This evening:
Jason Kander @JasonKander
Elon Musk: Beware! If they can tax a billionaire like me, they can tax you regular people too!Regular People: We’ve been paying our taxes this whole time, bro.
7:55 PM · Oct 26, 2021
Yep.
26 Tuesday Oct 2021
Posted social media
inThis evening:
Jason Kander @JasonKander
Elon Musk: Beware! If they can tax a billionaire like me, they can tax you regular people too!Regular People: We’ve been paying our taxes this whole time, bro.
7:55 PM · Oct 26, 2021
Yep.
22 Friday Dec 2017
Posted Uncategorized
inTags
As the Trumpocalypse lumbers forward, its latest atrocity, the Republican/Trump tax scam is attracting lots of horrified commentary. Find below a few highlights from some of the more interesting takes on the issue:
Economist and New York Times opinion writer, Paul Krugman, takes his literary cue from the season:
It’s that time of year again. Some of us will get nice gifts, while others will get lumps of coal.
But the rules have changed a bit this time, at least as far as the federal government is concerned. The St. Nick you knew is on vacation, possibly permanently. In his place we have Republican Tax-Cut Santa, who has different priorities.
You see, the new guy doesn’t care whether you’re naughty or nice. In fact, he’ll actually reward you if you’re naughty in the right ways. But mainly he cares whether you’re rich, especially if your wealth comes from property (preferably inherited property), not hard work. In that case, you get a really big gift. If you’re an ordinary working family, not so much — and eventually you get that lump.
David Rothkopf in The Daily Beast makes the case that: “Donald Trump Just Pulled off the Greatest Long Con in History.” He outlines his case in the first paragraphs:
Bernie Madoff must be sitting in prison thinking to himself, “Schmuck, that’s how it is done!”
That’s because the con just pulled off by Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and very nearly every Republican on Capitol Hill would have every great fraudster in American history from Ponzi to that tubby guy behind the Backstreet Boys marveling at its scope, boldness, and brazen criminality.
But before we give these scoundrels too much credit, we need to recognize just how much of their con was, as they say in show biz, “sampled” from other scammers. These have included everything from the bait-and-switch (promise a “middle-class tax cut” on the campaign trail and deliver one for the rich and powerful) to the long con (play on the weaknesses of the sucker, take him through the twists and turns of meaningless distractions that go nowhere, then grab his cash). Another Madoff favorite that was regularly used was “cooking the books.” Estimates of benefits to the middle class were overstated, while the impact on the deficit was understated dramatically.
Sam Ross-Bown writes in The American Prospect about one of the several nasty little surprises hidden in the poorly-vetted, rushed legislation – in this case a provision that endangers our drinking water:
In the landmark tax reform overhaul, congressional Republicans axed a critical financing tool that cities and towns have used to upgrade aging drinking water infrastructure: advance refunding bonds. These bonds allowed municipalities to refinance outstanding debt at lower interest rates. The loss of this tool—combined with historically low levels of federal enforcement and support for basic drinking water standards—could deepen the nation’s ongoing lead contamination crisis by making it harder for local governments to fund much-needed infrastructure improvements that would curb lead contaminants in drinking water.
At Mother Jones, Edwin Rios lists some middle-class friendly alternative ways to spend the $1.5 trillion dollars that Trump’s tax bill gave to the wealthy and corporations: Free college; erase student debt, universal public preschool, comprehensive infrastructure repair, universal housing vouchers for eligible families making less than 30 percent of an area’s median income; CHIP funding for 107 years; global warming initiatives and disaster relief; new space stations. Read the details and weep for what could have been.
WaPos Paul Waldman analyzed the reality behind the announcement that five corporations were raising wages and/or handing out bonuses because of the tax cut. What he concluded is that there less there than meets the eye:
… Not only does it feel as though companies are attempting to curry favor with Trump as if he ere a Third World potentate, at least one of these companies – I’m lookig at you, AT&T – is embroiled in a contentious legal dispute with the U.S. government.
