What tax cut? GOP Worries Voters Won't Notice It

click image to enlarge

Some 60% of Americans continue to view the Trump tax law negatively, correctly believing that the big winners are the wealthy and large corporation, the latter of which have shown little inclination to increase employee wages even though sitting on record amounts of cash and strong profits.  CEO bonuses and raised shareholder dividends find a much warmer place in cold corporate hearts.  Thus, the Republican Party which has largely bet the store - and the 2018 midterms - on this largely reverse Robin Hood tax plan are now fretting that average Americans will not notice what small and meager tax cuts they will receive - cuts that will fade away over time.  Will another $60.00 per month - barely enough to cover the costs of a few pizzas and beverages for a family - really win allegiance from voters?  Many believe that it will not be enough for most to even notice. A piece in Politico looks at GOP concerns that the existing dislike of the Trump/GOP give away will go by unnoticed.  Here are article excerpts:

The average person earning between $50,000 and $75,000 will see a roughly $30 increase in their checks, assuming they're paid biweekly.

Some may not notice the increase, especially when all sorts of other things can affect people's take-home pay, from pay increases to hikes in premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance.

Democrats, meanwhile, have made Republicans' sales job harder by highlighting those who will face tax increases under the GOP plan. A string of recent polls show one-third of voters believe they will pay more under the plan, though in reality, just 5 percent are expected to see tax hikes this year. About 15 percent of taxpayers will see essentially no change in their tax bills, according to the Tax Policy Center.

“For some people, this is going to be less visible than Republicans think,” said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow with the group. “It’s going to be really challenging to get people to notice that they got a tax cut.”

Many Republicans scoff at the idea that people may not realize their taxes have declined, saying they keep a close eye on their earnings, but it's happened before.

Former President Barack Obama had a similar tax cut in 2009 and 2010, offering up to $800 to couples that went largely unnoticed.

As with the new Republican plan, Obama's "Making Work Pay" cut was parceled out incrementally by changing how much was withheld from millions of workers' paychecks.
Many economists believed people were more likely to spend the money if it was distributed that way, rather than with a big, lump-sum payment, and the Obama administration was trying to stimulate the economy amid the Great Recession. But a 2010 New York Times/CBS poll found that fewer than 10 percent of voters had even realized their taxes had been cut.

Taxpayers should begin seeing changes in their checks as soon as next month, after the Trump administration released last week the withholding tables payroll administrators use to compute how much to take from each worker's paycheck.

The coming increases are key to Republicans’ efforts to sell their tax plan because for many people, it will be the first time the law affects them personally.

Though the centerpiece of the plan was a big cut in the corporate tax rate, it also reduced individual rates, expanded the standard deduction and doubled a popular credit for having children. But the law also scaled back a long-standing deduction for state and local taxes, pared the mortgage interest deduction and junked personal exemptions.

Those earning between $30,000 and $40,000 will see their taxes fall by $360, which, divided into 26 pay periods, equals about $14 per check. Those earning between $100,000 and $200,00 will get $2,260, or around $87 per pay period. The typical taxpayer earning between $200,000 and $500,000 will get $6,560, which translates to about $250 per check.

Those numbers are somewhat overstated because they assume people will benefit from the law's cuts in business taxes, even if that doesn't actually show up in their paychecks. Also, not all of the tax savings will be distributed this year in paychecks — some of the money won't come until people get their tax refunds next year.

They are also averages, and there will be wide variations among taxpayers, depending on individual circumstances. Some will get bigger tax cuts, and some will pay more.

Just 29 percent think they will benefit from the new law, according to a survey released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Sixty percent said they expect it to have a “mostly negative” or “not much” effect on them personally.

Meanwhile, the women's movement surges, gays are threatened with refusal of health care professionals to treat them, and non-white minorities watch as white supremacists remain the darlings of the White House and Republican Party even as evangelicals seemingly ignore, if not bless,  Der Trumpenführer adulterous affair with a porn star and hush money payments.  Let's hope Republicans are disappointed and the tax give away remains highly unpopular. 

