Posted on 12/02/2017 1:37:52 AM PST by Kaslin
FINAL UPDATE - The votes are in, and the ayes have it. After a marathon evening of debating and considering amendments, the US Senate has approved the GOP's tax reform bill, which would simplify the tax code and cut taxes for the vast majority of American households, small businesses and corporations. Every Republican voted yes, except for Tennessee's Bob Corker. Democrats uniformly voted no. This is a big legislative victory for the GOP, which overcame a great deal of ferocious opposition -- much of it rooted in misinformation -- to pass the legislation. Up next, a conference committee with the House. But here's your summary for tonight:
FINAL: With Vice President Pence presiding, the US Senate approves a major tax cut & simplification package, 51-49. The bill will now head to a conference committee, where it will be merged with the House-passed bill.— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) December 2, 2017
UPDATE III - It's now looking official: Senate Republicans have the votes to pass tax reform. Arizona's Jeff Flake announced he's jumping on the bandwagon, and the finalized legislation includes a (paid for) amendment sought by Maine's Susan Collins that mirrors the House-passed SALT (state and local tax deduction) compromise. That strongly suggests that she'll be a "yes," too. Add it up, and that's 51, negating the need for Vice President Pence to break a potential tie. Depending on Bob Corker's mood in a few hours, McConnell might even get all 52 GOP votes. But all he really needs is 50-plus-one, and he says he's got 'em:
BREAKING: McConnell walks onto the floor and tells reporters: “We have the votes.”— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) December 1, 2017
ORIGINAL POST - The Republican-held House of Representatives did its part by passing a tax overhaul earlier this month, with zero Democrats supporting the effort. That bill cut taxes and boosted after-tax incomes, on average, across every income group in the country, and is projected by nonpartisan analysts to grow the US economy and create close to one million new full-time jobs. It would also lower the tax burden on job-creating small businesses (key small business advocacy groups have endorsed the Republican push), and make America's extremely high statutory and effective corporate tax rates far more competitive internationally. But we've seen this movie before. With the "resistance" in full demagogic throat, and Democrats bound in lockstep opposition, will the GOP's narrow Senate majority fumble the ball, as they did on Obamacare? We'll know soon enough, and tea leaves are mixed. A vote is expected later today. As we brace what's next, let's first note three developments from yesterday (see update) that may portend a successful outcome (see update II) for Mitch McConnell's conference:
(1) John McCain is a committed "yes." As the Senator who more or less single-handedly killed his party's "repeal and replace" efforts in July, having him clearly on board is a huge boon to Republican leadership. McCain's official statement touted the expected benefits of the bill -- acknowledging concerns about it, but ultimately determining that the legislation's upside was strong enough to secure his support:
After careful consideration, I have decided to support the Senate #TaxReform bill. Though not perfect, this bill will deliver much-needed reform to our tax code, grow the economy & provide long overdue tax relief for American families. https://t.co/BeWZAT0SjM pic.twitter.com/6qwYhmyE5p— John McCain (@SenJohnMcCain) November 30, 2017
He even specifically addressed and endorsed the proposal's provision that would repeal Obamacare's tent pole, the federal individual mandate tax: "I have also argued that health care reform, which is important both to the well-being of our citizens and to the vitality of our economy, should proceed by regular order. This bill does not change that. As a matter of principle, I’ve always supported individual liberty and believe the federal government should not penalize Americans who cannot afford to purchase expensive health insurance. By repealing the individual mandate, this bill would eliminate an onerous tax that especially harms those from low-income brackets. In my home state of Arizona, 80 percent of people who currently pay the individual mandate penalty earn less than $50,000 per year," he wrote.
