With democrats like this, who needs Republicans?

Americans will reap the benefits of bipartisan approach on tax reform

BY REP. JOSEPH CROWLEY (D-N.Y.) - 05/16/17 06:42 PM EDT

Okay, first of all, can we please PLEASE stop using their language? Tax "reform" is their term for reducing taxes - especially on the wealthy and large corporations - which blows up the deficit which gives them the excuse to cut cut cut every part of the government except the military. When Republicans predictably call for "tax reform" as some sort of urgently needed lifeline for the American economy and the American worker, anyone with a D after his name should respond by calling bullshit on the supposed "need" for phony "reform" instead of arguing about what the details of the reform should be, conceding the point to the GOP that of course tax "reform" is necessary, but let's just tweak it a little bit, hmm? Maybe not ALL the benefits need to go to the top income bracket?

If we are really going to overhaul the US tax system, any serious proposal needs to START with an increase in the top marginal rate. A large increase. And the closing of all the loopholing accounting shenanigans that allow profitable companies to pay little or no federal tax, no matter what the rate is on paper.

So let's see what Rep. Crowley's idea is.

 

In many respects, tax reform could truly be a miracle drug for our economy — providing a needed boost for the hardest-working Americans who would see more money in their pockets and opportunities for new jobs grow.

Oh for. . . are you seriously buying into this Republican bullshit? This whole "the reason the middle class is struggling is because of this awful burden of having to pay taxes, even though tax rates are at the lowest point they've been since at least World War II, but that certainly can't be relative" is such nonsense. You want the hardest-working Americans to have more money in their pockets? Raise the minimum wage! Bring back the unions! How much more walkin-around money are regular folks going to have from a reduction in income tax? I mean, some, sure. But they'd see a lot more if they were paid a better wage and that wouldn't have the side-effect of screwing the schools, parks, and libraries that help make their kids' lives better. Not ot mention the police, fire departments, roads, airports, etc etc etc.

It’s a jobs package on steroids.

Unless you are referring to the testicle-shrinking effect for which steroids are notorious, I gotta call bullshit on that one. How is it that in 2017 a DEMOCRAT is still pushing Reaganomics? How many jobs were created by the Bush tax cuts? Something in the neighborhood of squat, as I recall. But like every right-wing Chicago-school economic idiot, you're still holding out hope that this tax cut is sure to be the one that creates jobs and makes everyone affluent and rainbows and unicorns shall fill the skies!

It’s a jobs package on steroids. But there is only one way to accomplish tax reform that does all that: It must be truly and completely bipartisan.

Okay, A: you can forget about that, The Republicans decided 8+1/2  years ago that bipartisanship was the moral equivalent of treason and that any notion of reaching across the aisle would be punished by a teabagger in your primary.
And B: Tax cuts for the wealthy aren't going to somehow become more effective less damaging by having the imprimatur of both parties on them. How would that help?

Because of the complex rules that govern the lifespan of some legislative packages, any tax reform deal that doesn’t give both parties concrete wins is at risk of being undone after future elections. Put bluntly, if there isn’t political buy-in from Democrats and Republicans, the reforms are essentially temporary.

Yeah. well given what these "reforms" tend to look like, I got to think temporary is a selling point.

That would be inherently bad for business — and for working families. One thing I hear over-and-over again is how businesses need certainty. That to grow, they need the ability to plan ahead for five, 10, 15 and even 20 years in the future. 

Isn't uncertainty kind of the nature of business? Isn't that why we're supposed to admire and revere the entrepreneur, the "job creator," because he took a risk, invested his money without any guarantee of return and managed to beat the odds and become profitable? Now not only are we supposed to de-regulate him, not tax him, and let him buy his own congressmen, we have to remove uncertainty for him?  Giving him everything he wants isn't enough, we have to reassure him that he will continue to get it in perpetuity, otherwise he can't do us the kindness of running a profitable business?

While it sounds lofty, it’s been done before. The successful tax code overhaul in 1986 saw each party give a little to achieve compromise that all sides were ultimately invested in. 

Oh, Jeezus. Yeah, it's funny how easy it is to get bi-partisan buy-in for lowering the top income bracket from 50 to 38%. It's almost as if both parties are infested with millionaires and/or beholden to the donor class. If that's the kind of "overhaul" you have in mind, no Democrat should be interested on that.
Compromise always seems to consist of the Republicans saying "let's give a huge tax cut to the already rich" and the Democrats responding "well, maybe not that huge." Now that there is a progressive Warren Wing willing to stand firm and say "no, these bastards don't need another tax cut," you want both parties to come together and compromise? To essentially cave to GOP demands, as long as they can get something they can call a win, they should be willing to go along with this psychosis? hell no!

But the signals we’ve received from the White House and congressional Republicans indicate that the GOP views tax reform as a go it alone effort. Case in point: The White House’s tax reform outline. It was released without any outreach to Democrats or any real attempt to incorporate congressional priorities into the fold

Uh, yeah. Have you met Mitch McConnell? Have you met any Republican in the last decade? They. Will. Not. Work. With. You. It's part of their cultural identity. They know their voters are strung out on a steady IV of FOX News and talk radio and right-wing internet that has them convinced that the democrats are basically a combination of the Bolshevik Party and the Manson Family. Even if they wanted to work with you on something, they'd be too afraid of their base. It's like you're the unpopular kid at school, the one everyone thinks is a "geek" and no other kid will befriend you lest he be thought a "geek" by comparison. That's not a great analogy, because it supposes that the Republicans are popular and God knows they aren't that, but you get the idea.

I mean, look at Chris Christie. Not literally, I wouldn't wish that on anyone, uggggh!



But remember how he was considered one of the front-runners for the Republican Presidential nomination? And then he hugged Barack Obama. And said that even though he was a Republican and Obama was a Democrat, they were working together because "that's what grownups do?" Remember? How many delegates did Christie win again? Somewhere in the neighborhood of squat as I recall. And look what he's been reduced to. groveling at the feet of Il Douche, tryuig to curry favor and failing again and again. You think any of t[=your colleagues across the aisle want to end up like Chris Christie?

As proposed, this outline would blow such a massive hole in the country’s deficit it would force political leaders to gut Medicare and Medicaid to accomplish the drastic cuts President Trump promised

Yeah, that's not a bug, it's a feature.

Tax reform is needed, but stripping seniors, veterans and children of access to essential care is not the way to do it.

Ugh. . . Stop it! Stop buying in to their premise! Who says tax "reform" is "needed?" What reputable economists are saying this? When you accept their false premises, you've lost the argument before you've even begun.




Next time: Michigan Congresswoman Sandy Levin also argues tax "reform" on Republican terms.