Monthly Archives: January 2020

The Democratic Partys informational ecosystem combines mainstream sources that seek objectivity, liberal sources that push partiality and even some center-right sources with excellent reputations. On any given question, liberals trust in sources that pull them left and sources that pull them toward the center, in sources oriented toward escalation and sources oriented toward moderation, in sources that root their identity in a political movement and in sources that carefully tend a reputation for being antagonistic toward political movements.

There is no similar diversity in the Republican Partys trusted informational ecosystem, which is heavily built around self-consciously conservative news sources. There should be a check on this sort of epistemic closure. A party that narrows the sources it listens to is also narrowing the voters it can speak to. And political parties ultimately want to win elections. Lose enough of them, enough times, and even the most stubborn ideologues will accept reform. Democracy, in other words, should discipline parties that close their informational ecosystems. But America isnt a democracy.

Republicans control the White House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and a majority of governorships. Only the House is under Democratic control. And yet Democrats havent just won more votes in the House elections. They won more votes over the last three Senate elections, too. They won more votes in both the 2016 and 2000 presidential elections. But Americas political system counts states and districts rather than people, and the G.O.P.s more rural coalition has a geographic advantage that offsets its popular disadvantage.

To win power, Democrats dont just need to appeal to the voter in the middle. They need to appeal to voters to the right of the middle. When Democrats compete for the Senate, they are forced to appeal to an electorate that is far more conservative than the country as a whole. Similarly, gerrymandering and geography means that Democrats need to win a substantial majority in the House popular vote to take the gavel. And a recent study by Michael Geruso, Dean Spears and Ishaana Talesara calculates that the Republican Partys Electoral College advantage means Republicans should be expected to win 65 percent of presidential contests in which they narrowly lose the popular vote.

The Republican Party, by contrast, can run campaigns aimed at a voter well to the right of the median American. Republicans have lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections. If theyd also lost six of the last seven presidential elections, they most likely would have overhauled their message and agenda. If Trump had lost in 2016, he and the political style he represents would have been discredited for blowing a winnable election. The Republican moderates whod counseled more outreach to black and Hispanic voters would have been strengthened.

Instead, Republicans are trapped in a dangerous place: They represent a shrinking constituency that holds vast political power. That has injected an almost manic urgency into their strategy. Behind the partys tactical extremism lurks an apocalyptic sense of political stakes. This was popularized in the infamous Flight 93 Election essay arguing that conservatives needed to embrace Trump, because if he failed, death is certain. You could hear its echoes in Attorney General William P. Barrs recent speech, in which he argued that the force, fervor and comprehensiveness of the assault on religion poses a threat unlike any America has faced in the past. This is not decay, he warned, it is organized destruction.

This is why one of the few real hopes for depolarizing American politics is democratization. If Republicans couldnt fall back on the distortions of the Electoral College, the geography of the United States Senate and the gerrymandering of House seats if they had, in other words, to win over a majority of Americans they would become a more moderate and diverse party. This is not a hypothetical: The countrys most popular governors are Charlie Baker in Massachusetts and Larry Hogan in Maryland. Both are Republicans governing, with majority support, in blue states.

See original here:

Why Democrats Still Have to Appeal to the Center, but Republicans Dont - The New York Times

Remember when Jimmy Carter published a whiny, self-serving book about his political downfall called What Happened? Remember when Mike Dukakis pushed filmmakers to do a four-hour fan documentary about himself? Remember when George H.W. Bush mocked Bill Clinton at the Grammys? Yeah, me neither.

Previous losing presidential candidates had the dignity to back off and bow out of politics. Yet here is Hillary Rodham Clinton, the recurrent canker sore on Americas butt, which is politics. This week she again tried to reintroduce herself to us all as anything but what she is, which is a sore loser. Her attempts to scramble back into the political spotlight after the American people booed her off the stage have been so pathetic that she resorted to calling Army major and Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset a loony insult that this week got Clinton socked with a lawsuit for defamation.

How funny would it be if Hillary were forced to transfer a chunk of her filthy fortune to Tulsi?

This week, to promote the upcoming four-hour Sundance/Hulu documentary Hillary, a project launched by Hillary herself, Clinton gave an interview to The Hollywood Reporter in which she turned on one of her partys two front-runners for the presidential race, proving yet again that God sent Hillary Rodham Clinton to earth as a beautiful gift to the Republican Party.

What could be more delightful than to hear Rotten Rodham pelt Bernie Sanders with her sour grapes?

He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done, Clinton said in the film, sticking by the remarks in the interview.

He was a career politician. Its all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.

Career politician? Sanders drives a 2010 Chevy subcompact. The car he drove in the 1980s, when he was mayor of Burlington, was so pathetic it was once nearly ticketed by a meter maid who, when she saw it parked in the space reserved for the mayor, couldnt believe any mayor would ever drive such a thing.

