields of healthcare, the environment, workplace protections, consumer protections and sensible regulations and legislation aimed at supporting all of the above and more.

Old School Republican’s, who use to populate the party’s middle – but have now been mostly relegated to center right history, are more than sick and tired of holding their noses, shaking their heads and making excuses for leaders who have traded principled opposition, thoughtful governance and true conservative ideals, for political “winning” at any cost. Those still in congress are retiring in unprecedented numbers before the chicken-shit comes home to roost.

Progressive and moderate democrats are atypically unanimous in expressing their shock and disgust at what this toxic administration and their spineless enablers in the Republi-con congress have substituted for constructive problem solving and effective leadership.

Trump’s best and brightest, who he touts to this day, have been found disqualified, fired, forced out, indicted, plead guilty or fled the trump train wreck; more than two dozen of these characters departed in just the first year.

Trump points to a Wall Street story praising trumps choices for the federal courts, even after his own Republi-cons in the senate judicial committee have had enough of his nominees who are beyond unqualified.

After Senate Chairman Grassley asked the White House to pull two nominees, they relented and withdrew the nominations of Brett Talley and Jeff Mateer.

Talley, who was picked to be a federal judge in Alabama, had never tried a case before in court and was rated by the American Bar Association (ABA), as unanimously unqualified.

Senators discovered after Talley was voted out of committee that he was married to White House counsel Donald McGhan’s chief of staff. Talley didn’t list his wife, on his Senate questionnaire, as a family member who might represent a potential conflict of interest.

Mateer, nominated for a seat on a federal district court in Texas gave speeches in which he compared homosexuality to bestiality and described transgender children as a part of “Satan’s plan.”

Even worse was the questioning of Matthew Petersen, nominated for the District Court for the District of Columbia, by Republican Sen. John Kennedy (La.), that went viral. It painfully revealed Petersen never conducted any type of trial, only “helped’ conduct a couple of depositions and couldn’t answer simple questions that a 2nd year law student could answer. He didn’t even know what a motion in limine’ is, a routine motion that every litigant must argue before every trial.

Polls are fairly consistent. Trump’s approval rating is a whopping 32%, lowest in U.S. history. 69% of us think Trump’s first year has been a complete bust and 52% think the country is headed in the wrong direction. 72% think trump has done something illegal or unethical concerning the “Russia / Trump thing.”

The closer special prosecutor Robert Mueller and his team get to the top of this dung heap, the more desperate Trump, the Ult-right wing-nuts and the Trump alternative reality TV and media, spew outrageous alternative fact theories. They’re now crying that America’s democratic institutions, and the liberal fake news media, are planning a coup of the Trump autocratic regime. Don’t fall for this Putinesque propaganda.

Trump and the pandering republi-con’s only accomplishment in the last year has been to make the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), more popular than ever.

And now this sham Republi-con tax bill transfers $1 trillion from America’s poor and middle class, to the wealthy and the well connected (like Trump, Corker and all of Trump’s cabinet) and stock holders, 30% of which are foreign investors.

Senator Corker, who just two weeks ago said he wouldn’t vote for this tax bill if it added one penny to the deficit, has now flip-flopped, even though the Repub’s have somehow made the bill worse by giving even more cuts to the wealthy and driving up the debt by $1.455 trillion (final CBO score).

Senator Rubio, who was holding out for a larger refundable portion of the child care credit in the bill, is now happy with the few crumbs (another $300) left over from the large swaths of chocolate cake given to the wealthy and corporations.

Trump, Mnuchin and the Republi-cons keep propagating the lies that this is tax reform that benefits primarily the middle class and will increase jobs and wages, boost the GDP and fully pay for itself.