Why the GOP/Trump Tax Bill is So Unpopular

I continue to be dumbfounded by the manner in which Republicans seemingly believe that the tax bill - many are referring to it as a tax scam - signed into law by Der Trumpenführer will help them in the 2018.   At present, the bill, which is a massive give away to the very wealthy and large corporations, remains hugely unpopular (recent polls show 2/3rd's of the population views the bill negatively).  And this in a climate where almost the same percentage view Trump negatively.  On what planet are Republicans living?  Are they so lost in the Fox News, a/k/a Faux News, bubble that they truly do not get the fact that most voters realize that they are getting the equivalent of table scraps while the wealthy and large corporations are getting filet mignon with Dom Perignon?  A piece in Politico looks at the bill's unpopularity and makes the case that it fails a basic sense of fairness and that, therefore, most voters look beyond their own meager short term gains to the huge windfall to those already living a lifestyle far beyond most people's experience.  I suspect this bill will be a huge albatross to the GOP come November, 2018.  Here are article excerpts:

Undoubtedly, it’s no single thing. For example, Trump is considerably less popular than Reagan and Bush were when they and their party pushed through their own tax-relief packages, and some of this ill will is presumably spilling over to legislative initiatives he is associated with. What’s more, the bill received far less bipartisan support than previous tax overhauls, particularly the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s. Not a single Democrat joined the GOP in supporting the new bill in either the House or the Senate. With solid opposition like this, Democratic partisans among the general public may have received a stronger signal than in previous eras of tax legislation that the bill is unworthy of their support. And, as conservative pundits have complained, the media coverage of the effort has been overwhelmingly negative. But there may be another factor behind the lack of public support for the tax overhaul: the public’s perception that some people are more likely to cash in than others. Though the bill will offer most taxpayers some relief in the near term, analysts believe that the benefits to corporations and relatively wealthy taxpayers will be much greater—especially over the long haul. Importantly, the public seems to see this: Recent polling suggests that most people see the bill as a boon to the wealthy above all. Still, even if the rich are likely to benefit the most from the new tax cuts, shouldn’t the promise of some tax relief generate at least some enthusiasm for the bill in the broader public? As it turns out, many years of research in both psychology and political science suggest not. For the most part, studies indicate that self-interest in the pocketbook sense matters a lot less than we assume: Citizens are not moved to political action by perceived shifts in how they are doing as isolated individuals. They can, however, be roused to political anger when they think others will end up doing better in comparison to people like them—that is, when they experience what social scientists refer to as “relative deprivation.” Thus, even the promise of a few more dollars in one’s wallet might be dissatisfying if other folks end up with thousands more. Relative deprivation can produce an especially strong reaction when a policy seems to make one’s own group worse off compared with some other group of people. This group element seems to be present in people’s thinking about the GOP tax bill. Since most people tell pollsters that the wealthy and large corporations will benefit disproportionately from the tax rewrite, it’s quite likely that many citizens have concluded that this round of tax relief will benefit “them” (the wealthy and large corporations) more than “us” (average Americans). Psychologists also find that relative deprivation can be especially powerful when it appears to violate some standard of fairness. . . . . polls suggest that most Americans do not believe that upper-income people and corporations pay enough in federal taxes. For example, according to Gallup’s 2017 Economy and Finance Survey, when asked whether they felt various groups paid their “fair share” of federal taxes, 63 percent felt that the wealthy paid too little in taxes. Sixty-seven percent felt the same way about corporations. In contrast, 51 percent felt that middle-income people paid too much in federal taxes. Other recent research indicates that tax provisions that appear to help the wealthy avoid taxes are seen as especially unfair. . . . . the level of opposition we are seeing to the bill should be no surprise. Even if many taxpayers knew that they would personally see a lower tax bill in the next few years, they might still feel like they had gotten a raw deal—and perhaps an unfair deal—relative to the well-off. [C]hanges made by the bill will have a big impact on certain taxpayers. For instance, the overhaul’s trimming of the state and local tax deduction is likely to increase the taxes of many citizens living in high-tax states like California, New Jersey and New York. Should Democrats choose to highlight this change when campaigning in these states next year, voters might act on more than a mere distaste for how much the tax plan’s tilt toward the wealthy—potentially adding to the headwinds the GOP is facing going into the 2018 elections.

Put another way, most Americans realize that the small temporary  tax break they will receive adds up to less than the very wealthy pay for a pair of shoes or dress.  Meanwhile the very same wealthy will see tens of thousands (or in the case of Der Trumpenführer, millions) in tax breaks.  Again, I hope this bill bites the GOP firmly in the ass come November, 2018.

Hillary Clinton and America's Child Care Cost Crisis

With two daughters with small children who work full time - one is currently off on unpaid maternity leave because the USA is the only  advanced nation that has no paid maternity leave requirement - I am well aware of the difficulty that working women face in finding good child care for their children. On top of the challenge of finding a facility that you trust, there is the huge issue of the cost.  In many cases, monthly child care costs far exceed what families are paying on their mortgages or for rent. In my daughter's case, while on unpaid maternity leave, she is allowed to live rent free because I happen to own the house she and her family live in, but all that does is effectively pass the financial strain on to me as I still have a mortgage to pay each month.  Most young families are not so lucky and the phenomenon of high child care costs are a part of the war on today's middle class. Hillary Clinton has an op-ed in the Washington Post that looks at this huge problem and possible solutions.  Here are excerpts:

Jennifer lives in Loudoun County. She has three young boys. She pays $2,500 every month for child care. That’s more than her mortgage.  This month in Northern Virginia, I met several moms and dads who told me similar stories.