Hillary Clinton is far worse than a career politician shes a kleptocrat who got rich selling access to herself to lobbyists and foreigners. Bernie may be barmy but he is not for sale and he never made any money to speak of until his book Our Revolution became a hit in 2016.

As for the nobody likes him, honey, thats like your husband calling Mitt Romney a skirt chaser.

In the interview Hillary wouldnt even commit to backing Bernie in the general election, should he be the Democrats pick.

What the fudge, Madam Pantsuit? Havent you been saying President Trump is a dire threat to democracy?

Yet when asked whether shed support Sanders over Trump, she said, Im not going to go there yet. Were still in a very vigorous primary season, then hinted that she might withhold her endorsement because of the Bernie Bros.

Some of Bernies Twitter trolls are such a nuisance that shes not sure she can endorse Sanders over Trump?

If there is any doubt whatsoever in her mind about whether to back Sanders after he becomes the nominee, this reduces to rubble any future statements she may make that Trump is uniquely unfit or uniquely dangerous for office. Her petty feud with Team Sanders makes it clear that her differences with Trump are equally petty, and derived from the same source: her embarrassment about how badly she did against these two long-shot outsiders.

So keep talking, Hillary.

Youre the Republican Partys most valuable spokesperson.

Kyle Smith is critic-at-large at National Review

Read more here:

Why Hillary Clinton is the world's greatest gift to Republicans - New York Post

For all his cognitive deficits, blistering ignorance, and unsubtle grifting, Donald Trump excels in one area: spectacle. No Democrat on the political scene can rival him in the creation of monstrous shitshows, cringetastrophies, and dear-God-is-it-time-for-Dad-to-go-to-managed-care moments of pure Gantryesque spectacle.

All of the cultural divides, political tribalism, and ideologically segregated media silos that made Trumpism possible are now converging in a fast-approaching singular moment of political danger for this nation, when a handful of senators will be required to make the most fateful decision of their lives.

They will almost certainly fail that test, and the nationthe rigged rules that Mitch McConnell introduced Monday eliminated any remaining doubt about that. Yet Democrats, as they so often do, believe this trial against Trump will be waged and won on facts, reason, honor, and the power of institutions to hold the line against corruption, criminality, and chaos.

But Republicans are planning a show, not a trial. The sooner Democrats start realizing this, the better off theyll be.

Trumps legal team, including not one but two of Jeffrey Epsteins defenders, wasnt selected on the basis of academic prowess, knowledge, or experience, but notoriety and willingness to work for this unapologetic criminal. Its biggest names are representing Trump not in spite of but because of the fact that they are flashy media characters.

The Democrats will need to show not only expertise on the subject matter at hand, but some passion and fire in the course of this. Theyll need to bring more energy and direction to the floor of the Senate. Trump and McConnell arent hiding their cards: Rules are for suckers; dignity is for marks; and this is a bar fight, not a debating society.

Republican senators are following the Donalds and the Turtles lead, treating the impeachment proceedings not as the forum for answers and accountability that Americans are after, but as a stunt. Martha McSally, who seems determined to go down in flames in purple Arizona, gave away the game when she tried to convert her entirely affected burst of snippy temper at CNNs Manu Raju into a fundraising blitz. Ted Cruz, looking for all the world like the cumulative result of cascading replication errors from cloning Wolverine too many times, is putting out drama-queen performative fan club videos for Trump. Why not burn down the Republic in defense of Trump and make some sweet email-marketing bank off it?

Democrats should stop falling for the stupid bluff, and the calls to put Hunter Biden and Adam Schiff on the stand. The White House and McConnell really dont want to open the door to witnesses, and this is a see-through intimidation tactic and attempt to shift the trials focus away from, you know, the president whos been impeached for his conduct.

Republicans are seeking a circus, not solemnity, to provide base-motivating outrage fuel for the Trump campaign and Fox News. (But I repeat myself.)

As things kick off next week, expect a lot of hair-pulling, foot-stomping, outraged why-I-declare moments from the usual suspects who combine adoration of Trump with addiction to the cameras. Expect all the furrowed brows, worry, and woulda-coulda from the Squishy Six in the Senate. Expect McConnell to rule with an iron fist and race this thing in for a hard landing. Just dont expect the facts of the case to matter in the trial itself.

Democrats, you cannot shame the Senate Republicans. There are no questions that will lead them to the truth, because the absolute, corrosive corruption of Trumpdemands that they humiliate themselves with paper-thin defenses of Trumps lies and abuses of power. The Washington media model of asking questions with the presumption that theyre going to be answered in good faith has been pushed to the breaking point by the Trump era.