Lets be clear; this is not legitimate tax reform. This is a whopping tax break for the wealthy and well connected, including for Trump Inc. and for all of his toxic predatory capitalist buddies. There are $1.6 trillion in tax breaks taken every year; this tax bill will only eliminate $400 billion of those tax breaks. And one of the biggest tax break scams, the carried interest exemption – granted mostly to hedge fund managers, survived this phony “Tax Reform.” Trump (dozens of times) and every Republi-con running in the campaign, repeatedly promised they would eliminate this tax dodge. A large portion of the eliminated tax breaks, fall on the 98% of voters who don’t contribute to the Republi-cons, especially in the blue states, who always contribute the most to the federal treasury.

This tax bill will clearly have winners and losers, something true thoughtful tax reform is designed to eliminate. No doubt we needed true tax reform. This was a perfect opportunity to level the fiscal “paying” field, to correct the inequities in the tax system built in over the last 3 decades, a chance to balance the burden between businesses and folks who faithfully pay their fair share, and predatory slugs like Trump and some corporations who enjoy all the benefits of America’s commons but refuse to pay even a small portion of their share to pay for them.

This tax hustle was rushed through in only 6 weeks, with no public hearings, no expert testimony from tax experts and without input from the Democrats, who represent a large majority of Americans. Is it any surprise that only 26% of Americans approve of this flim-flam and 50% believe their tax bills will actually go up. Experts say 83% of the tax cuts will go to the top 1% by 2027 and 60% go to the top 1/10 of 1%. But most of the Republi-cons in the house and every single Republi-con in the senate are all in. After the Obamacare fiasco, these incompetents need some kind of legislative win, even if it’s the worst tax bill in history. And many in congress, like Sen. Corker, have LLC’s that will benefit from this bill.

But where are all the conservative deficit hawks, who railed daily during the Obama administration when President Obama was forced to run up the debt, after the Republi-cons crashed the economy. All the experts told the President that if he didn’t bail out the banks, the deep Republi-cession would morph into a full blown depression. He also bailed out the auto industry, saving more than 200,000 good paying jobs. The auto companies paid back all of that money with interest. But those were mostly union jobs, so the predatory capitalist Republi-cons in congress opposed both bail-outs and to this day, demonize saving the auto industry and their unions.

It appears they have enough votes to pass the bill with just Republi-con votes, unless a few republicans find the courage to honor their oath of office and vote for what’s best for America instead of what’s best for themselves and their failed party. Will Sen. Corker vote for the Corkerkickback and against the people of Tennessee and against what he’s believed in about deficit spending during his entire senate career? Will Susan Collins renege on her promises to the middle-class folks back in Maine to protect their healthcare and tax benefits? Will Sen. Jeff Flake do the right thing for the folks back in Arizona, who depend on Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security?

The best thing John McCain could do to burnish his legacy is to stay in the hospital and take care of his treatments. Just on principle, after he made a point while addressing the senate during the ACA debate, about the Senate getting back to regular order and the necessity for bipartisanship, he should send a letter that could be read to the senate before they vote, asking them to vote their conscience, instead of their own best interests.

We know that before the ink is dry on this bill, the “starve the beast” Republi-cons and the deficit hawks just waking up after the holidays, will be back at work lickety-split, proposing cuts to middle-class American entitlements and safety net programs for the poor. But don’t be fooled. They will claim we need the savings for our crumbling infrastructure. But these sharks don’t want to contribute to those programs that could make America more competitive.

America is waking up to this shell game. And progressives should take a few 2017 bows. Victories in Virginia and New Jersey are good signs; and the remarkable victory in Alabama portend great things for the 2018 elections. Democratic Senator Doug Jones, from the deep red state of Alabama, is the real deal. Maybe with his help, we can slow down the damage this toxic administration is inflicting on our environment, our healthcare system, our economy, American labor, our public schools, the separation of church and state and our democratic institutions.

Mr. Jones and his energized supporters, especially African-American women and the 25,000 moderates and old school Republicans who refused to vote for Moore and wrote in someone else, overcame Bannon’s Trump miracle, who the white evangelical christian right still believes, is a gift from God; and who believe if “their God” can forgive all of trump’s transgressions and flaws, then who are they to question such a divine anointing. That is not true Christianity.

