The Republican Tax Bill Explained, Maybe

I don’t think I fully understand the upcoming Republican Tax Reform Bill and resulting Republican budget strategy.  I know members of the Republican House and Senate don’t fully understand it either because they all say that they haven’t read the thing.  I can’t even think in terms of the trillions of dollars involved.  I thought I would try to understand the basics by way of an analogy, a parable if you will.

Consider the Joneses, a family of eleven with a husband, wife, and nine children.  This family represents all of America.  They own their own home but have a first and second mortgage which, when combined, exceed the appraised value of the home.  Their credit cards are all maxed out.  The husband, the sole wage earner, has an income of $100,000.  After making the two mortgage payments, minimum credit card payments, buying food, and paying utility and medical bills, there is nothing left at the end of the month.

The Joneses

This family takes its security seriously so they have a sophisticated alarm system, video surveillance, a perimeter fence, and they own over 200 semi-automatic rifles and 100 cases of ammunition.  This arsenal represents more firepower than all of their neighbors combined.  This year they plan to spend an additional $16,000 to purchase more weapons.  Since his credit cards are maxed, Mr. Jones plans to borrow this amount from the Bank of Xi Jinping.

The Joneses Take Security Seriously

The Jones’ house is in need of repairs and the electrical supply lines to the property need to be upgraded as there are regular power outages.  The road into the Jones property is full of potholes.  There is a small bridge across a ditch that is part of this main driveway entrance and that bridge is in danger of collapse after years of neglect.  The water supply to the house leaks and the sewer system constantly overflows into the yard.  These repairs will be postponed while Mr. Jones plans to put $10,000 into fixing the holes in their fence so his neighbors can’t sneak in.  It is not immediately obvious why the fence needs to be fixed since most of his neighbors currently just come in through the main driveway and front walkway.  Mr. Jones will again borrow this money from the Bank of Xi Jinping.

Mr. Jones gives his wife and nine children an allowance.  This year he plans to give his wife and eight of his kids a $1.00 a week raise in this allowance.  The last child, Donald, his favorite, will get a $500 a week raise.  Donald is the rich family member and spends his allowance on the finer things.  Mr. Jones had hoped that Donald would spend some of his allowance helping out other family members but, since Donald was born, this money has never trickled down to the others.  Mr. Jones hopes that, by giving Donald this extra $500 a week, his attitude will change.  It never has before but Mr. Jones is, above all things, an optimist (and a Republican).  These allowance raises will cost Mr. Jones $26,468 that he will borrow from the Bank of Xi Jinping.

Trickle Down Economics

Mr. Jones isn’t really worried about all of this.   He knows he can stop paying his health insurance to save some money.  If someone in the family gets sick they can always go to the local emergency room.   He also knows that he is getting along in years and has been regularly drinking from a polluted water supply and breathing the air from the nearby coal fired electrical plant.  He certainly hopes he doesn't have to rely on Medicare and Social Security since those programs will certainly have to be curtailed.  His wife and kids will inherit all of this debt when he dies.  Even Donald will suffer because he hasn’t saved a dime. 

If the Jones family sounds like it is living on borrowed time, just consider what the new tax bill and our current spending priorities sound like.  We owe about 2.4 trillion dollars to China and Japan.  We owe another 2.6 trillion dollars to other countries.  We also owe 5 trillion dollars to ourselves.  I guess this last figure is what happens when you own the printing press and can just make more dollars.

We currently owe more than the annual total Gross Domestic Product;
and we just gave everybody a raise (lowered taxes)

The Republican Party claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility but has just managed to plunge us deeper in debt.  Yes, I will personally pay less in taxes next year because of this tax cut.  Most salaried Americans will see lower withholding taxes and, as a consequence, receive a bigger paycheck.  Wealthy Americans, the .01% ers, by most accounts, will be able to afford an even bigger yacht.

While most Americans are today listening to the news and don't like the new tax bill, when they see a small boost in their paychecks in 2018, they will probably forget the disparity.  If we in the lower 99 percentile forget the beating we were handed in 2017, the 2018 mid-term elections will probably favor the Republicans.  To quote Sonny and Cher, "The beat goes on."

Sonny & Cher, The Beat Goes On

Food for thought.  According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center:

The average break (from the new tax bill) would be about $1,600 in 2018, but the biggest break, calculated as a share of after-income tax, would go to those families making between $308,000 and $733,000. For middle-income people, their tax savings, an extra $900, would pay for about seven months of gas. By contrast, those in the top one percent could pick up a nice Mercedes C Class Coupe with their $50,000+ average tax cut.

