The Political Fallout from the GOP Tax Bill

So, Congressional Republicans went ahead and passed their controversial tax bill.  The bill economists overwhelmingly described as a bad idea.  The one that doesn't really do what it claims.  The one that's a massive financial giveaway to the wealthiest Americans at the expense of millions of middle- and lower-class workers.  They even passed it a few days before Christmas, possibly as an added "F.U." to all the people this bill hurts. So why did they do it? Why did they pass such a disastrous, harmful bill? The possibilities are: they don't know how unpopular it is, they think it actually helps, or they don't think there will be political consequences.

I don't think the GOP was blind to the bill's unpopularity, because it was honestly pretty hard to miss.  When was the last time a tax cut was unpopular? People lose their shit over tax hikes, but cuts are generally pretty popular.  Yet this tax bill polled at a 25% popularity rating.  That should tell you something right there.  Now, public opinion isn't a reliable basis for making political decisions, by which I mean a piece of legislation's popularity doesn't tell you a lot about its contents. How much do those poll participants know about the intricacies of tax policy? (Side note: an uninformed and easily swayed electorate was one reason Aristotle opposed basic democracy - which I mentioned before.) Those people probably could not articulate the consequences of this tax bill the way a tax lawyer or an economist could, which is why this bill's popularity rating is somewhat irrelevant.  This doesn't mean the bill's unpopularity should be discounted, because the GOP is pitching a story we've seen before.  We saw it in the 1980s with Ronald Reagan's "Trickle Down" Economics, and we saw it again a few years ago in Kansas.  It ended badly both times, and despite Americans' short memories, we still remember how things turned out.  The GOP is promising things will be different this time, but people aren't buying their bullshit.

So average Americans kinda knew that this bill would be bad for them, although in an imprecise way, which explains its unpopularity.  Maybe they didn't convey those sentiments to their elected officials? It's possible.  Several GOP Senators and Representatives have bailed on townhall meetings with their constituents in recent months, so the chance of having in-person meetings has gone down.  That still leaves phone calls, emails, and social media posts, but I don't know how many Americans reached out to their representatives.  In the past, Congressional offices were flooded with phone calls when the GOP attempted to repeal the ACA.  I don't know if it was the same this time.  I called my representative in the House this morning, and was able to get through easily; my experience is anecdotal, but I think it could've been a sign that not many people were calling.  I honestly would not be surprised: people have had to push back against the GOP's harmful policies a couple times already since January, and fatigue might be setting in.  It's exhausting watching the news like a hawk, waiting for the next shoe to drop, and having to contact your reps to ask them to not strip away programs that Americans depend on for basic needs again and again and again.  It wears you down over time.  That's just a possible explanation, but I don't think the GOP was unaware of their bill's unpopularity.

Could the GOP think it helps? I don't see it.  I've seen GOP figures make statements like these:

• "A married couple earning $100,000 per year ($60,000 from wages, $25,000 from their non-corporate business, and $15,000 in business income) will receive a tax cut of $2,603.50, a reduction of nearly 24 percent." - Texas Senator John Cornyn
• "The typical family of four making the typical family income of $73,000 will get a tax cut of $2,059." - Speaker of the House Paul Ryan 

Cornyn's statements show he has no idea what the average American's financial situation is, so no wonder he thinks this tax cut is helpful.  At least Paul Ryan had a reasonably close idea of what the average American's household income is, he was still a bit off: according to the US Census Bureau via USA Today, the average household income was $74,000.  To break that figure down a bit further, a household filing jointly earns $118,000; and a household filing separately earns $65,000.  Still, he's overestimating the tax bill's benefit by using some clever math.  Specifically, emphasizing the average tax benefit.  Why does "average" matter? Well, did you know that between me and Tom Brady, we've won an average of 2.5 Super Bowls? So, yeah, "average" isn't the best way to determine the tax bill's benefit.  Here's a better one.

 

(Graphic courtesy of NPR and the Tax Policy Center)

Here's a link to the full report, if you want it.  It's pretty easy to see how tilted this tax bill is toward high earners, and it gets even more unequal when you look at how much the bill saves lower income brackets.  If you're in the $40K - $50K range, your annual benefit is a whopping $570.  Divide that by twelve, and the monthly benefit is $47.50.  How far does $48 go? Two tanks of gas? One month's phone bill? That's insulting no matter what your status is. But no, the GOP couldn't stop there.  Did I mention that some of the tax cuts expire in a few years, while the corporate ones are permanent? Yeah, nice.  Maybe they do think it actually helps - see Cornyn's and Ryan's statements earlier - but I think it's more likely they're engaging in some high-level bullshitting.