What’s more, these steps, while welcome, are hardly going to counter the vast benefits the wealthy will receive from this bill, much of which will come at the expense of the those less well-off. They also don’t address whether workers more broadly will actually receive a sizable jump in wages, or a sizable share of the benefits of the massive economic growth — if indeed that even happens — that Republicans claim these tax cuts will engender.
Beyond all this, while a bonus is a nice gesture — and a raise is, of course, a good thing — there was certainly nothing from stopping any company from taking such actions sooner. Overall, corporate balance sheets are flush, and stock prices are at record highs — and have been for some time. As Ben White noted at Politico, “These announcements are nice and good on all the companies for doling out some extra cash. But they are relatively small chunks of the vast piles of cash sitting around corporate balance sheets.”
Many commentators wrote about the politics of the bill. An example of the latter is John Judis’ argument in TPM (“The Politics of the Republican Tax Bill: A dissenting View”) that the GOP will have managed to insulate itself from negative fallout generated by the massive transfer of wealth upwards that this bill represents because of the small, temporary cuts that some in the middle class will receive.
TPM Editor Josh Marshall posted a careful response to Judis, concluding that:
The tax cut bill is unpopular first because its authors are very unpopular. It is also unpopular because of the disorderly and chaotic process in which it was constructed in which it was quite clear that the overriding goal was tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. A lot of the maneuvering was to find ways not to raise taxes too much on ordinary people so that it became impossible to pass. The overriding goal, however, was clear. So it is both the popular mood, the unpopularity of the President and the substance of the bill itself that is driving its low numbers. Recent evidence suggests that the relatively marginal short term benefits to middle income earners are not ones that will change anyone’s opinions. They’ll mainly confirm opinions of people already committed to supporting the President….
The Political Animal’s Martin Longman responds to Judis by arguing that Democrats should be optimistic that Americans won’t be misdirected by GOP tax cut smoke and mirrors:
Given that Donald Trump was just elected president, taking the cynical view of the American electorate might seem like an appropriate default position, but I don’t think it’s fair or supportable to say that Americans’ simply don’t care about wealth inequality. I think a lot of people care about it, and I believe it can be politically activated with or without demagoguery. During the Great Recession, Americans were being taxed at an historically low rate, but it proved easy to mobilize an impassioned political reaction based on the idea that we’re “Taxed Enough Already.” Complaints about fair treatment can still gain traction, and it’s even easier when the underlying grievance happens to be true. Hammering the Republicans for favoring the wealthy and corporations is always at least somewhat effective, but I think it will be especially effective in this cycle.
There’s lots more information and discussion out there. No reason for anyone to be bamboozled by statements like this (from MO Rep. Ann Wagner’s (R-2) email newsletter):
When you sent me to Congress in 2012, I promised Missourians that I would find a way for families to keep more of their hard-earned money. Yesterday, the House and Senate delivered on that promise. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cuts taxes for middle income Missourians, allows American businesses to flourish, and paves the way for an increase of good-paying jobs. In fact, employees across Missouri and the country are already starting to see the benefits of the tax reform only hours after its passage, just in time for Christmas!
Sheesh!
20 Wednesday Dec 2017
Posted Uncategorized
inTags
So Trump – with the full support of the GOP – has managed one of the biggest transfers of wealth upwards in the history of the U.S. Josh Marshall, properly dumbfounded, provides the transcript of Vice-Pence’s celebratory apotheosis of President Moron at what has been described as an unbelievably creepy cabinet meeting today. Here’s an astounding fragment:
But mostly, Mr. President, I’ll end where I began and just tell you, I want to thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank you for speaking on behalf of and fighting every day for the forgotten men and women of America. Because of your determination, because of your leadership, the forgotten men and women of America are forgotten no more. And we are making America great again.