Sure, theyre scared of Trump out of the usual FOMT (Fear of Mean Tweets), but theyre absolutely terrified of Mitch McConnell, keeper of the National Republican Senatorial Committee purse, and a right bastard if crossed by members of his own caucus.

No amount of editorial pressure from hometown papers will move them one inch.Letters to their offices will be shredded. Emails will be ignored. Unless their constituents are in their offices, and in their faces in huge numbers, they intendto simply wait until Mitch blows the final bugle and puts the impeachment proceedings into the ground.

The only chance to bring around even the Susan Collinses of the GOP is to increase the pain, raise the ad volume to ear-splitting and bombard their districts with shock-and-awe-level media firepower. You cant shame them, but you can scare them.

Theres just one thing that scares them, and McConnell: money.

Its too bad Mike Bloomberg and Tom Steyer are burning mountains of it on bonfires of their own vanity because the one thing that McConnell and the GOP Senate caucus do understand is television, cable, and digital ad buys hammering them, hard, over protecting Donald Trumps corrupt criminal enterprise.

Some outside groups are in the game (Im a co-founder of the Lincoln Project, one of the groups active in this fight), but until the ads are so hot and heavy that GOP senators want to kick in the screen and enter Witness Protection, McConnell will hold them firmly in check for Trumps benefit.

The purpose of hitting these Republicans with paid media, grassroots contact, and other pressure isnt only to change their votes on the impeachment questions of witnesses, testimony, and other evidence.

Its also because the safest bet in Washington is that when theres one layer of a Trump scandal, theres more. Facts about the Ukraine deal will come out, drip drip drip, for the rest of this election year and beyond. Thats been the entire history of this administration. Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, Thom Tillis, Martha McSally, and the rest are making a terrible, stupid bet if they think that once they acquit Trump in the Senate, the story is over.

In Trumpworld, it never gets better. It never produces exoneration, only more evidence of guilt. The only easy day was yesterday.There will always be another story, another scandal, another member of the weird group of Trump clingers and hangers-on involved in grand and petit scams, lawbreaking, and scumbaggery.

Its happening even as I write this, with the explosive Parnas information. None of the new revelations will appear on the floor of the Senate if Mitch McConnell chokes them out, but those revelations will become fodder for a hundred attack ads against Trumps cronies.

They may let Trump skate, but theyll take the hit for covering up his guilt and joining his ongoing criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice. He wont give half a damn about any of them.

Why Democrats and outside interest groups aligned with them cant internalize this simple strategy is beyond me. Every single one of Trumps lackeys up for re-election in 2020 needs to come homeunder continuous and withering media assault across all channels.

The Trump Suicide Squad in the Senate is ready to cripple itself to keep him standing. Whats at stake in this impeachment isnt simply the fate of Donald Trump. Their overtly political decision to wreck the impeachment process will permanently alter the balance of governmental power.

The GOP has for too long been too eager to put too much power in the hands of the president, but AG Bill Barr and Trumps tiny-handed grab at executive power is so expansive, so dangerous, and so eminent that when this is over, Congress will be reduced to a talking-shop with no true law-making function and barely any budget authority. After all, the GOP has already laughed off the GAO report that explicitly outlines the illegal nature of the Trump administrations withholding of aid to Ukraine. Democrats havent used their power to enforce oversight and accountability by letting the White House middle-finger them every day.

House Democrats arent helping here either. Theyve let Trump cover up the crimes of his hoods, thugs, and cronies by successfully cockblocking testimony, document production, and cooperation by stonewalling the House of Representatives, with absolutely zero legal consequences.

We are well past the point where the Constitution or the rule of law matter to Republicans. They know they are close to a victory that will exonerate a guilty man, and they give zero fucks in that regard.

But they will. History doesnt just operate with a kind of karmic justice, but also with a kind of profound ironic sensibility. Defending Donald Trumps corruption and criminality will lead the GOP to a place in history as footnotes, as patsies, as stooges laughably committed to a man who they damn well knew was guilty. No one remembers the defenders of Nixon, or Grant, or any other corrupt leader as anything but petty henches.

Trump may avoid the judgment he deserves, but the senators will not.

Ive taught this lesson a hundred times, but its going to take more, apparently, for it to sink in.Nixons Republican defenders were blown out in 1974. Why? They defended what the public rightly saw as corruption. In 1994, a Democratic speaker of the House lost his seat and his majority when it was clear he was a party to ascandal with the House Bank and House Post Office. Corruption kills, and it kills its defenders as thoroughly as the ones engaged in it.

Watergate was small-ball compared to whats happening in Washington right now. Bill Clintons impeachment was a footnote compared to the roaring bonfire of abuse of power, corruption, criminality, and chaos caused by this president.