By 2027, 107% of the tax benefits in this bill will go to the top 20% of Americans. How can that be you ask? Because the bottom 80% will eventually get tax increases. This is a Republican donor payback tax gift to those who need it the least. The generous gifts to pass through real-estate businesses (many of which are owned by those in congress voting on the bill) will have unintended consequences and create an entire new tax avoidance industry. And more importantly, this will only worsen the growing income inequality for our middle-class and the poor. Hopefully those beguiled by the flim-flam will show their anger in November 2018.

If this tax bill is passed, those responsible for the provisions that enrich themselves and their benefactors and for the unrealistic promises, bold-faced lies, and unintended consequences, will be rewarded with losing control of congress in 2018.

Yes, I believe…This New Year (2018), Will Be a much better year for America! As long as we continue to Resist!

 

Image may contain: 1 person

HuffPost

63 Percent Of Americans Believe Donald Trump Tried To Obstruct Russia Probe

Mary Papenfuss, HuffPost     December 17, 2017

A new poll has found that 63 percent of Americans believe President Donald Trump has tried to “impede or obstruct” the investigations into Russian interference in the U.S. election and possible links between Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin.

A new poll has found that 63 percent of Americans believe President Donald Trump has tried to “impede or obstruct” the investigations into Russian interference in the U.S. election and possible links between Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin.

Additionally, 40 percent are convinced Trump did something “illegal” with Russia, according to the Associated Press-NORC poll, while 32 percent believe he has done something “unethical” concerning Russia.

Among those polled, 38 percent believe the Russia investigation is very or extremely important. Yet 54 percent are not confident that congressional investigations into the Russia issue will be fair and impartial. Forty-two percent aren’t confident that the Justice Department’s investigation led by former FBI director Robert Mueller will be fair and impartial.

The poll found the president had only a 32 percent approval rating, with 67 percent disapproving of the way Trump is handling his job as president. Those numbers mimic the findings of an earlier Pew Research poll.

That makes Trump the most unpopular first-year president on record.

The Russian results were based on surveys conducted Nov. 30 through Dec. 4 among 1,444 adults with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

 

The World Bank will stop funding all new oil and gas development

BREAKING: The World Bank will stop funding all new oil and gas development, firmly acknowledging that the fight against poverty and the fight against climate change are one and the same. What do you think? #WeCanSolveThis #YEARSproject

We Can Solve This: The World Bank

BREAKING: The World Bank will stop funding all new oil and gas development, firmly acknowledging that the fight against poverty and the fight against climate change are one and the same. What do you think? #WeCanSolveThis #YEARSproject

Posted by DeSmogBlog on Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Senator Corker Kickback’ sends Republicans scrambling in advance of tax vote

ThinkProgress

Senator Corker Kickback’ sends Republicans scrambling in advance of tax vote

What happened? Bob Corker, and many others, want answers.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. (Credit: AP Photo / J. Scott Applewhite)

Judd Legum             December 17, 2017

Bob Corker, a Republican Senator from Tennessee, is retiring. He has made a show of criticizing Trump’s agenda, and he was the only Republican to vote against the Senate version of the tax bill, citing deficit concerns. Independent analysis shows the bill would increase the deficit by about $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

A PORTION OF CORKER’S PRESS RELEASE EXPLAINING HIS VOTE AGAINST THE SENATE TAX BILL

After they passed their respective chambers, the Senate and House bills were then sent to a conference committee where senators made more changes, although nothing was altered that would significantly change the bill’s impact on the deficit.

That’s why it was inexplicable that Corker announced his support for the legislation that came out of conference. He didn’t try to argue the new bill was any better for the deficit. Or even that there were changes made to the bill that made it more palatable to him. Rather, he just stated that “every bill we consider is imperfect” and he would vote for it.

Corker made his announcement two hours before the text of the tax bill was made public. In the 503-page text was a new provision that was not in the House or Senate legislation. It would specifically benefit real estate investors who operate “pass-through” businesses. This group includes President Trump — and also Bob Corker, who “has millions of dollars of ownership stakes in real-estate related LLCs that could also benefit” from the new provision.