Forgotten men and women? Billionaires, maybe? Because if they’re talking about working people and this regressive tax travesty is way they’re remembered, forget about being forgotten, they should go into hiding:
But, friends, we’re going to hear lots of this kind of talk in the coming months. Republicans have such contempt for voters that they’re sure a big publicity blitz will suffice to undo any damage come elections in 2018 – especially if it’s mostly paid for by the big “donors” who pushed this dismal piece of legislation. The Washington Post describes the GOP strategy:
Brad Todd, a Republican ad-maker who will be involved in some of next year’s marquee contests, said outside groups need to spend real money to sell the bill as soon as possible. “In order for the benefit to not come too late in the election cycle, it’s pretty important for conservative and Republican groups to make the sale now…
Yeah. Before the elections, sure, and before folks figure out that we’re all Kansas now (and that’s not a good thing, economy-wise). With a fail like this bill, there’ll be lots of dots to connect – and the GOP is betting voters will be too dumb to make the connections – at least before they cement power for another two years.
A note to my fellow Missourians: notice which Missouri Senator, part of the GOP leadership group that rushed the tax scam through, is showing up in photos and videos of the victorious Republican leadership after passage of the tax sham. Hint: He’s grinning like a monkey who’s just showered the room with big handfuls of fecal matter. Oh wait, he has.
19 Tuesday Dec 2017
Posted Uncategorized
inHere, via The Turner Report, is GOP Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s statement on the tax sham being muscled through Congress right now:
The release of this final tax reform bill brings hard-working Missouri families one step closer to relief. I look forward to voting on the tax package next week and getting it to President Trump’s desk before Christmas, so that Americans will see their paychecks increase and more jobs come back from overseas.
I want you to read this carefully in order to appreciate how remarkable it is. Remarkable, I mean, in terms the number of lies that can be packed into a relatively short statement:
The Tax bill will bring relief to “hard-working” Missouri families: I suppose this is true insofar as it’s possible that some billionaires are hardworking. And these guys are going to have so much relief that they will, to paraphrase Trump, who will also make out like the proverbial bandit, get sick of being relieved. Others, we are told by tax experts who have reviewed the document, may or may not pay less and, of course, even these much smaller poor folks “cuts” will expire within 5-10 years. Many working and middle class families and some small businesses will pay more in taxes right away since crucial deductions have been “simplified” out of existence in order to pay for huge, permanent cuts for corporations – which will, incidentally, keep almost all of the loopholes that the elimination of which have in the past provided a rationale for lowering the corporate tax rate.
Americans will see their paychecks increase: Most economists agree with those who assert that if it hasn’t already happened, increasing the corporate bottom line via a huge tax cut isn’t going to make it happen. As The Washington Post notes, “wage growth has remained relatively sluggish over the past several years, even as corporate profits hover near all-time highs as a share of the economy, and the unemployment rate continues to fall to levels that economists normally associate with rapid increases in worker pay.” Expect the corporate tax windfalls to go straight into corporate stock buybacks and to wealthy stockholders.
Americans will see … more jobs come back from overseas. The tax scam bill would allow companies to repatriate profits on a one-time basis at a 15% rate, a strategy that has failed to stop offshoring in the past. Tax lawyer David Herzog reminds us in a New York Times op-ed that, “by instituting a tax holiday in 2004, the government signaled to companies that future untaxed profits could eventually be repatriated when the budget was in trouble.” That’s why corporations are now sitting on $2.5 billion dollars they’ve squirreled away in foreign countries, waiting on the next tax holiday – and, voila, here it is.Thank you Daddy Trump.
Nor, as an AP Fact check observes, does past experience indicate that repatriated profits have much of a positive effect on the economy, but rather go into shareholders pockets or to finance stock buybacks. Tax experts, as opposed to Rep. Hartzler who clearly is not, are nearly uniform in the considered opinion that “the legislation fails to eliminate long-standing incentives for companies to move overseas and, in some cases, may even increase them.”
Nevertheless, we can expect this disastrous, deficit busting bill to pass with unanimous Republican support today. Its passage will happen even though a majority of Americans, even those who will get a tax cut, have made it clear in polls that they know it stinks. If you are interested in why Republicans don’t care about their constituents needs and preferences, Steve Benen has done an excellent job of outlining the possible reasons for GOP disregard of public opinion in this case.