The GOP will be judged harshly by history because they know better. Republican senators, despite the pressure from Trump and McConnell, know exactly who Trump is. They know what Trump is. They know hes a con man, a criminal, a character of the weakest and loosest moral fiber. They know hes a faithless, feckless, foolish man driven by ego, spite, and avarice.

Their campaigns will be miserably harder because theyre willing stooges, but thats just the start.

The conceits that GOP senators hold in their minds are astonishing.First, if they believe that Trump voters will thank them in some way, theyre not paying attention.Trump voters hate everyone except Trump. No points for being a bootlick, especially if the senator evereversaid a cross word about Trump; just ask former golden boy Matt Gaetz.

Republicans may well win this stacked trial in the Senate, but they have done themselves in.

Being thrown out of office stings, but becoming a punchline in political history, a footnote, a joke at best, is the deepest cut. Being held up in American object lessons in cowardice, failure, and disgrace is whats coming.

They swore an oath on the floor of the Senate on Thursday that they intended to break from the very beginning.

They knew the moment they stepped before the clerk and signed that they were already compromised, already done, already preparing your betrayal. As they race to exonerate a guilty president, besmirch the character of the Senate, and shame themselves as leaders, perhaps they can find some small consolation in knowing that the ratings of this reality show will be historic.

Visit link:

Republican Senators May Save Trump, but Trump has Already F*cked Them - The Daily Beast

When the price of Apple stock hit a then-record high in October 2018, among the shareholders counting their gains were 43 Republicans in Congress, who collectively owned as much as $1.5 million worth of the tech giants shares.

Apples stock jumped 37 percent in its runup to that record. Several variables were behind the climb, including higher-than-expected earnings. But congressional Republicans themselves had a hand in the spike, stock analysts say. Legislation they championed the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act doled out nearly $150 billion in corporate tax savings in 2018 alone. One effect: a big boost in stock prices.

Cutting tax rates for companies like Apple and hundreds of other stocks they own was one of many ways Republican lawmakers enriched themselves after they passed the tax law, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of the 186-page law and members financial disclosure forms. Democrats also stood to gain from the tax bill, though not one voted for it; all but 12 Republicans voted for the tax bill.

As part of the bill, Republicans approved tax breaks in 2017 for seven classes of assets many of the wealthier members of Congress held at the time, including partnerships, small corporations, real estate, and several esoteric investment vehicles. While they sold the bill as a package of business and middle-class tax cuts that would not help the wealthy, the cuts likely saved members of Congress hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes collectively, while the corporate tax cut hiked the value of their holdings.

It feels to me like a kleptocracy, said Jeff Hauser, director of the Revolving Door Project at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, DC.

Such congressional self-enrichment has been thrust into the 2020 presidential campaign. Democratic candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren has said her first priority as president would be to pass an anti-corruption package that, among other things, would forbid members of Congress from owning individual stocks, bonds, and other securities so they could not benefit from tax or financial laws they passed.

Under current law, members of Congress can trade stocks and then use their powerful positions to increase the value of those stocks and pad their own pockets, Warren wrote in a September Medium post.

Two years after the passage of the Trump tax act, its effects some obvious, some hidden are coming into focus. One is its cost: Contrary to Republican claims, the law is not paying for itself and is likely to burden the nation with an additional $1.9 trillion in debt over 11 years beginning in 2018, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

And while the law cut tax rates for people of all income brackets, some of its tax benefits overtly favored the wealthy, such as the 2.6 percentage point tax rate cut in the highest bracket and the doubling of the estate tax exemption to $11.2 million. Other provisions were subtler yet favored the wealthy even more: tax breaks for their investments, for instance, or changes that boosted the value of their stocks. Among the rich beneficiaries are members of Congress, more than half of whom were found to be millionaires in 2014.

The tax laws centerpiece is its record cut in the corporate tax rate, from 35 percent to 21 percent. At the time of its passage, most of the bills Republican supporters said the cut would result in higher wages, factory expansions, and more jobs. Instead, it was mainly exploited by corporations, which bought back stock and raised dividends. In 2018, stock buybacks exceeded $1 trillion for the first time ever, according to TrimTabs, an investment research firm. Net corporate dividends reached a new high in 2018 of more than $1.3 trillion, nearly 6 percent more than the previous year. The result, analysts say: The buybacks boosted stock prices, and bigger dividends put even more money in the pockets of stockholders.

Promises that the tax act would boost investment have not panned out. Corporate investment is now at lower levels than before the act passed, according to the Commerce Department. Though employment and wages have increased, it is hard to separate the effect of the tax act from general economic improvements since the 2008 recession.