The savings to Corker could be substantial, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Dean Baker@DeanBaker13: Senator Corker does considerably better with the Republican tax bill than a married couple earning $30,000, with two kids http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/swamping-the-drain-with-senator-bob-corker-and-the-republican-tax-bill …

Corker then contacted the International Business Times and said the new provision did not influence his position on the bill because he hadn’t actually read it before announcing his vote. “I had like a two-page summary I went through with leadership. I never saw the actual text,” Corker said.

Corker initially told IBT that the new provision “sounds totally unnecessary and borderline ridiculous” but later admitted he doesn’t “really know what the provision does to be honest. I would need an accountant to explain it.” Last year, Corker made up to $7 million from real estate pass through companies he owns.

His story, however, hit a snag when Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate Majority Whip, told ABC News that the provision that benefits real estate investors was added as part of an effort to “cobble together the votes we needed to get this bill passed.” When asked if the provision was added specifically to secure Corker’s vote, Cornyn dodged the question.

Now Corker is in the hot seat. On Sunday night, he sent a letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and asked him to “provide an explanation of the evolution of this provision and how it made it into the final conference report.”

“I think that because of many sensitivities, clarity on this issue is very important and hope that you will respond in an expeditious manner,” Corker added.

With John McCain (R-AZ) heading back to Arizona to tend to medical issues, Corker’s vote could prove decisive in the Senate, which is expected to vote on the legislation early this week. Meanwhile, #CorkerKickback is trending on Twitter.

When 400 millionaires and billionaires say the right-wing’s tax plan is terrible, it’s time for Congress to listen!

Really American

When 400 millionaires and billionaires say the right-wing’s tax plan is terrible, it’s time for Congress to listen!

400 Ultra-Rich People Shot Down Trump's Tax Plan!

When 400 millionaires and billionaires say the right-wing's tax plan is terrible, it's time for Congress to listen!

Posted by Really American on Tuesday, November 14, 2017

What’s missing from the GOP tax bill? Just about anything that would help the working and middle classes

Los Angeles Times

What’s missing from the GOP tax bill? Just about anything that would help the working and middle classes

President Trump discusses tax reform in the Grand Foyer of the White House on December 13th in Washington. (Olivier Douliery / TNS)

Doyle McManus     December 17, 2017

You’ve probably read plenty about what’s in the tax bill that House and Senate Republicans agreed to last week: A big cut in corporate taxes. Generous tax cuts for the wealthy, including a reduction of the top individual tax rate. More modest cuts for anyone who makes less than $200,000 or so.

Equally striking is what’s missing. There are many different ways to cut taxes, but they all require making choices. Not everyone benefits equally.

This bill put corporate tax cuts first; that’s where roughly 70% of the benefits go. There’s not much in the bill for the working poor — those who earn less than $40,000 a year. Most of those folks pay no federal income tax, but they do pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, which were not cut.

The tax bill doesn’t expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, part of the tax code that supplements the income of low-wage workers. A full-time single worker who earns the federal minimum wage of $14,500 a year currently gets an EITC of only $37; an increase would have made a difference.

It isn’t easy to make a tax cut unpopular. But Trump and Republican leaders in Congress have turned a bill that should have been political gold into lead.

The EITC is beloved by Democrats. Some Republicans — including House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin — support it, too. But an expansion didn’t make it into this year’s bill.

The working poor did get one break: Republican Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Mike Lee of Utah insisted on an increase in the refundable part of the child tax credit. Under the bill, workers who don’t pay income taxes can claim up to $1,400 per child. (Workers who do pay taxes can claim $2,000 as long as their income is below $400,000.)

But Rubio and Lee didn’t get the biggest change they wanted, which was to apply the credit to low-wage workers’ entire income. Under their proposal, a minimum-wage worker making $14,500 would get a $494 tax credit; under the current bill, she’ll get only $75, according to the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Another missing item: President Trump’s promise to get rid of the carried interest loophole. “Carried interest was unfair, and it’s gone,” Trump said last spring.

