Quote:
Originally Posted by Muy Largo
There are provisions in this measure that provide ill-advised advantages to certain specific corporate interests. There are provisions in this measure that are political and philosophical in nature. The lack of transparency is concerning.
|
So exactly what are those provisions you are objecting to? And how did you learn about them if there has been no transparency?
Your libtard talking points are self-contradicting. Just like assup's!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muy Largo
The partisanship is concerning.
|
I agree! And this explains why...
When Democrats Backed Tax Cuts
In 2001, Bush won support from a dozen of them in the Senate and 28 in the House.
By Kimberley A. Strassel
Nov. 30, 2017 7:07 p.m. ET
Democrats have a lot to say about the Republican tax-reform plan, including that it is a “middle class con job” and is going to cost the GOP its congressional majorities. That’s quite the bold claim, coming from the party that is in fact in uncharted tax-politics territory.
Americans have short political memories, which means
it is no longer possible to remember a world in which Democrats didn’t hate tax cuts. And in the mainstream media - which shares the left’s penchant for class warfare -it’s also no longer possible to read an analysis that doesn’t assume Democrats are on the right side of history, that these tax cuts are “unpopular,” and that this reform holds grave political risks for Republicans.
Based on what? Democrats certainly have no modern evidence of these propositions, since they’ve never uniformly opposed tax cuts. In fact, it’s been 16 years since the party even engaged in a big tax brawl, during George W. Bush’s first year as president.
What’s striking is just how many Democrats enthusiastically signed on to Mr. Bush’s tax bill, and just how far off the political rails the party has gone in the intervening years.
While the Bush tax package was hardly as sweeping as today’s reform, it contained similar provisions. It cut marginal rates across the board, even knocking nearly 5 points off the top marginal rate for the 1%. It cut capital-gains taxes and lowered the estate tax to zero in 2010, before the reductions expired. These are all cuts that House and Senate Democrats today uniformly decry as giveaways to the rich and powerful.
Yet back then, nobody doubted some Democrats would support the legislation. Republicans barely commanded a Senate majority, with just 50 Senate votes, yet the tax-cut train rolled unswervingly on. Ultimately,
12 Senate Democrats voted yes. Some of these were moderate Democrats, a species that is now all but extinct— John Breaux of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Tim Johnson of South Dakota. But the ayes also included Dianne Feinstein from California and Bob Torricelli from New Jersey.
Also notable were the
two Senate Democrats who voted “present” and the five who skipped the vote - presumably not wanting to upset their progressive base but equally fearing retribution from nonideological tax-cut-loving Americans.
In the end, only 31 Senate Democrats voted against the cuts. In the House, 28 Democrats supported the bill, from states that included New York, California, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington.
Twenty-nine House Democrats didn’t vote.
Some in the press are making the laughable argument that these “yes” votes were responsible for the 2002 Senate defeats of Georgia’s Max Cleland and Missouri’s Jean Carnahan. In reality, those races hinged on Mr. Cleland’s national-security views and Mrs. Carnahan’s inexperience. The more illustrative cases are Ms. Landrieu and Mr. Johnson, Democrats who used their tax-cut votes to hold their seats narrowly in what was otherwise a rocking year for Republicans. To the extent their votes were used against them, it was only by other Democrats who tried purging the party of moderates.
Polls show that significant majorities of Americans love the idea of tax reform in general. These are more reliable indicators of public sentiment than the recent spate of media polls that show opposition to these specific Republican plans - and that reflect a lot of bogus analysis and scare tactics. What will matter to Republicans is the money Americans will ultimately find in their pockets, and the boost tax reform will give the economy and wages and jobs. Nor should they underestimate the delight many voters will experience from a vastly simplified tax process.
In short, there is very little to suggest Democrats benefit politically from sitting out this tax debate - beyond their saying so. And they’ve certainly done themselves no favors from a policy perspective.
Had they been willing to negotiate, they likely could have spared their high-tax states the new limits that are coming on state and local tax deductions. They might have limited cuts to, or bracket expansions of, the top personal rate - given that President Trump is himself squishy on that issue. They might have increased the tax penalty on companies that are repatriating money from overseas. They might have killed a provision that will finally allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - included to court the vote of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
Instead, they’ve got bupkus.
It’s no surprise, then, that Democrats are working so hard to recast the tax narrative in their favor. Republican fortunes aside, the question is whether a modern, progressive Democratic Party just committed an epic policy and political blunder - one they’ll have to live with for a decade.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-de...uts-1512086850