You get $900 worth of gas

"THEY" get $50,000 Mercedes C Class

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.”  Franklin D. Roosevelt

The Repeal of Net Neutrality is Good For Consumers, and Other Tall Tales

Let’s face it,  the regional monopolies represented by AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, need to make more money.  You were probably just looking at your most recent Internet provider bill and said to yourself, these poor people need to make even more money.  These ISP's would normally have but one option; to raise their rates and add new fees, which they have regularly done. There was always some risk here however, because some (not all) customers have alternatives with their competition.  Another way they can each make more money would be to “invest” in legislation that would allow them to charge content providers for access to you, their customers.

Whichever side of the political gridiron you regularly root for, you have to admit that both teams favor expediency of their specific agenda over anything else.  The good of the nation and the protection of consumers rarely enter their realm of conscious behavior.

A case in point is the recent repeal of net neutrality regulations.  I would speculate that most consumers don’t realize what just happened at the FCC with the elimination of the protections they have had since they were implemented in 2015, under Title II of the Communications Act.  In simple terms, net neutrality meant that all Internet service providers (ISP’s) had to allow equal and fair access to all content providers.  This would mean that Comcast, that owns NBC, Universal Studios, USA Network, Hulu, CNBC, etc., couldn’t give Internet priority to its network streams over the competition.  You should know that all three of the top ISP’s own content companies.

Note that AT&T also now owns DirecTv

It also meant that ISP’s couldn’t start blocking or slowing down media streams in order to demand payments from the content providers.  With net neutrality, all traffic flowed at the same speed over the network, regardless of ownership or content.  What will probably happen now, not immediately but soon, is that you will see that ISP’s will demand fees from major players like Netflix, YouTube, and Hulu.  These big players will have to “pay up” or face blocking or slow-downs of their customers’ feeds.  Smaller start-ups won't stand a chance.  Do you want to guess who will be paying these fees in the end?  I think you know the answer to this one.

When ISP’s can control the throttle and brake, they can control the content.  AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast can now make more money at your expense.  Who financially supported the repeal of net neutrality?  If you guessed AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, you would be correct.  Since 2008, these three companies and their trade association, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) aka The Internet & Television Association, have spent over half a billion dollars lobbying the FCC and federal government.  That's half a billion dollars that didn't go into building infrastructure so they could complain to congress and the FCC that they don't have enough money for infrastructure.

Deregulation of business seems to be an important plank in the platform of one of our parties, (insert your guess here).  While both parties have been complicit in the deregulation game to some extent, (spoiler alert) Republicans seem to have raised it to a new art form.  They do this, with a straight face, and proclaim it is good for consumers.  When consumer protections are removed and big business is free to act in any manner they chose, how is this good for consumers?

Does anyone remember the deregulation of the banking industry?  The repeal of the protections imposed after the stock market crash of 1929, did wonders for the financial well being of millions of Americans.  Do you remember: October 19, 1987 (aka Black Monday); October 13, 1989 (aka Friday 13th mini-crash); March 10, 2000 (aka dot com bubble); September 16, 2008 (aka sub-prime mortgage Financial Crisis)?  The banking and financial industries said, "Trust us," and we did by taking away protections.  Note that both Democrats and Republicans were complicit here, but the Republicans have the deregulation gene as part of their DNA.

The head of the FCC is Trump appointed Ajit Pai.  You know Mr. Pai has the best interests of consumers in mind.  He was, after all, the former Associate General Counsel for Verizon, and wouldn't let that influence his decision to remove these consumer protections.

FCC Voting on Net Neutrality Removal
3 Republicans For; 2 Democrats Against

We all know how deregulation of the airline industry has benefited consumers.  Are you enjoying your wide people-sized seats and extra legroom yet?  I’m sure none of you has heard pre-flight announcements asking for volunteers to take another flight because this one has been over-booked.  You certainly haven’t heard the airlines ask for people to check their carry-on luggage because there just isn’t enough overhead space.

You know you can trust the airlines baggage handlers with your cameras, jewelry, and expensive clothing because if they are ever lost or damaged, the airlines will pay you back without question.  This assumes that you have receipts for each item, can prove that these items were in your bag, and file your claim in a timely (time-frame set by the airline) fashion.  Everybody trusts big business will place its customers’ needs above their respective bottom lines.  I know it’s hard to read this paragraph while your eyes are rolling.  Ah, the joys of de-regulation, when will they end?