The boost in stock prices, however, was predictable. As the bill was reaching its final stages in 2017, Bryan Rich, the CEO of Logic Fund Management, a wealth advisory company, wrote that the proposed corporate rate cut will go right to the bottom line of companies popping EPS [earnings per share] and driving stocks even higher.

Those benefits mainly went to the rich, as the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans own 84 percent of all stocks. The 10 richest Republicans in Congress in 2017 who voted for the tax bill held more than $731 million in assets, almost two-thirds of which were in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other instruments, according to Roll Calls semiannual assessment of Congresss wealth.

The precise amount of Republicans windfall cant be determined without a review of the members tax returns, which they are not required to disclose.

All but one of the 47 Republicans who sat on the three key committees overseeing the drafting of the tax bill own stocks and stock mutual funds, according to Public Integritys analysis. Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) was among them. A member of the Ways and Means Committee, which oversaw the writing of the tax bill in the House, Kelly reported in 2018 that his spouse owned 101 individual stocks, Apple included, with a minimum total value of $439,000.

When he voted for the 2017 tax cuts, which will be funded by nearly $2 trillion in added debt, Kelly called it the most important vote Ive ever cast. Yet 19 months later, he voted against a two-year budget agreement that added to the national debt by hiking government spending for defense and nondefense programs by $320 billion. Kelly warned that America is driving toward a fiscal cliff.

Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was chair of the Senate Finance Committee in 2017, when he and his wife owned mutual funds and a limited liability corporation valued between $562,000 and $1.430 million, paying them between $12,700 and $38,500 in dividends and capital gains, according to Hatchs financial disclosure forms. They also owned a blind trust worth between $1 million and $5 million. (Congressional financial disclosure forms do not require members to report the precise value of assets and income but rather in 11 different ranges, each with a minimum and a maximum value.)

For decades, Hatch, who retired in 2018, had been one of the loudest deficit hawks in Congress. Just 10 months before he would shepherd the tax bill through his committee, Hatch said, The national debt crisis poses a significant and growing threat to the economic and national security of this country.

His concern over national security lasted two months. In April, Hatch signaled he was open to a Republican tax bill that would likely add to the national debt. When Republicans passed the tax bill in December 2017, he beamed. This is a historic night, he said at a press conference.

(The Center for Public Integrity sought comment from 13 current or former members of Congress mentioned in this article; only two responded.)

Republican lawmakers also boosted the value of their stock holdings when they encouraged American corporations to repatriate money they were holding overseas. The tax law decreed that future foreign profits would not be taxed at high rates, and that previously earned profits stashed abroad an estimated $2.7 trillion would be taxed one time at no more than 15.5 percent.

In 2017, Apple was sitting on $250 billion in overseas profits. In January 2018, the month after President Donald Trump signed the tax bill into law, the tech behemoth and third-largest American company said it would pay the new, lower tax and start bringing the cash home. Just four months later, Apple said it would buy back $100 billion of its stock and hike its dividend by 16 percent. Apple shares increased almost 9 percent by the weeks end. In April 2019, Apple announced $75 billion more in buybacks, a move analysts said would likely drive its stock price higher. A day after the announcement, shares increased in value nearly 5 percent. The stock continued to hit record highs late last year.

That increase and higher dividends augmented the holdings of 43 Republicans who voted for the tax bill, including seven senators and their spouses who owned Apple stock in 2018: John Hoeven of North Dakota; David Perdue of Georgia; Arizonas Jeff Flake, now retired; Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma; and the spouses of Pat Roberts of Kansas, Maines Susan Collins, and Shelley Capito of West Virginia. A spokesperson for Hoeven said that he follows Senate regulations and reporting requirements. Sen. Collinss husbands portfolio decisions are all made by a financial adviser, a Collins spokesperson said, and he has not bought or sold Apple stock since 2015.

Perdue is one of the wealthiest senators, with a net worth of $15.8 million, $14 million of which is in stocks, according to Roll Call. In 2018, with his wife, Perdue owned $100,000 to $250,000 in Apple stock, he reported. The couple sold some of it and received annual dividends and capital gains that year between $15,000 and $50,000.

The optics that the tax cuts would boost the prices of stock he owned apparently didnt concern Perdue. Weeks before Republicans passed the tax bill, Fox News host Maria Bartiromo asked Perdue if he was worried that the corporate cuts would result in buybacks and increased dividends instead of new jobs. Well, Maria, he answered, I come from the school that, you know, all of the above is acceptable. This is capitalism. He later added that it was all about capital flow, whether for jobs, economic growth, or dividends.

Passing a law that helped fuel increases in stock prices wasnt the only way Republicans enriched themselves. The new law also contained a 20 percent deduction for income from so-called pass-through businesses, a provision called the crown jewel of the act by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, a lobbying group.