That leaves another possibility, that the GOP doesn't think there will be political consequences.  They could be banking on Americans forgetting about this tax bill by the 2018 elections, which is a possibility given Americans' short memories.  They could also be underestimating the Democrats, which could be a possibility - the Democrats are still plagued by infighting and aimlessness a year after the Presidential election.  However, the recent Alabama Senate race and the earlier elections in Virginia and other places show that the Democrats have something working, even if they don't know what it is.  The point is, the momentum is in the Democrats' favor, and despite them not capitalizing on the GOP's and Trump's ineptness and unpopularity, they appear likely to win big in 2018.  If that happens, the Democrats will almost certainly repeal the GOP tax bill.

So why would the GOP pass a hugely unpopular bill, that doesn't help most Americans at all, and will probably be repealed in just a few years? There's another possibility, and it kind of ties into the GOP believing there won't be any political consequences.  That is that the GOP expects to lose, and they'll come out relatively unscathed on the other side of the elections.  They'll have cushy jobs or fat retirement accounts waiting for them, and that's a pretty sweet deal for them.  They'll be reviled by many Americans for at least a while, but our opinions don't matter because they don't give a rat's ass about us "commoners".  They probably have their own upscale gated community picked out already, so they won't have to mingle with us. 

Honestly, I'd be okay with that.  It's galling to think they'll get by without facing any serious consequences for treating the people they were supposed to represent with disdain that borders on cruelty, but when you look at it, it's a win all around.  They go away and stay out of our lives, and their obnoxious bill gets repealed in a year or so (as long as the Democrats don't find a way to bungle what should be a legislative rout). 

So, buckle up, I guess.  It's gonna be a bumpy ride for the next year or so, but it should get a bit smoother after that.

PS: Don't screw this up, Democrats. 

The Times, They Are A'Changing. . .

I want to start this post with a simple thought experiment, but before I do that, I want to mention an article I read earlier that inspired this post. This morning, I stumbled across an opinion piece by Leonard Pitts Jr articulating the direction he thinks the Democratic Party should take in response to  Donald Trump and the modern GOP.  That direction, in Pitts' opinion, should be a hard left.  I would probably mangle Pitts' main point if I tried paraphrasing it, so I will just quote directly from the article:

"What if Democrats were as bold and definitive as he, but for universal healthcare, sane immigration reform, a living wage, fixing the broken justice system, jobs training and day care for families on public assistance, addressing climate change, and not blowing up the world in manhood-measuring contests with Asian dictators? What if they were pugnacious and uncompromising in the service of simple decency? Of inclusion and compassion? Of just treating people right?"

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article178599721.html#storylink=cpy

Sounds more than a bit Bernie Sanders-ish, doesn't it? I'll come back to the quote later; now, let's perform that thought experiment.  Ask yourself a question: what do you think the founding fathers would do if we were somehow able to bring them to the present and give them the task of redesigning the government they had built? Do you think the government they would come up with would resemble the one they originally created? If so, how? Assume that we were somehow able to bring them up to date on the important events and advances that had happened in the roughly 250 years since they had founded the United States: the Civil War, the moon landing, the Great Depression, both World Wars, the Industrial Revolution, the Atomic Age, 9/11, the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, airplanes, the internet, radio and television, automobiles, antibiotics, the interstate highway system, and indoor plumbing. Those are the major ones I could remember off the top of my head.  I'm sure there are many others.

They say a picture is worth 1000 words, so let me also illustrate my point visually.  Here is the USS Constellation. The one on the left was commissioned in 1855; it still exists as a tourist attraction in Baltimore's Inner Harbor.  The one on the right was commissioned approximately 100 years later, and was retired in 2003.
 

Quite a difference a century (give or take a few years) makes, wouldn't you say? Circling back to my thought experiment, what do you think the founders would think if they saw this side-by-side comparison? This image is a microcosm of how the United States, and also a great part of the world, has changed since the day that the ink on the Constitution dried.

And that is the heart of the issue, right there. The founders championed the concept of small government, as one way of safeguarding individual liberty (another principle they championed quite heavily). Here are a couple quotes to reinforce that point.