(2) The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation released its "dynamic scoring" analysis that the Senate bill would add less than $1 trillion to deficits over a decade, as opposed to the on-paper $1.4 trillion figure reached under "static scoring." The reason for this is that JCT anticipates the tax relief package would add nearly one percentage point to GDP growth over the next ten years, resulting in new revenues. Many supporters will argue that JCT underestimates the economic benefits of tax reform, but their report still offers two positive data points:
Jt Tax Cmte forecasts tax bill will increase GDP "by about 0.8 percent on average over the 10- year budget window. That increase in income would increase revenues, relative to the conventional estimate of a loss of $1,414 billion..by $458 billion over that period."— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) November 30, 2017
(3) For what it's worth:
Just spoke w/ Senate leadership source who I'd characterize as hopeful but never quite confident on the "repeal & replace" whip count over the summer. Sounds *much* more confident on tax reform today, despite some issues still being ironed out. #fwiw— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) November 30, 2017
That was the state of play late yesterday afternoon, with my well-placed source telling me McConnell and company were in a "really good place" in terms of corralling the requisite 50-plus-one votes. The source stopped short of guaranteeing passage at the time, but described potential holdouts as playing an active and "constructive" role in shaping the bill throughout the process, carried out through regular order. Susan Collins is said to be in a decent spot, and McConnell's "substitute amendment" (effectively the bill that was formally debated on the floor) was co-sponsored by...Lisa Murkowski. The three squeakiest wheels, I was told, were outgoing Tennessee Senators Bob Corker and Jeff Flake (who want a deficit-related "backstop" to reduce the tax cuts if economic growth falls short of targets), and Wisconsin's Ron Johnson. Johnson been characterized as a "hard no" in the media, but he's a pro-business, low-tax conservative at heart. I'm not so sure he's still in the 'nay' column, considering his evolving posture (this was from Wednesday evening-- and see update below):
We still have work to do, but I have been working with the administration and Senate leadership to make progress toward a better bill. - rj #taxreform— Senator Ron Johnson (@SenRonJohnson) November 29, 2017
The bigger challenges appear to stem from the other two Senators, who emerged at the center of some floor drama last evening, which bubbled to the surface in full view of reporters. (My source quoted above still sounds optimistic, but last evening was a setback). Relevant parties spent the overnight hours seeking to hammer out an accommodation to address Corker and Flake's deficit concerns after the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a proposed "trigger" mechanism compromise did not pass procedural muster under reconciliation rules. Might that eleventh-hour wrinkle cause the upper chamber GOP to once again face-plant? Stay tuned for the yeas and nays, which may again blow up in embarrassing fashion -- or could result in a big policy and political win for Republicans. In the meantime, the Left is shouting as loudly as possible to kill the bill. Some of their biggest claims are false. Equip yourself with the facts, and help educate others. The empirically-supportable truth is that the vast majority of taxpayers stand to benefit from tax reform. Nevertheless, every single Senate Democrat marched along to Chuck Schumer's beat and voted against even debating the proposal, some of whom defended their decision with nonsensical explanations like this:
I voted against the motion to proceed on the Republican #taxreform plan because I haven’t seen a final bill. I’m still trying to work w/ my R colleagues & @realdonaldtrump to find a bipartisan way forward.— Senator Joe Manchin (@Sen_JoeManchin) November 29, 2017
He couldn't vote to advance a debate over how the final bill would look because he...hadn't seen the final bill, or something. Got it. I'll leave you with a parting thought for Mssrs. Corker and Flake:
Think very carefully, Sens Flake & Corker.
If you jointly jeopardize tax reform, it would (a) risk defeating your own long-held policy goal, (b) reek of anti-Trump pettiness, & (c) reinforce idea that GOP should prioritize personal loyalty to Trump in primaries. Lose-lose-lose.— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) December 1, 2017
UPDATE - As I predicted above, Johnson is now a 'yes,' and despite last night's worrisome snag, my sources are telling me that things are again looking good. They stopped short of an airtight guarantee, but both said they expect a successful vote at some point today:
?? Sen. Ron Johnson tells Milwaukee radio WISN 1130 minutes ago he is a "yes" vote https://t.co/b0eJAzNIJL— J.D. Durkin (@jiveDurkey) December 1, 2017
"The question seems to be, how many Republican votes are they going to get? Is it going to be 50, 51, or 52? But, at this point...it would be really shocking if they didn't get to 50 which is what they need." - @guypbenson— America's Newsroom (@AmericaNewsroom) December 1, 2017
This is what I've heard within the last hour, having spoken w/ several plugged-in sources. Sounding like 49 locked-in 'yes' votes, w strong likelihood that at least 1 more comes into the fold. Leadership optimistic about a vote later today. https://t.co/59dtanMrcl— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) December 1, 2017
UPDATE II - It looks like this is happening (or maybe not?):
BREAKING: Second-ranking Senate Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, says GOP has the votes to pass sweeping tax overhaul.— The Associated Press (@AP) December 1, 2017
New: Sen. Bob Corker tells @siobhanehughes the bill will probably pass:
https://t.co/wspkmPMJ0H via @WSJ— Richard Rubin (@RichardRubinDC) December 1, 2017
Big potential problem for GOP leaders: Susan Collins disputes Cornyn’s claim that they have her support for the GOP tax bill. (They see her as their 50th and pivotal vote)
“I can’t imagine why Senator Cornyn is speaking for me,” she told me. “I speak for myself”— Laura Litvan (@LauraLitvan) December 1, 2017
It’s too bad that most people don’t learn very much in school about rates and percentages. This could be a teachable moment if we are careful in our terminology.