But that odious tax break isn’t gone. It’s just been tweaked a little.

Under current law, when managers of private equity funds, venture capital funds and hedge funds reap a share of their investors’ profits, they pay taxes at the low rate that applies to capital gains, not the higher rate that applies to ordinary income.

Under the new law, the fund managers still get that break, as long as they hold the underlying investment for at least three years. Tax experts say most of the managers who claim the loophole won’t find that to be a problem.

Also lost in the shuffle: Simplicity.

When the House of Representatives started work on the bill, it eliminated many tax deductions, including medical expenses, state taxes and local taxes. Some of those deductions turned out to be popular, and they were revived in the negotiations between the House and Senate. As a result, plenty of middle-class taxpayers will have to figure their taxes under two systems, both with itemized deductions and without.

One final notable absence is a pot of money to finance better roads, bridges and airports.

When the tax debate started, one popular proposal — popular among policy wonks, anyway — was to pay for infrastructure with taxes from repatriated profits.

U.S. companies have trillions of dollars parked overseas, and the tax bill would allow them to bring that money home at a reduced tax rate. The added revenue could reach $298 billion over 10 years, according to Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation.

But the money has already been spent. The bill commits the revenue to pay for its cuts to corporate and individual income taxes. There’s nothing left over for roads and bridges.

The biggest missing items are the unfulfilled populist promises of Trump’s presidential campaign.

“Tax reform will protect low-income and middle-income households, not the wealthy and well-connected,” the president said last spring. “They can call me all they want. It’s not going to help. I’m doing the right thing, and it’s not good for me. Believe me.”

When he came to the White House, Trump and his aides promised that the wealthy wouldn’t get a tax cut. His populist advisor, Stephen K. Bannon, even suggested socking the rich with a tax increase. That didn’t happen.

“The Republican establishment has no interest in Trump’s success on this,” Bannon complained after he left the White House in August. “They’ll do a very standard Republican version of taxes.”

It isn’t easy to make a tax cut unpopular. But Trump and Republican leaders in Congress have managed a feat of negative alchemy: They’ve turned a bill that should have been political gold into lead. Polls have found that fewer than one-third of voters, on average, think this tax bill is a good idea. That’s less popular than Obamacare was when it passed in 2010.

The reason it’s unpopular? Most voters think the bill is so tilted in favor of corporations and the wealthy that there’s nothing left over for them. And they’re right.

America still hasn’t reckoned with the election of a reckless con man as president

Los Angeles Times   Op – Ed

America still hasn’t reckoned with the election of a reckless con man as president

President Trump speaks in Pensacola, Florida on December 8th. (Dan Anderson/EPA-EFE)

Ariel Dorfman     December 17, 2017

I’m tired of hearing about how Russia intervened in the recent U.S. election and tired of the talk about collusion, and I’m especially fed up with the speculation that all this will doom the Trump presidency.

My weariness is not due to a lack of indignation at how a foreign country covertly helped a reckless con man become president. And I would certainly celebrate if the uncovering of crimes forced President Trump to abandon the White House and slink back to his tower. But I fear that the Russia investigations — and the hope that they will save the republic — are turning too many opponents of this administration into passive, victimized spectators of a drama performed by remote actors over which they have no control.

The psychic, intellectual and emotional energy expended on this issue would be better employed, I believe, by addressing a more fundamental concern: What was it, what is it, in our American soul that allowed the Russians to be successful?

Russians voting in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin [didn’t hand] the election to the Republican candidate by a bit more than 80,000 votes.

Those were not Russians voting in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, handing the election to the Republican candidate by a bit more than 80,000 votes. They were American men and women. As were the 62,984,825 others who decided that such a troublesome, inflammatory figure expressed their desires and dreams. Trump could be impeached or resign, or his policies could simply implode under the weight of their malice, divisiveness and mendacity, and the country would still be defined and pressed by the same conditions and dread that enabled his rise. America would still need to engage in a process of national self-scrutiny to fathom how such a nightmare could have been avoided, how it can be prevented from happening again.