In every state in the country, child care for two kids now costs more than the average rent. You read that right — child care costs more than housing. And in many states, it’s even more expensive than college tuition.

For parents who need to work, this is more than an inconvenience. It’s a crisis.

A recent national survey found that more than three-quarters of mothers and half of fathers say they’ve had to pass up work opportunities, switch jobs or even quit working because there was no other way to pay for child care. But working fewer hours or dropping out of the workforce altogether can have long-term consequences for families’ incomes.

A lack of quality child care can be dangerous, too. In 2014, nine children in Virginia died in unlicensed day-care centers. Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) recentlysigned a bill to improve statewide safety standards, but without more federal funding, there’s only so much that states can do.

We’ve got to make investing in child care a national priority, especially for young parents, many of whom are trying to pay off student loans.

Child care, college and housing costs have skyrocketed while incomes have barely budged. And workplace policies haven’t changed even though families have, with women earning more of the family income than ever and men doing much more to care for kids and aging parents.

Many workers don’t have paid family leave. Many women don’t even get a single paid day off to give birth. The pressures are so intense that some workers worry that taking an earned vacation day will be seen as slacking off.

Let’s double our investment in programs I helped develop as first lady: Early Head Start and the Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership program. These programs bring an evidenced-based curriculum to child care and make sure kids get the best possible start in life, no matter how much money their families have.

Let’s lighten the burden on the one-quarter of college students who are parents by providing scholarships of up to $1,500 per year for child care.
 In addition to affordable child care, working parents deserve the security of knowing they won’t lose income — or their jobs — for taking care of themselves or a loved one. One dad in Virginia told me that to stay home for his newborn’s early days, he had to cobble together sick days and vacation days. Many people can’t do even that.

It’s time we stopped being the only advanced economy in the world that doesn’t offer workers paid family leave. That’s why I strongly support the paid family leave proposal the D.C. Council is pursuing. We should encourage states and local communities to take action as long as Congress refuses to act.

Under my plan, working Americans would earn up to seven days of paid sick leave each year. They would be guaranteed up to 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave to care for a new baby or sick family member or to recover from an illness or injury. And we can fully fund this program by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share of taxes.

It’s all too easy for “kitchen table issues” such as these to get overlooked in our politics. But they matter to families. They matter to kids. And they’ve been the work of my life.

From my daughters' experience and what many of the law firm staff go through, this is indeed a crisis.  If the GOP was the party of family values that it claims to be, it would support programs such as what Hillary Clinton is proposing.  Sadly, it opposes all such spending and prefers giving more tax cuts to the wealthy as the majority of Americans slide towards a lifestyle like out of Charles Dickens novel.  Indeed, some in the GOP has questioned the propriety of child labor laws.  Elections matter and the working families of America cannot afford to have the GOP retake the White House.

Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Association Launches Campaign for Medicaid Expansion

Here in Virginia, the Virginia GOP - like the national party - opposes anything related to Barack Obama, including Medicaid expansion which would extend healthcare coverage to roughly 400,000 working Virginians and give desperately needed financial relief to many of Virginia's hospitals.  Perhaps such racist inspired conduct against America's first non-white president should not be surprising in the state that pioneered "Massive Resistance" and the closure of public schools rather than allow black children attend school with withe children.  But what is amazing is the fact that the Virginia GOP is willing to threaten the continued existence of many hospitals, especially in rural areas where the GOP retains power by playing on voter racism, homophobia and anti-immigrant bigotry.  To fight back, the Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Association (VHHA), has launched  a statewide public awareness campaign to "alert Virginians to the financial challenges confronting Virginia hospitals" and indirectly to alert Virginians to the damage being done to health care in Virginia by the Virginia GOP obstructionism and willingness to kick working families into the gutter.  Blue Virginia has highlighted some top points of the campaign's message:

*Virginia hospitals are vital both to people's health and to the economy; they generate $35.8 billion in economic activity, employ 115,026 people with a payroll of $7.9 billion and rank among the top five employers in 60% of Virginia counties.

*Virginia hospitals are facing significant economic headwinds. This is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country, receiving over 60% of its revenue from either Medicaid or Medicare. In Virginia, Medicaid pays about two thirds of what it costs hospitals to provide care, and more cuts in reimbursements are likely. "This is a non-sustainable situation."

* One-third (31 of 88) of Virginia’s acute care hospitals operated in the red in 2013.

*"We're here today to begin a dialogue to try to bring to the public's attention that there's a problem, that we are facing serious headwinds, and that there are a lot of health systems and hospitals in the state that are bailing water pretty seriously."