Baggage Handler aka, the Catcher

The repeal of net neutrality captures the zeitgeist of the "new and improved" Republican party.  Take corporate money, pass or repeal legislation that benefits the corporation, and lie to the public that it is all to make America great again.  I ask the question, when did America stop being great?  Perfect, no, but we can hopefully fix what is wrong.  Much of what is wrong with America can be traced to regular visitors of the 202 area code.  Clue, I'm not talking about DC tourists here.

Opponents of net neutrality will argue that these onerous regulations are preventing them (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast) from providing better service at a lower cost to consumers.  If you believe this, please write me and tell me when your ISP lowers your broadband Internet bill.  These same people say, trust me, repeal of net neutrality will open the market to other ISP's who will provide the competition that holds down costs.  Again, please write me and tell me when you see other companies running  new coaxial cable, twisted pair, or fiber optic cable in your neighborhood to provide you with a better selection at a lower cost.  I won't hold my breath.

Airline deregulation was a good thing.  Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman.  Banking deregulation never cost Americans a penny ($19 trillion is not a penny).  Repealing net neutrality will benefit consumers.  The Trojan Horse was a great gift to the Trojans.  Bernie Madoff had a sound investment strategy. Trickle-down economics really works.  Richard Nixon was not a crook.  My dog doesn't bite (that's not my dog).  It's only a cold sore.  You get this one and I'll pay next time.  It's supposed to make that noise.  I never inhaled.  I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.  The check is in the mail, and I won't ......

All Men (Voters) Are Created Equal, NOT

The Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and US Constitution, define our system of government and are among the pillars upon which our government was founded.  The goals and ambitions outlined within these documents over 240 years ago were laudable.  The Declaration of Independence states, “…all men are created equal…” and this idea is embodied within our case law by a legal philosophy known as declarationism.

Declaration of Independence

It is a common misconception that the United States is a democracy.  We are, in fact, a constitution based Federal republic with certain democratic policies and traditions.  “We The People” don’t vote and create laws directly but have electors who are responsible for making decisions and creating laws.  All that being said, it was the intent of the founding fathers that all men, and later women, would have the ability to select their representatives.  It was also their intent to allow “The People” to select individuals to represent them who would make decisions in their best interests and/or the interests of the country as a whole.  The authors of our founding documents had just recently declared their freedom from a Monarchial system and wanted to insure that the will of the people would prevail.

What our founding fathers failed to anticipate was a financial take-over of our Republic.  While the handwriting has been on the wall for many administrations, Democratic and Republican, our most recent presidential incarnation has managed to throw caution to the wind and to test the legality of what we thought we knew to be fact.  We now realize that some things were just tradition, common sense, or morally sensible guidelines, but not explicitly written into law.  President Trump has now tested the waters and has decided to make waves.  Moreover, these are not to be little waves, these will be Big League waves (or Bigly if you prefer).

President Trump didn’t create this mess; he merely took advantage of our corrupt system.  Our congressional leaders have been complicit for decades in creating an environment where a man of Donald Trump’s demeanor could use his spinning moral compass to steer our country into turmoil.  Perhaps we owe President Trump a vote of thanks for pointing out the frailties of our system of government, perhaps not.  In any case, the devil is in the details, as well as the White House.

For decades, our elected officials had followed one “Prime Directive” to use a Star Trek reference, and that is that their main goal in office is to get re-elected.  In order to get re-elected they need to raise money, lots of money.  When “lots of money” flows to a politician, that money buys influence, access, and allows the donors to get laws written that favor them as individuals or corporations.  Prior to the Citizens United, v. Federal Election Commission ruling of 2010, the amount of money and hence influence, was restricted.  There were limits set that, even allowing for a few loopholes, kept gross corruption in check.  Now, money rules the day.  Money doesn’t just talk; money yells and screams with a bullhorn that is not to be ignored.

You would think that our system of elections would allow us to just vote out of office any individual who, through their legislative actions or misdeeds, didn’t mirror the will of the people.  In theory, this would be true.  However, when large quantities of cash and other items of value are involved, elections and politicians can be easily corrupted.

Money buys gerrymandered voting districts where the voting influence of large groups of voters is minimized or muted.  Money buys election laws that keep specific people or groups of people from voting.  Money buys media access to influence those who do vote.  In essence, money is used to buy legislation that favors individuals/corporations with the money.  The legislation enacted in exchange for money makes these donor individuals and corporations even wealthier.  It is a self-perpetuating process.