“The GOPe could have simply cut taxes for everyone or made the tax cut more fair.”
What do you think is/would be “more fair”? And why?
Mitch Mcconnell thanks you for your obidient service
Meaning these individuals who benefit from state deductions in these states already pay more than a vast majority of us at the federal income tax level. So in essence they are (hate to use this word) subsidizing the rest of us to begin with for simply the sin of making more and choosing where to live.
NY,NJ,CA those three states alone and the people living in them pay a great lions share of federal income taxes to allow the government to operate and the feds to continue increasing spending. Why shouldn’t they be ticked and allowed their deductions at the federal level? Maybe the feds spend more than what they should and have developed the next code language to extract more out of the serfs.....code word: subsidy
Meaning these individuals who benefit from state deductions in these states already pay more than a vast majority of us at the federal income tax level. So in essence they are (hate to use this word) subsidizing the rest of us to begin with for simply the sin of making more and choosing where to live.
NY,NJ,CA those three states alone and the people living in them pay a great lions share of federal income taxes to allow the government to operate and the feds to continue increasing spending. Why shouldn’t they be ticked and allowed their deductions at the federal level? Maybe the feds spend more than what they should and have developed the next code language to extract more out of the serfs.....code word: subsidy
We're a two-income family with a home in coastal SoCal - I think we fit the profile of net losers across the board.
If anyone has any cheat sheets handy, I'd certainly appreciate seeing some detailed numbers on the impact.
After reading a LOT of posts, this is the only real truthful one I found.
I think you must have misunderstood me or we have a very different take on the tax bill. There will be an increase in revenue probably but it won’t come from raising taxes. It will come from a burgeoning economy and business expansion & repatriation.
Very true
On that, I totally agree with you.
Do you get to deduct your county taxes from your state tax bill?
Second very true post.
(The only way to put an end to all this is to eliminate the income tax and go to a Fair tax.)
I’m with you 100% on that one.
Still waiting for an answer to these questions:
Why should Fedzilla pay the state taxes of any state?
Please please explain how this is even remotely conservative?
"Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him."
Often not discussed is the fact that people are not rendering unto God the things that are God's. This is WHY we are having all of this political trouble.
I am pleasantly shocked!
I should be able to be validly saying IBTZ to your comments.
Note to the economic ignorant. Who do you pass on your tax-costs to? No one (except maybe your kids). Who do companies pass on their tax-costs to? Eventually and in part, everyone and everywhere else their revenue could have been spent. Taxes to corporations are costs. Prices are set to cover 100% of costs, else there is no profit. Taxes in essence are passed on entirely in prices. They represent a cost against revenue that could not go to either building the business, buying supplies or paying workers, or anything else. What you pay for what you buy covers the taxes that companies pay, and that price you paid was affected by those taxes.
Somehow you have the misguided very Marxist notion that corporate savings from business tax cuts are all 100% going into the pockets of the company’s officers. It’s pure ignorance.
Not an answer. If you aren’t going to answer my question, please don’t respond.
No sense wasting time trying to discuss this issue if you aren’t going to answer my questions I asked 1st.
Why should Fedzilla pay the state taxes of any state?
Please please explain how this is even remotely conservative?
(You do realize this deduction is because those states you are trashing are already paying more than you and I at the federal level anyway right? They aren’t subsidizing crap! )
Stop the SALT and we’ll see if your right. Watch the net income of people in those states drop due to paying their own taxes instead of putting that burden on the rest of us and it’s a game changer. I’m getting closer and closer to 70 and I tire of supporting others who’ve made bad decisions in their lives. Don’t like paying state taxes then get out of that state. End of story!
Agree with your post. Not happy All that much, but as a pragmatist , I’ll take what I can get. And I just lost my abilility to write off my high California taxes on my fed returns. Whatever. That’s my state’s fault, not the feds. I’ll take this. It is worth the corporate income tax relief, which will funnel down to all of us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.