*The goal is to engage "all parts of the political spectrum" to come up with a "Virginia solution that will be sustainable for the long term."

*Virginia hospitals contribute to the overall health and well being of the Commonwealth, so "the ripple effects of policies that harm hospitals reach much farther and wider than hospitals or health care systems."

*"This isn't a partisan issue at all, this is truly a health care issue and a community issue."

*Today, there are "challenges that we've never faced before in the health care system, and it's becoming more and more difficult to meet the needs of the underserved while keeping our hospitals fiscally sound, and that's sometimes especially true in rural areas."

*Hospitals "want to start a dialogue about the real problems that exist and the need for resolution to preserve Virginia's vitally important work of health care...and the significant economic contributions we make."

*Rural hospitals are typically the largest employers in their area. Just about half of rural hospitals operate in the red in Virginia...and they're all very much challenged in terms of their sustainability, their ability to continue to be there for their communities..."

 I've written on this issue before and it is one of the issues addressed in my September, 2015, column in VEER Magazine which is on the shelf now.  Sadly, supporting the Commonwealth's hospital system should not be a partisan issue, but given the intransigence of the Virginia GOP, it has become one.  The one irony is that many GOP dominated rural areas will end up losing not only easily accessible health care, but will also see their region's largest employers close down.  Their stupidity, racism and overall bigotry will ultimately be the root of their own undoing.  Karma can indeed be a bitch.

The 99% and American Insecurity

As the Republican Party's presidential candidates begin to disingenuously talk about their "concern for working Americans," "American workers," and/or the middle class, they conveniently ignore the reality that their party's policies have exacerbated the dire straits that most Americans face.  Worse yet, they and their wealthy supporters have no clue how most Americans live and just how financially insecure most in the 99% are in fact.  A column in the New York Times looks at this reality and the clueless mindset of the wealthy.  Here are some excerpts:

America remains, despite the damage inflicted by the Great Recession and its aftermath, a very rich country. But many Americans are economically insecure, with little protection from life’s risks. They frequently experience financial hardship; many don’t expect to be able to retire, and if they do retire have little to live on besides Social Security.

Many readers will, I hope, find nothing surprising in what I just said. But all too many affluent Americans — and, in particular, members of our political elite — seem to have no sense of how the other half lives. Which is why a new study on the financial well-being of U.S. households, conducted by the Federal Reserve, should be required reading inside the Beltway.

Before I get to that study, a few words about the callous obliviousness so prevalent in our political life.

I am not, or not only, talking about right-wing contempt for the poor, although the dominance of compassionless conservatism is a sight to behold. According to the Pew Research Center, more than three-quarters of conservatives believe that the poor “have it easy” thanks to government benefits; only 1 in 7 believe that the poor “have hard lives.” And this attitude translates into policy. What we learn from the refusal of Republican-controlled states to expand Medicaid, even though the federal government would foot the bill, is that punishing the poor has become a goal in itself, one worth pursuing even if it hurts rather than helps state budgets.

Take, as a prime example, positioning on Social Security. For decades, a declared willingness to cut Social Security benefits, especially by raising the retirement age, has been almost a required position — a badge of seriousness — for politicians and pundits who want to sound wise and responsible. After all, people are living longer, so shouldn’t they work longer, too? 

Meanwhile, the reality is that living longer in our ever-more-unequal society is very much a class thing: life expectancy at age 65 has risen a lot among the affluent, but hardly at all in the bottom half of the wage distribution, that is, among those who need Social Security most. . . . A majority of Americans over 65 get more than half their income from Social Security, and more than a quarter are almost completely reliant on those monthly checks.

Washington still has no clue about the realities of life for those not yet elderly. Which is where that Federal Reserve study comes in. . . . . 3 in 10 nonelderly Americans said they had no retirement savings or pension, and that the same fraction reported going without some kind of medical care in the past year because they couldn’t afford it. Almost a quarter reported that they or a family member had experienced financial hardship in the past year.And something that even startled me: 47 percent said that they would not have the resources to meet an unexpected expense of $400 — $400! They would have to sell something or borrow to meet that need, if they could meet it at all.

[W]hile things could be worse, they could also be better. There is no such thing as perfect security, but American families could easily have much more security than they have. All it would take is for politicians and pundits to stop talking blithely about the need to cut “entitlements” and start looking at the way their less-fortunate fellow citizens actually live.

What continually strikes me is that the GOP and much of its base claims to support and value Christian beliefs, yet in fact, they don't give a damn about others, especially the poor and unfortunate.  Indeed, they are modern day Pharisees.  Hence why I am no longer a Republican and why in many ways I don't want to be called a Christian.  Christianity as defined and practiced by the far right is truly something foul and ugly.