Pass-throughs are single-owner businesses, partnerships, limited liability companies, (known as LLCs) and special corporations called S-corps. Most real estate companies are organized as LLCs. Trump owns hundreds of them, and the Center for Public Integritys analysis found that 22 of the 47 members of the House and Senate tax-writing committees in 2017 were invested in them.

Pass-throughs can be found in any industry. They pay no corporate taxes and steer their profits as income to business owners or investors, who are taxed only once at their individual rates. Despite their favored treatment as a business vehicle, the 2017 tax act did them another favor: It allowed 20 percent to be deducted off the top of the pass-through income for tax purposes.

In the Senate, the champion for the pass-through break was Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican who was a Budget Committee member when the tax bill was being written. He argued that because the bill was slated to give big corporations a 14 percent cut in their tax rate, smaller businesses should get a break, too. I just have in my heart a real affinity for these owner-operated pass-throughs, he told the New York Times when the Senate was considering the tax bill in November 2017.

No doubt Johnson, with his wife, held interests that year in four real estate or manufacturing LLCs worth between $6.2 million and $30.5 million, from which they received income that year between $250,000 and $2.1 million, according to his financial disclosure form.

How much money lawmakers will pocket from the 20 percent pass-through deduction cant be determined without an examination of their tax returns. There are limits on how much of the deduction can be taken based on total income and business category. But in some cases, the tax savings could run into the tens of thousands of dollars. Johnson declined to comment for this article.

And while the provision did help small businesses in certain favored categories, the benefits of the pass-through deduction are heavily tilted toward the wealthy. Sixty-one percent of the benefits of this provision will go to the top 1 percent of taxpayers in 2024, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the congressional agency that analyzes tax bills.

Besides the laws benefits to real estate pass-throughs, real estate in general was hugely favored by the tax law, allowing property exchanges to avoid taxation, the deduction of new capital expenses in just one year versus longer depreciation schedules, and an exemption from limits on interest deductions.

If you are a real estate developer, you never pay tax, said Ed Kleinbard, a former head of Congresss Joint Committee on Taxation.

Members of Congress own a lot of real estate. Public Integritys review of financial disclosures found that 29 of the 47 GOP members of the committees responsible for the tax bill hold interests in real estate, including small rental businesses, LLCs, and massive real estate investment trusts (REITs), which pay dividends to investors. The tax bill allows REIT investors to deduct 20 percent from their dividends for tax purposes.

Real estate pass-throughs got an especially sweet gift in the form of a provision inserted into the tax bill behind the closed doors of the House-Senate conference committee. The Senate bill under consideration based a companys pass-through deductions on the total amount of wages paid to employees. Because real-estate pass-through companies typically have few employees, however, this meant they could offer only tiny deductions to investors.

A stroke of the pen fixed that: Someone changed the law to allow real estate companies to use the value of their assets in addition to the size of their payrolls to calculate pass-through benefits. Because such companies can hold sizable assets, suddenly they, too, could offer the full 20 percent deduction to investors.

In my judgment, it was a big giveaway to the real estate community, and they are very good lobbyists, said Steve Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington, DC. That giveaway contributed to last years record $1.02 trillion federal revenue shortfall.

One Republican senator who benefited from the last-minute provision was Tennessees Bob Corker, who at the time owned or was a partner in 18 real estate businesses, LLCs, and partnerships, records show. His reported income from them was between $2.1 million and $11.1 million in 2017. Corker, who retired in 2018, told Public Integrity he had nothing to do with the provision or the 20 percent pass-through deduction. It was all Ron Johnsons idea, Corker said.

The budget deficit is going up so that people like Ron Johnson and Bob Corker can pay less in taxes, said Hauser, of the Revolving Door Project.

Republicans wouldnt have had many of these apparent conflicts if Elizabeth Warrens anti-corruption plan had been in effect.

Much of the plan was pulled from her Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act, which she introduced in the Senate in 2018. Among its provisions, the bill would forbid lawmakers to own or trade individual stocks, bonds, commodities, hedge funds, derivatives, or complex investment vehicles. Members would be required to put their assets in widely held investment vehicles such as mutual funds. Warren and her husband were invested in 20 mutual funds in 2017, but no individual stocks.

Members could no longer own commercial real estate, though they could keep businesses with revenue under $5 million which could include a lot of pass-throughs. Warrens bill hasnt moved out of the Senate Finance Committee; an identical bill in the House also remains idle.

Warrens plan faces an uphill climb, even among Democrats. Its very difficult to get congresspeople to pass rules that make life exceedingly difficult for themselves, said Beth Rotman, the money in politics and ethics director at Common Cause, a government watchdog in Washington, DC.

