That's a really clever explanation. Are they really that clever?
I was thinking it was more like jenga where all the structurally unnecessary pieces had already been removed so that any possible move ends the game.
but most of these guys just want to keep being elected
Or become highly-compensated lobbyists.
I think a couple of them want to trigger the end of the world.
They're not nearly that clever. They've just fallen for their own con.
I think it's worse than that. I think the donors see that there's a good chance the Republican majority won't last, so they're just going all-in now. No more long game - this is the chance to grab everything they can, because there might not be another chance. And if some Republicans get voted out because of it, they'll be taken care of as lobbyists or think-tankers or the equivalent.
I guess the kind of optimistic flip side of this is, maybe if the tax bill doesn't pass, the donors will get mad and cut off their senators? It's nice to think so anyway.
I had basically the same thought. You don't throw Obamacare repeal on after it's failed a couple of times unless you're trying to take something down. I hope.
Yeah, 2/5 makes more sense to me. This is maximum ass-kissing to attempt to ingratiate themselves with whoever is going to sponsor their post-Congressional lifestyle.
I agree with 5.
The unexpected consequence is that if you were planning to assassinate a billionaire, you should do it in this tax year.
I don't think the "work-to-rule" concept applies here but it makes a ton of sense in this piece about Brexit. With Trump now giving orders here, and the random results of pointless plebiscites giving orders in the UK, we are now back to the days of royalty, when you have thousands of well-educated civil servants who are positive they know what to do, and are given orders to do the opposite.
We are also going to see work-to-rule in various cities, most notably Philadelphia, where the DA who just won in a landslide is unanimously seen as the Antichrist by every cop and prosecutor. How will they sabotage the reforms? Is it possible to hire new cops and prosecutors?
10: I read a Billy Penn article that they're having a lot of trouble hiring new cops there. They blamed #BLM.
Because the applicant pool wants to take black lives, or because it doesn't?
Probably a bit of both. No one wants the stigma of being associated with a seen-as-racist organization; some people want to crack heads and are afraid they won't be able to anymore.
5 is also how I've been thinking about it.
13: If it's like Pittsburgh, salaries haven't kept up with inflation.
15: Given their tendency towards apparently unlimited overtime, I don't really care.
I do. The overtime provides a way to reward (or punish by withholding) behavior outside of the normal channels where somebody I can vote for his in charge.
I tried and failed to find a clip of the scene from The Wire where Carcetti tells the story of a politician who loads a bill with amendments that will kill it, then claims to have fought for it.
"I think it's worse than that. I think the donors see that there's a good chance the Republican majority won't last, so they're just going all-in now. No more long game - this is the chance to grab everything they can, because there might not be another chance. And if some Republicans get voted out because of it, they'll be taken care of as lobbyists or think-tankers or the equivalent."
That is reasonable though. get stuff done and then lose. that is what LBJ did
And depending on what they do with the judiciary at the time, we could be under Lochner 2.0 by the time Dems can pass legislation again.
19.2: You mean the election or Vietnam?
21 the south for the democrats for a generation plus
That's longer than he lost Vietnam for.
The lurkers support 5 in emailon NYT blogs:
A large part of the answer, I'd suggest, is that many Republicans now see themselves and/or their party in such dire straits that they're no longer even trying to improve their future electoral position; instead, it's all about grabbing as much for their big donors while they still can. Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose; in the GOP's case, that means the freedom to be the party of, by, and for oligarchs they always wanted to be.
Incidentally, PK links to this article, which suggests that the 33-16-1 GOP lead in governorships is likely to become a 24-25-1 split after 2018.
Doesn't look like there are any plausible flips between then and January '22.
6: I had basically the same thought. You don't throw Obamacare repeal on after it's failed a couple of times unless you're trying to take something down. I hope.
Yeah. Adding repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate is a poison pill if ever there was one. I figured they could always make out that when it goes to committee to reconcile the Senate and Republican bills, individual mandate repeal couldn't survive. And yet Paul Ryan says he's confident it would.