I personally think that Rep. Hartzler’s mendacity in trying to pass off a mess of spoiled pottage as caviar and champagne can give us a clue to at least one aspect of the GOP strategy. I expect that we’ll hear many variants of Hatzler’s fantastic stories tripping off the lips of our imaginative Republican congresspeople in the coming weeks.They’re so sure that the voters they need have been Foxized to the point that they can be told up is down and they’ll not only believe it, but will start walking on their hands. Republicans think we’re dumb, manipulable bozos who can be led by our noses straight off a cliff.
And maybe they’re right to be contemptuous of their voters. Just look at who is sitting in the White House.
20 Monday Nov 2017
Posted Uncategorized
inMissouri Rep. Sam Graves (R-6), as behooves the offspring of a farm family, couches his defense of the provision of the GOP tax-cut-for-the-rich bill that would repeal the estate tax in terms of farmers. But before I get to that defense, it’s important to note that Graves seems to be a little confused about the meaning of words. He somehow thinks that the estate tax amounts to double taxation on the person who dies – rather than a one-time tax levied on the folks receiving a hefty gift they almost surely did not work for or earn. And BTW, big gifts are taxable even when the giver isn’t dead.
But he’s right about where to focus his defense of eliminating this particular rich folks’ goodie. Nobody will cry too hard if the Trump offspring someday have to pay estate taxes on what Daddy Trump represents as his billions. We all know that they’ll continue to live big no matter what – especially given the ways that Daddy is monetizing his time in the White House. But Graves knows that if his rural farming constituency thinks that the tax hurts small family farmers who receive their inheritance in the form of land, etc. rather than ready cash, they might be willing to foot the cost for Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric to buy a few more yachts, which is why he “gravely” (get it?) pronouces:
Farmers are hit especially hard by the death tax. After a lifetime of acquiring land and equipment to help provide food for the world, farmers are subjected to an additional tax on their estate when they die. The real effect of this double, and sometimes triple, taxation is felt by the late farmer’s family.
While many folks receive an inheritance in the form of a check or stocks and bonds, the family farmer passes on his life’s work and ensures that farming continues as a way of life in North Missouri and around the country.
It’s no wonder that our kids and grandkids aren’t choosing to farm when they grow up. It’s expensive enough to get a farming operation off the ground, much less keep it in the family after giving part of it to the government.
Could get a farmer all fired up and maybe even willing to overlook all the ways that the GOP tax plans will shaft the middle class – even middle class farmers. Except for one thing: Graves is playing fast and loose with the facts. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), “only 50 small farm and small business estates in the entire country will pay any estate tax in 2017 […] and they’ll owe less than 6 percent of their value in tax, on average.” Nor, as the CBPP further notes, will paying that tax force farming heirs to sell the family farm:
The estate tax affects so few small farms and businesses because the first $5.49 million of assets per person ($10.98 million per couple) are entirely exempt from it. Moreover, most farmers and business owners with estates large enough to owe the tax have sufficient liquid assets (such as bank accounts, stocks, and bonds) to pay the tax without having to touch other assets or liquidate their farm and business, a 2005 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study found. Today’s estate tax rules are even more generous than those CBO assumed in its analysis. Special estate tax provisions also allow estate tax filers to spread their payments over a 15-year period at low interest rates.
While doing next to nothing for family farms, repeal would provide a windfall to the wealthiest 0.2 percent of estates — the only ones large enough to pay the tax. A repeal proposal recently reintroduced in the Senate would provide the 0.2 percent of wealthiest estates with an average tax cut of more than $3 million in 2017. Roughly 330 estates worth more than $50 million would get more than $20 million apiece in tax cuts, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates. The proposal would also cost $269 billion over the decade, expanding deficits and adding to pressure for cuts in federal programs.
I’d say that somebody ought to tell Rep Graves to get his facts straight, but there’s that part of me that wonders what the point would be. We’ve seen his colleagues spin whopper after whopper to try to sell us on a tax cuts for their donors. Is it Graves fault that the best he can do is that old swampland special, the farm estate tax canard? It may even do the job it’s designed to do. After all, for many Trump voters who believe he/she knows from whence emanates all fake news, it probably still has currency.