But its happened in the past. In 1978, Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act in the wake of the Watergate scandal. It requires certain government officials, including members of Congress, to file annual financial forms records the Center for Public Integrity used for this analysis. And in 2012, Congress passed a bill that made it unlawful to use insider information to trade stocks, required members to report stock trades within 45 days of the transaction, and required lawmakers to file disclosure forms online in a searchable, sortable, and downloadable database so conflicts of interest would be easy to detect. (Within a year, Congress had removed the searchable and sortable language from the law. The financial disclosures are now available online, but they are not easily searched or sorted.)

Apparently just because of disclosure, stock trading by senators dropped by about two-thirds in the three years following the laws enactment, according to a study by Craig Holman at the government watchdog group Public Citizen. But Holman said he found that some senators continued to trade in stocks in the very businesses they oversaw in their committees a practice Public Citizen wants banned.

Ironically, it was Congress that passed laws that restrict other federal government officials from owning stocks or assets that would benefit from the officials decisions or require them to recuse themselves from such decisions. Yet Congress has not passed legislation that bans itself from the same practice. Congress should have the same rules put on them that the executive branch has, said Rotman of Common Cause. The executive branch conflict of interest rules are stronger.

For the 2017 tax act, Holman of Public Citizen notes that about six years ago, researchers found that more than half of the members of Congress were millionaires. They are passing tax laws and legislation that disproportionately favors the wealthy class, Holman said. And that means they personally benefit from this type of legislation.

And, from what weve seen, especially from the tax cuts and jobs act of 2017, he added, that tax bill clearly favored the very wealthy over the rest of Americans. And that means it favored Congress over the rest of America.

Peter Cary is a consulting reporter for the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative news organization in Washington, DC.

View original post here:

How Republicans made millions on the 2017 tax cuts they pushed through Congress - Vox.com

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is targeting 11 House Republicans over remarks President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump says his advice to impeachment defense team is 'just be honest' Trump expands tariffs on steel and aluminum imports CNN's Axelrod says impeachment didn't come up until 80 minutes into focus group MORE made at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this week that suggested he could consider budget cuts to entitlements.

The ads target 11 districts where Democrats think they have a chance of picking up seats in this year's elections. One is held by Rep. Jeff Van DrewJeff Van DrewOn The Money Presented by Wells Fargo Social Security emerges as flash point in Biden-Sanders fight | Dems urge Supreme Court to save consumer agency | Trump to sign USMCA next week NJ Rep. Van Drew said he wouldn't vote for Trump weeks before switching parties: report DCCC to run ads tying 11 House Republicans to Trump remarks on entitlements MORE (R-N.J.), a former Democrat who switched parties last month over Trump's impeachment.

The six-second videos, which feature no audio, appear with the caption, Trumps turning his back on seniors. Will Washington Republicans follow his lead?

At Davos, Trump in response to a question about whether entitlements could ever be considered for cuts said he was willing to take a look at them.

We have tremendous growth. Were going to have tremendous growth. This next year I itll be toward the end of the year. The growth is going to be incredible. And at the right time, we will take a look at that, he said.

We're going to look, he added when asked specifically about if he would explore the option of cutting Medicare.

On Thursday, Trump appeared to try to walk back those remarks, tweeting that he would save Social Security, another entitlement that came under question given his remarks in Davos.

The DCCC ads, which will be featured on Facebook, target Van Drew and fellow GOP Reps. Brian FitzpatrickBrian K. FitzpatrickDCCC to run ads tying 11 House Republicans to Trump remarks on entitlements House revives agenda after impeachment storm Former Pennsylvania Rep. Fitzpatrick dead at 56 MORE (Pa.), Scott PerryScott Gordon PerryDCCC to run ads tying 11 House Republicans to Trump remarks on entitlements Koch network could target almost 200 races in 2020, official says Overnight Health Care: New drug price hikes set stage for 2020 fight | Conservative group to spend M attacking Pelosi drug plan | Study finds Medicaid expansion improved health in Southern states MORE (Pa.), Ann WagnerAnn Louise WagnerDCCC to run ads tying 11 House Republicans to Trump remarks on entitlements GOP can beat Democrats after impeachment but it needs to do this one thing Group of veterans call on lawmakers to support impeachment, 'put country over politics' MORE (Mo.), Lee ZeldinLee ZeldinDCCC to run ads tying 11 House Republicans to Trump remarks on entitlements Republicans take aim at Nadler for saying GOP senators complicit in 'cover-up' The Hill's Morning Report - Trump trial begins with clash over rules MORE (N.Y.), Don Bacon (Neb.), Jaime Herrera BeutlerJaime Lynn Herrera BeutlerDCCC to run ads tying 11 House Republicans to Trump remarks on entitlements Democrats launch bilingual ad campaign off drug pricing bill The Hill's Morning Report Sponsored by AdvaMed House panel delays impeachment vote until Friday MORE (Wash.), Steve ChabotSteven (Steve) Joseph ChabotDCCC to run ads tying 11 House Republicans to Trump remarks on entitlements Koch network could target almost 200 races in 2020, official says Judiciary Committee abruptly postpones vote on articles of impeachment MORE (Ohio), Ross SpanoVincent (Ross) Ross SpanoDCCC to run ads tying 11 House Republicans to Trump remarks on entitlements Lawmakers honor JFK on 56th anniversary of his death GOP Rep. Ross Spano under investigation by Justice Department MORE (Fla.), John KatkoJohn Michael KatkoDCCC to run ads tying 11 House Republicans to Trump remarks on entitlements Bezos phone breach escalates fears over Saudi hacking House Democrats request briefings on Iranian cyber threats from DHS, FCC MORE (N.Y.) and Fred UptonFrederick (Fred) Stephen UptonDCCC to run ads tying 11 House Republicans to Trump remarks on entitlements The rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2019 The Memo: Impeachment's scars cut deep with Trump, say those who know him MORE (Mich.).