We can follow your moral compass as long as
it doesn't interfere with my financial GPS

As part of our concept of state’s rights, election laws vary rather widely.  This may be somewhat acceptable when selecting a state Senator, state Representative, or when voting on a statewide initiative or referendum.  On the other hand, national elections, i.e., presidential elections, should have a singular national standard.

Our presidential election process should be uniform in concept and execution across the nation.  It should not be a “state’s right” to decide who, how, when, and under what circumstances an individual can vote at the presidential level and how those votes are calculated and used in the process.  The Electoral College should be abolished as its original purpose and intent has long been negated.  As a practical matter the abolition of the Electoral College would be extremely difficult.

The first reason given for the existence of the Electoral College is that the voting public can't be trusted to always make informed critical decisions.  While it is conceivable that voters in the 18^th century might not have had access to the information that would let them avoid the election of a manipulative tyrant, one might argue that this very process is today, partly responsible for accomplishing that same feared outcome.

The second reason for the Electoral College’s existence was to provide smaller states with more influence in the election outcome than they would have if one person equaled one vote.  By way of example, [note, numbers are not current], Wyoming has 3 electoral votes for only 210,000 voters (1 electoral vote per 70,000) and California has 54 electoral votes for 9,700,000 voters (1 electoral vote per 180,000).  This means that each Wyoming voter is worth over two times as much, in the election of our president, than a voter in California is.  The principal of one-person one vote is thus negated.  To further complicate matters, the “winner takes all” concept of the Electoral College, which is a 19^th century invention, makes it easy for an individual to win the presidency without receiving the majority of votes.  Currently Maine and Nebraska are the only two states who do not use a “winner takes all” process.

Democrats won the popular vote six of last seven elections
but the presidency only four of those times

Currently ten states and the District of Columbia have signed the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact where they would abolish the “winner takes all” concept.  Their respective electoral representatives would be required to vote for whomever wins the popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. This group currently (2017) represents 165 electoral votes.  They need to reach 270 electoral votes before the Pact would change the system.

Inequality in America is further exacerbated by education, or a lack thereof.  While a good quality education should be a right of all people (along with healthcare), the rich get better educations than do poor people.  As we have seen more recently, the wealthy class in America has also managed to rob the monies we currently spend for education in the public sector and have diverted it to private schools.

The old adage that was designed to keep women under the control of men referenced “keeping them barefoot and pregnant.”  The new desire of the wealthy to wield financial power over their perceived lessors seems to be, “keep them poor and ignorant.”

The need for keeping a large sector ignorant or under-educated helps the rich get richer.  How else could you sell a tax plan where you give poor (and many not so poor) people a small temporary break in their taxes while giving yourselves a massive tax break through both personal income and corporate revisions which are mostly permanent.  You are doing all of this while raising the national debt and putting the financial burden for these breaks on future generations.  The uninformed poor myopically see a current small reduction in their taxes.  They fail to see the possible offsetting losses in the form of other taxes, fees and expenses (like healthcare), not to mention the future burden of the national debt.  They also fail to see that the very wealthy will get the biggest break of all, at their expense.

Without a certain constituent base that is poorly educated how can you, with a straight face, promise the return of jobs that are never to return?  (Trump speech Nevada, Feb 24, 2016, “...I love the poorly educated.”)  Coal is dead.  Small retail is dead.  Large retail is dying.  Mundane manufacturing jobs are being automated.  This is not Fake News.  Educated people know this.

Our mutual goals as a “want-to-be Democracy” should be to:

• ·        Eliminate the Electoral College or at least the “winner takes all” process.
• ·        Institute term limits for all members of congress
• ·        Establish official sites and sources for validated election information
• ·        Eliminate gerrymandering of voting districts
• ·        Vote independently for both the President and Vice-presidential positions
• ·        Establish uniform election laws for presidential elections
• ·        Demand annual full financial disclosure for all political positions on the national stage

The fact that Russia interfered with our last election and managed to have at least some perhaps never to be determined impact, is not disputed by reasonable observers.  It will be difficult to lessen this impact in future elections but we should at least strive to keep the process as clean and fair as possible.

Russian "Wedgie"

If you are among those who support the Republican Party, I would think that nothing proposed in the bullets above would be contrary to anything in your party’s declared platform.  If you are a Democrat, I would think these changes would be welcome.  If you are dissatisfied with the current administration, nothing here will change the situation.  You may however take some solace in the knowledge that, with his penchant for Big Macs, fries, strawberry shakes, diet Cokes, and buckets of KFC fried chicken, President Trump may not be long for this world.  

Be careful what you wish for however, Vice President Pence is a “whole other bucket of worms.”