At least Rep. Graves isn’t resorting to claims like those made my my Representative, Ann Wagner (R-2), that raising taxes on the middle class, cutting funding to programs that benefit the middle class, while giving a big regressive tax cut to the wealthiest of the wealthy will somehow help a “single mother of two.” Of course, there’s nothing to stop an unmarried Paris Hilton clone from giving birth twice. It could even happen on a lavish country estate that qualifies as a “family” farm.
16 Monday Oct 2017
Posted Uncategorized
inI usually try not to use the privilege of writing on SMP to do no more than reprint salient parts of news reports or editorial content without some “value” added. Reporters and pundits do a fine job, reach far more readers than I, and don’t need to be reprinted here unless their reportage and observations help me make what I hope is a related but separate point.
However, I’m making an exception today. The following text is taken from a Washington Post article about Trump’s overtures to red state Senate Democrats who may feel threatened enough to deal with the devil when it comes to his plans to slash taxes for businesses and wealthy folks such as himself. Specifically, I’m including a small section of the article dealing with the response – to date – of our Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, widely considered to be one of the most vulnerable Senate Democrat, because I think it is so important to those of us in Missouri:
Wednesday’s meeting is expected to include Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a member of the Finance Committee who has been critical of Trump’s approach so far. McCaskill has spent weeks pushing the White House to work more closely with Democrats on the tax plan, saying that a failure to work with Democrat doomed their efforts to make changes to health care rules.
But even though McCaskill is up for reelection in 2018 and comes from a state Trump won handily, she is digging in against the White House’s tax plan more than many of her colleagues, convinced voters will see it as a big handout for the rich.
During a meeting last week with constituents in Washington, Mo., McCaskill asked everyone to put a question on a slip of paper and drop it into a fishbowl.
The third question McCaskill plucked from the bowl asked simply, “Will you help get tax reform done this year?”
“I hope so. I would love to get tax reform done,” she said. “But here’s the issue. The issue is what is the tax reform bill? Now, I haven’t seen a final plan. We’ve seen an outline and the outline is very troubling to me.”
She explained that she’s “not interested in reducing taxes for the [wealthiest] 1 percent. I am very interested in reducing taxes to the middle class and to families that are living paycheck to paycheck. … That’s where my focus is.”
McCaskill then turned to notes on a lectern, telling the audience that she had asked staffers to determine how much money a Missouri family of four earning $50,000 would end up paying under the Republican proposal.
“Under the current law, their tax bill with the personal exemptions and the standard deduction and the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, currently they’d pay $107 in taxes,” she said. But because the Republican plan would eliminate personal deductions, that same family would pay $887 in taxes if Trump gets his way.
Many in the room gasped.
“The family of four making $50,000 is going to pay more for taxes — that’s not middle-class tax relief,” she said, while noting that Republicans had not yet determined what they will do about the child tax credit.
So far, McCaskill is doing what she is able to do so well: take a stand and explain it clearly and honestly in terms that everyone understands. She’s also, wisely, acted proactivley, touring the state and getting the message out before she’s irrevocably slimed by the Kochbots – who will still be able to do lots of damage, the political climate in Missouri being what it is. She’s doing what she can to get the word out while making it clear that she’s one of the adults in the room – something that is sorely lacking in Trump’s Washington.
Nevertheless, McCaskill’s going to need active progressive support – and she’s showing signs that she’ll earn it. We need to encourage her to keep on keeping on in this way, let her know that we’ll back her up – as the WaPo article makes clear, there are several other “vulnerable” Senators who may be persuaded to give the oligarchy a win that will be paid for by the middle and working class. We have to do our bit to make sure that our Democratic Senator knows that we’ll work hard to support her come 2018 if she works equally hard to support us – and we need to let her know that we appreciate her efforts.
*Addendum: Want to know how the GOP is going to try to scam us in order to give their donors big tax cuts – and the narrative we’re asking McCaskill to stand up against? Read this Greg Sargent column from the WaPo. If you want a teaser, here’s Sargent’s conclusion:
This whole debate is entirely off the rails. Nothing that leaders say on any side — whether they’re the “establishment” or the “insurgents” — about what is going on among Republican voters makes even minimal logical sense. One persuasive explanation for this through-the-looking-glass state of affairs was recently offered by Ross Douthat, which is that there is an enormous void at the core of the GOP right now when it comes to what the party is supposed to stand for. Each side, I would add, is employing its own scam designed to fill that vacuum. This is not normal, and it isn’t possible to have a rational political debate under these conditions.