'Tis puzzling. Obviously the Senate feels that mandate repeal is necessary to raise sufficient revenue to make the bill pass the so-called Byrd rule. Assuming it does survive reconciliation, then, it's up to the Senate once again. Just a big gamble on their part, I'm concluding.
Adding repeal of Obamacare's individual mandate is a poison pill if ever there was one.
Nah, the mandate is genuinely unpopular and repealing it is the best way to destroy Obamacare without appearing to take responsibility for destroying Obamacare. The tax cut bill may fail, but it won't fail for that reason.
We'll see. Already Susan Collins and a couple of other Republican Senators have said they don't like the notion of a partial repeal without a replacement. Of course "don't like" is a far cry from "will reject the bill".
I think the Repubs are not as nihilistic as you think, they are probably quite surprised that offering people a tiny tax cut is not getting people as excited as it did in the Bush administration. It makes a big difference that Dems are united against it now. It is clearly the Republican tax bill and you know what that means, it's the tax bill for aristocrats.
Also with everyone not getting a raise for decade after decade, the need for lower income taxes is simply not as resonant as it used to be. Wow, now I have an extra $70 a month. I guess that's something, but what would actually make a difference is if I had a better job. Or if you did something about utility bills or rent or my various debts.
But Bush actually offered everyone a tiny tax cut. This bill instead raises taxes on a lot of people. That's a huge difference! Of course people aren't excited. Plus taxes are complicated so most people don't know whether they're in the tax raise group (unless they're grad students in which case they know).
Doesn't it actually cut tax rates for people now, and then raise them like 7 years later to make the math work under the reconciliation restrictions? It seems like they could be able to sell that as a good thing, especially since as you say, people will not know that their deductions are going away. But even the good part is just not enough to get people enthusiastic. Also I think I greatly overestimated the "$70 a month" up there.
But the deductions going away are such that people will know.
That is, the deductions being dropped hit the kind of people who pay attention to their money in very obvious ways.
According to that Vanity Fair article even Wall Street is against it and is afraid it will send the economy into recession. Is this just a sop to the .001%? The Koch's and Mercer's?
That would explain why the bill might not pass because upper-middle-class people call their congressman and complain about it, but it doesn't explain why the bill is polling at 20-something % among the hoi polloi.
I mean, what it is, at the basest possible level, is a tax cut bill. Republicans are in power, so they are passing a tax cut bill, something Republicans typically do. Doesn't the average low-information person think a tax cut bill sounds good? Isn't that the sort of thing that makes people like Republicans? Apparently not!
The average low-information voter is taking cues from more attentive people, either directly or through the media. Those more attentive people are very likely to have houses with mortgages that wouldn't be deductible under the new plan and high property taxes.
I don't think it sounds like a tax cut to the average low-income voter until they hear a big, bold pronouncement like, "All incomes from 50K to 70K will receive a $3K check."
Here's what I'm picturing: if you are an average schmo working for a big corporation, and they announce they're going to distribute $1,000,000 in raises, your ears are going to perk up, but you're going to be very suspicious if you keep never hearing how much line workers like you are going to get.
When it comes to money, people put on their eagle-ears and listen for how much they personally will get. This is not accomplishing that.
Trust me. Clinton will definitely, definitely win last year.
The Bush tax cut, remember, had a minimum rebate, which made it pretty damn tangible.
I remember he just sent me a check, like the Futurama episode.
When it comes to money, people put on their eagle-ears and listen for how much they personally will get. This is not accomplishing that.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders tried to do that with the hilarious claims that the average family will get a $4,000 raise because their employers will get a $4,000 tax cut that will all be trickled down. Maybe if she said $400 someone would have found it plausible.
That's why women earn only $.79 for every $1 men earn. Ari Fleischer would have been able to tell a better lie.
42 is exactly what I'm thinking. That made it salient and immediate. Also they didn't try to balance the tax cuts, IIRC - right? Was there any fight about whether or not to pass cuts that would expire?
46: Yes, pretty sure it was meant to be just 10-year (hence Obama's fight to let the top rates expire). And viz. Paul Krugman's infuriation at their fuzzy math making it seem like it didn't impact the deficit, but that mystification was just for the press and public, not the CBO I think.