"I own I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, 1787

"Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood." – John Adams, 1765

The logic went that a small government would consist of fewer laws and regulations to stifle its citizens, and also lack the means to impose its will on them. There is certainly something to be said in support of that reasoning.  Let's use the National Security Agency as an example, because it's an obvious and important one. We all know from the Snowden documents that the NSA has been collecting and storing virtually all of our digital communications: phone calls, text messages, emails, social media posts - basically everything it could get its hands on. The NSA is "big government" in terms of its mission and capabilities, not really its size (it *probably* has fewer employees than the IRS, but more than the EPA), because its ability to access our digital communications is a very potent capability. Now, is the NSA a tool of oppression? As it stands now, not really. Five minutes ago, I Googled "How many employees does the NSA have?" so I could include a specific number in this blog post, before I decided I didn't need to. I'm not going to have some secret police agents show up at midnight because of that Google search, and to my knowledge no other American citizen has either. However, it's not difficult to imagine that it could happen some day (if you don't think it could, read up on Germany's history from 1920 to 1945), which is why the founders thought it was a good idea to remove the potential for such abuses of power, by keeping government small and also crafting a set of protections against oppressive government.

Now let's look at a more mundane category of big government: arbitrary and excessive regulations.  I've linked to a couple examples here, here, here, here, and here.  There are probably hundreds more out there.  Everybody has a story or a hundred about some frustrating and ridiculous government regulation in our everyday lives.  Want to start your own business? You'll probably need to get a few permits.  Want to build a garage on your property? You'll need permits for that too.  They rob us of hard-earned money and time, and the implication is often that we're not competent enough to run our own lives.  And more than that, they inhibit economic growth in a variety of ways.  Big government is also a self-reinforcing problem, since government agencies constantly look for ways to maintain and expand their mandates, so they can get bigger budgets year after year. And then, there's taxes, which are another source of irritation for a lot of people. (That's nothing new, remember the Boston Tea Party?)

So yes, a big, bloated government gets a lot of flack - which it deserves.  But here's the other side of it. Remember that picture of the two ships? Small governments don't build ships like that aircraft carrier. Small governments don't build cross-country interstates, air traffic control networks, university networks, or other things that help a country flourish. The concept of small government as it existed 200-some years ago is obsolete. No country that tried to operate that way would do well - there have been far too many significant technological changes.

In addition to technology, there's another key factor: population.  See the graph right above this? There are now approximately 320 million people in the United States. What do we do with them all? Those people need certain necessities to live: food & water, shelter, medicine, clothing. Forget everything else: cars, TVs, higher education (in fact, I'd like to see fewer people go to college; but that's another post in itself). People need the absolute basics so that they're not dying in the streets.  It's not just "unicorns and rainbows" generosity, either.  When enough people start having to go without, especially when they can remember better economic times, social unrest is just around the corner. There's a saying I've heard a few times that captures the concept pretty well: "Any society is only three meals away from revolution." So at minimum, the population needs to have safety nets in place to catch people who hit on hard times; and that falls on the government, since absolutely no other part of society has the resources or the responsibility to perform this task.  And if a country wants to do more than just get by, it needs to make investments in its citizens: quality education, health & disease prevention programs, environmental safety, and so on.

Of course, there are legitimate questions about limited resources and long-term costs. If the population keeps growing like it has, eventually it will break the bank or use up all the resources. It has to hit a peak sometime, because nothing can continue indefinitely. Then we're really in a bad spot. Certainly, we'll have to make some hard decisions in the future (maybe even the near future.)  But right now, I've got good reason to be skeptical of politicians raising those questions, because nearly all of them are not being honest about it.  The ACA, for example, was attacked because of its massive cost (among other reasons), but so far, efforts to dismantle or undo it have been shown to cost more than leaving it alone would have.  Also, recent proposed legislation included provisions that would have slashed tax revenue or tacked on billions in additional spending.  I have also heard very little about halting production on the F-35 program. These inconvenient facts make me question the urgency of "starving the beast." Maybe they're right, though. But I have trouble believing them when their priorities are so warped.

To circle back to my thought experiment from the beginning, I don't presume to know what the founding fathers would have done, because I could point to many primary sources that support my claim just as someone else could point to ones that refute it.  There are a lot of areas where big government has grown out of control, in potentially dangerous ways like the NSA's mass surveillance program, and in irritating ways like overzealous regulators and nonsensical rules.  But despite these drawbacks, Americans are still free in more ways than they are not, and the benefits we receive outweigh the costs.  Leonard Pitts' vision for the Democrats seems like a good one, one that will help America flourish.