26 Saturday Aug 2017
Posted Uncategorized
inTags
Springfield. That’s the city. And it’s true that Donald Trump will be there next week. Wednesday to be exact.
Trump’s gonna talk about his tax plan. Except that he doesn’t have a tax plan.
According to Trump’s Chief Economic Advisor, Gary Cohn, the Trumpies have a “great, I would say, skeleton. We need the Ways and Means Committee to put some muscle and skin on the skeleton and drive tax reform forward.” Which means that Trump and his not-such-wunderkinds are going to let congress – the same congress he’s been busy bad-mouthing – fill in the details and “solve the big questions that remain unanswered.”
Just like Trump’s recipe for “wonderful” healthcare. Remember the bang-up job congress and Trump did with that one?
So, if there’s no real plan, what exactly will Trump be selling when he comes to Springfield? Obviously, as the White House has said, there will be no specifics. Instead, according to an unnamed administration official, he’ll “advocate broad themes of middle-class tax cuts, simplifying the tax code and making businesses more competitive in a way that encourages job creation.”
In other words, he’s coming to Missouri to sell us a pig in a poke – and trying to persuade us, sight-unseen that, just like his healthcare plan, it’s the best ever. Certainly the best Pavlovian buzz-words ever.
We can only hope that there are at least a few Missourians who are on to this game by now.
We’ve heard Trump’s faux populist palaver about cutting middle-class taxes for a long time. It’s faux populism because it’s not really true.
The broad-stroke proposals released during the election campaign last year along with the similar outlines that were shared in April and July of this year, very emphatically were not designed to benefit the middle class – although they offered Trump’s homies, that is, the very wealthy, a super-sweet deal. Buzz is that this latest stinker’s just more of the same – and that the wealthy and super-wealthy will do just fine, as usual, on the backs of the middle class.
The devil, of course, is in the details, and the fact that we have no details – even though these bozos have had seven months to fill in the blanks – suggests a very unpleasant product is in the offing although the perpetrators of the proposed reform will be doing all that they can do to disguise its shortcomings. The fact that Paul Ryan will have a hand in crafting the details is not reassuring. We’ve seen his budget proposals in the past and they are not, to put it mildly, friendly to the less than wealthy.
Anne Kim at The Washington Monthly argues that, while there is plenty of room for real tax reform, given the inability of the White House to provide serious direction when it comes to the hard decisions – and I would add, because of the ideological bent of the GOP-dominated Congress – we’ll probably get nothing more than tax cuts with the potential to do lasting harm:
Given all this, it’s highly doubtful that anything the GOP Congress puts forward this fall will truly count as “reform.” Rather, the likeliest scenario is a modest—or not so modest—set of corporate tax cuts aimed at placating the president and his base and, of course, squeezing vulnerable swing-state Democrats into making difficult pre-election choices. As Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway signaled as early as January, Trump would be just as happy with tax “relief” as he would be with “reform.”
A tax cut package disguised as reform could do serious damage—such as by blowing a mile-high hole in the federal deficit while aggravating the blatant inequities of the current system. More significantly, it would be an enormous missed opportunity for genuine discussion about the kinds of reforms that could grow the economy and make it fairer for working-class Americans.
(A word to the wise: Keep in mind the part about “squeezing vulnerable swing-state Democrats into making difficult pre-election choices” when you hear Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill try to make nice with tax-cutting Trump.)
It has been suggested that Trump is coming to Missouri rather than to Kansas because Kansas has been reduced to near financial ruin through the implementation of the type of tax cuts he wants to see enacted on the national level. And although Missouri is now experiencing the consequences of similar, if not as extreme, ideologically motivated tax-cuts, there are plenty of true-believers here intent on not learning the lesson of Kansas – and plenty of self-interested money-men – e.g., billionaire Rex Sinquefield and his ilk – who encourage their wilful blindness with plentiful dollops of campaign cash.