Such a process will prove arduous and gut-wrenching. I should know. As a Chilean who is now also an American citizen, I went through a similar grueling quest to comprehend the origins of another political disaster: the 1973 overthrow of the Chilean people’s peaceful revolution and its leader, Salvador Allende. I had to learn that attributing that tragedy to foreign entities did not alleviate or overcome it.

In 1973, a military coup against Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, terminated an extraordinary experiment in social and economic justice. The assault was aided and abetted by the United States. For many years after the coup, I dwelled on Washington’s responsibility for the brutal dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.

And yet, some years after Pinochet’s depradations forced me to flee Chile with my wife and our first son, I stopped automatically alluding to America’s role in my country’s misfortune. I continued to be outraged by the invasion of our sovereignty, which had also occurred in places as diverse as Guatemala, Iran and Indonesia. But I realized that obsessing about what America had done was delaying a more imperative obligation: to minutely, painfully, collectively examine what had gone awry in my own land. How could our attempt to build a nation free of exploitation have paved the way for a tyrannical regime?

It took many years for the self-criticism to bear fruit, but without it the followers of Allende could never have built a coalition with the Christian Democrats, many of whose members were fierce opponents of the revolution’s radical measures. They had at first thoughtlessly welcomed the coup. Our coalition beat Pinochet in a 1988 plebiscite and then voted into office a center-left president two years later. Since then, Chile has organized five more presidential elections. Yet another will take place Sunday, and whatever its outcome, Chileans can be certain that our democracy is robust enough not to be fooled by foreign intelligence agencies.

As an immigrant who has embraced America as his home, I would hope that my compatriots here might be inspired by the way Chile went about healing its wounds. Our confusion and angst forced us to look deep inside our despair, and deeper still into the enigmas and abyss of history in search of a response to the Pinochet tragedy. The fundamental ethical work went beyond politics and intellectual theories to more personal, more intimate, more piercing territory. Chileans had to think ourselves out of our crisis.

Such a process of inquiry and exorcism began in the U.S. soon after the election, with no lack of culprits to blame. And yet so far the multiple, conflicting theories and explanations for Trump’s startling victory have not produced a common national narrative that might unify the opposition and point the way forward.

Now, every desperate American must gaze in the mirror and interrogate the puzzled face and puzzling fate that stares back: What did I do or not do that made the cataclysm possible? Did I ignore past transgressions that corrode today’s society: the discrimination, the sexism, the violence, the authoritarianism, the intolerance, the imperial ambitions, the slavery and greed and persecutions that have darkened America’s story? Did I overestimate the strength of our democracy and underestimate the decency of my neighbors? Was I too fearful, too complacent, too impatient, too angry? Whom did I not talk to, whom did I not persuade? What privilege and comforts, what overwork and debts, kept me from giving my all? What injustice or humiliation or bigoted remark did I witness and let pass? How can I help to recover our country, make it once more recognizable, make it luminous and forgiving?

We must vigorously protest the president’s craven actions, but above all we need to acknowledge that what ultimately matters is not what a foreign power did to America, but what America did to itself. The crucial question of what is wrong with our country, what could have driven us to this edge of catastrophe, cannot be resolved by a special counsel or a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives or spectacular revelations about Russia’s interference.

Our inevitable moment of reckoning should be seen as an opportunity rather than an obstacle. Thomas Paine, that foreigner, that immigrant, that subversive who loved America, said it best in December of 1776, as his adopted homeland’s inaugural revolution was in danger of being defeated: “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

I cannot guess whether we will be spirited enough to find the consolatory answers to our crisis. What I do not doubt, as America cries out for a second and much needed revolution, is that a long night of searching lies ahead of us.

Ariel Dorfman is the author of “Homeland Security Ate My Speech” and the forthcoming novel “Darwin’s Ghosts.” He lives with his wife Angélica in Chile and in Durham, N.C., where he is professor emeritus of literature at Duke University.