All 11 Republicans represent districts the DCCC has added to their target list of seats they hope to flip in November.

Voters deserve to know if House Republicans will also blindly support his plan to gut Medicare, DCCC Spokesperson Robyn Patterson said in an exclusive statement to The Hill. Americans now face a clear choice between Democrats who are fighting to lower drug prices and Washington Republicans who wont stop attacking their health care.

View post:

DCCC to run ads tying 11 House Republicans to Trump remarks on entitlements | TheHill - The Hill

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDSGetty Images

WASHINGTONMy new old friend, Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, was bouncing with delight. Considering that the latest Morning Consult poll has her five points underwater back home, this showed a remarkable joie de vivre, which made her sarcasm positively effervescent. She spoke in fluent Italics. I am excited that all of these members are going to be supporting the United States military as we bring up military spending, she said. Whether thats the new Space Force, whether thats autonomous vehicles, AI, hypersonics, all of those things we need to push back against Russia, and I am glad to know theyve publicly stated it. Apparently, proving that the president* blackjacked Ukraine by withholding military aid makes you obligated to fund every wild hair that grows upon the Pentagon procurement people.

(Ernst also was passing notes around noting how many of the House managers had missed various military funding votes in the past year. Unfortunately for her, one of the votes Jerrold Nadler missed because his wife was ill.)

Ernst had gathered with several of her colleagues during Thursday nights dinner break in the impeachment trial of the President* of the United States. Joining her were John Barrasso of Wyoming, James Lankford of Oklahoma, and Tim Scott of South Carolina. Ernst, Lankford, and Scott all had been rumored to be possible votes in favor of calling witnesses when and if that comes to a vote sometime next week. But on Thursday night, with the president*s lawyer, Jay Sekulow, and White House spokesman Hogan Gidley chatting about eight feet away, all of them spoke like good McConnellite functionaries.

We want to get the whole story, Lankford said. I was trying to take notes today on how many half-truths we were hearingthat they were telling part of the story, but not the other part. Or they would talk about the phone call, but conveniently leave the sentence out before or the sentence out afterwards.

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDSGetty Images

Weve heard the same story, over and over again, for two days, Scott added. Theres an old saying that, if you say it often enough, it must be true. The good news is that the Democrats have literally bought into that premise that if you say it often enough, its true. Weve heard the same storyrinse it, recite it, repeat it. And what is that story? That the President of the United States has no authority whatsoever to look for injustice or corruption anywhere, even in the 2016 election. And it is a sad day for our nation that the House managers are telling the same story, over and over again, with no basis in fact. My frustration is that the American people are only getting half the story.

All week there were little signs that little things were going sideways. First, Mitch McConnell actually changed his original rules for how the trial would be managed. Then, on Wednesday, Robert Ray, one of the two former Whitewater special prosecutors on the White House defense team, went on Fox News and conspicuously declined to compliment lead attorneys Pat Cipollone and Sekulow.

But all of the big stuffincluding every vote taken so farhas gone straight down party lines. The idea that four Republicans will vote to hear witnesses seems as remote as ever, and the notion that 14 of these Ernsts, Scotts, and Lankfords actually would vote to convict the president* and remove him from office remains utterly preposterous. The whole party in Congress doesnt seem to be thinking past tomorrows lunch menu, and even these young stars dont seem able to reckon with what their futures might be, or with the prospect the marks on their political souls might be permanent.

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page here.

See the article here:

No Republican in Congress Is Thinking Past Tomorrow's Lunch Menu - Esquire