Nevertheless, it’ll be interesting to see how Trump’s sales spiel will be received by Missourians other than the hard-core, ever- salivating base. John Danforth, the Dean of traditional Missouri Republican circles, recently attempted to exorcise Trump from the GOP body politic when he declared in a WaPo op-ed that the GOP “cannot allow Donald Trump to redefine the Republican Party.” I’m gonna go out on a limb here and predict that Danforth will have to sit on a similar limb all by himself.
It already looks like lots of Missouri GOP good ol’ boy and gal pols will be more than willing to let The Donald redefine the party any old way he wants to as long as they get the tax “reform” for which their financial supporters have been clamoring. The question is, though, how will the rest of us welcome Trump and his bloviations to Missouri? Are Missourians still as susceptible to the empty blandishments of the conman-in-chief as they were in fall 2016?
14 Tuesday Mar 2017
Tags
Budget shortfalls, Corporate incentives, Fiscal Responsibility, Nicole Galloway, Supply side economics, tax cuts, Tax policy, Voodoo economics, Will Kraus
We all know that newbie Governor Greitens has been trying to deal with a dire budget situation occaisoned by a corporate tax cut enacted in 2015 that ended up slashing incoming revenue by $155 million. Chickens are coming home to roost, you reap what you sow & etc., etc.
State Republicans, however, who were adamant that the corporate tax cut wouldn’t hurt a bit and was, in fact, necessary to stimulate growth, are now pretending that they didn’t know how distressed chickens behave, or, alternatively, that they just didn’t know what they were sowing:
“We had bad information when we passed that bill,” House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick told The Associated Press. “I think if we’d have had the correct information, we wouldn’t have passed it.”
But somehow Democrats in the legislature knew that no good would come from fact-free tax cutting – and they tried to tell the GOP ideologues in the Assembly:
Democratic senators who spoke against the bill said they worried it would threaten Missouri’s excellent credit rating and reduce state funds for education.
“We can’t afford to do a tax cut at this level,” said Senator Jolie Justus, speaking on the Senate floor, citing services that she said were already severely underfunded. “We are on the wrong track.”
Democratic Governor Nixon also knew. He called the bill “ill-conceived,” and correctly vetoed it. But nobody on the Republican side was listening. The determined Republican legislative majority covered their ears and passed the tax-cut over Nixon’s veto.
It’s just one more case of willful ideologuing on the part of Republican politicians who ought to have been governing. It’s not like there hasn’t been lots of examples proving that radical tax cuts don’t really summon the elusive business fairy – Brownback’s failed Kansas economic experiment is a potent example right next door. And there’s lots more out there – Louisiana, Wisconsin, etc. are finding out that the GOP tax-cutting mantra doesn’t readily translate into workable policy.
Research tells us that corporate tax incentives may provide a windfall for CEOs of existing businesses in the state, but they rarely contribute to increased statewide prosperity. A new report even suggests that tax based incentives are not only ineffective, but actually cost more than they contribute to the economy:
Less flashy but more important, a February report from the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research suggests, are the run-of-the-mill economic development incentives built into state law across the country and designed either to attract companies, to keep them in place, or to get them to add positions. In 2015, incentives for new or expanding export-based industries (i.e., manufacturing, tech, media, any company that sells its goods or services beyond the local economy) offset average state and local business taxes by 30 percent, costing the U.S. $45 billion.
The report, based on a database of 26 years of incentives in 33 states, affirms the consensus that these tax breaks—which have tripled since 1990, when the database begins keeping track—don’t do much to convince companies to move. Plotting the effects of incentives and taxes on state GDP growth, the study concludes their effects are “always statistically insignificant … the maximum possible effects of incentives on increasing growth … are towards the lower end of the range of estimates in the previous literature.”
And while some GOP pols in Jefferson City are pretending that they just didn’t understand that actions have consequences, don’t expect a change in their direction. In December, that irrepressible tax-cutter, Senator Will Krauss (R-8), the Senate sponsor of the 2015 bill, let us know that that he, like most GOPers, will never, ever learn the lessons of the past:
Republican state Sen. Will Kraus told The Associated Press that Trump’s support for reducing such taxes could open the door to axing corporate income taxes on the state level. Kraus will introduce a bill during the next legislative session beginning in January that would phase out the state’s current 6.25 percent corporate income tax.
“I see an opportunity for us to be able to market Missouri as a corporate tax-free state,” Kraus said. He called the measure a “job-creation” bill.
Under Kraus’ bill, the tax would drop to 4 percent in 2017 and 2 percent in 2018. It would be eliminated in 2019.
So … is there any hope? Maybe. State Auditor Michelle Galloway is going to begin “what she calls a ‘budget integrity series,’ a slew of audits and financial reviews to better understand how the budget shortfall occurred … she hopes to better understand the difference between expected fiscal effects when tax breaks are offered and their actual ramifications on the state budget.” Just what the doctor ordered. But unless Galloway’s findings confirm the prior beliefs of our GOP pols, it may be too much to expect them to pay attention.
29 Thursday Dec 2016
Posted Uncategorized
inIt seems that Missouri Rep. Lyndall Fraker (R-137) thinks that sales taxes are threatening the survival of Missouri’s country clubs. To hear him tell it, “it’s just really hitting some of these clubs really hard.” That’s why he’s proposing a sales tax exemption on initiation fees and dues for private country clubs. Rich folks can only handle so much luxury spending after all, and when you’ve put down a bundle on the private school for your kid and put a new Mercedes in the garage, you’ve got to cut down, right? And we’ve got to keep those vitally important country clubs chugging along somehow, don’t we?
To put Fraker’s concern about the plight of country clubs into perspective, the Pitch characterized him in 2015 as “as one of the more lobbyist-greased elected officials,” adding:
Given that he’s been plied with more gifts than a spoiled 10-year-old on Christmas Day, it’s easy to see how someone like Fraker would think that holding a legislative meeting for the House Utility Infrastructure Committee at a country club paid for by a utility industry association is perfectly fine.
[…]
Fraker seemed unfazed by the criticism, telling MissouriNet on Monday that the meeting was just an opportunity for committee members to take in some information from MEDA president Trey Davis.
“I posted it up as a regular meeting just so we would be transparent, so the public would know we don’t have bills to hear but we’re going to have an informative meeting, an introductory meeting for our first meeting and all the utility members of all the committees can meet one another and get to know each other and get to know Trey’s organization,” Fraker told MissouriNet.
Nice to know that Fraker wanted to be transparent about not being transparent. But at least we now understand why he thinks country clubs are so important. A solid operator’s gotta give his lobbyist constituency the type of surroundings they’re used to if he’s gonna make an impression and maximize the take.
There’s a more of that perspective stuff that might also be useful in this case. This tax exemption will decrease revenue dollar for dollar in a state where the current budget shortfall is somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 million dollars. That shortfall will probably grow even larger after a newly enacted GOP tax cut that will cost the state $600 million dollars over five years goes into effect. (In case you haven’t noticed, Missouri Republican lawmakers are going for the Kansas effect – bust the budget and decimate the state’s economy because they really want to believe, contrary to Parmenides, that something wonderful can come from nothing.)
To focus that perspective business just a little more, consider the fact that in 2013 Missouri got a C- grade on the state of its infrastructure from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Infrastructure includes roads, bridges, drinking water safety, levees, aviation systems, dams, school facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, inland waterways navigation systems, almost all of which are deteriorating and underfunded. Missouri schools are also seriously underfunded.
I could go on and on in the same vein – although Missouri may be doing better than Kansas, that’s not saying much. But, hey, Rep. Fraker’s got his priorities. Too bad they aren’t likely to benefit the people in his district.
Previously:
HB 276: because a private country club is exactly the same as charitable or veteran’s organizations (December 21, 2016)
HB 328: because a private tennis club is exactly the same as charitable or veteran’s organizations (December 27, 2016)
31 Thursday Mar 2016
Posted Uncategorized
inTags
Bob Onder, dicrimintion, Heather Steans, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri Legislature, SJR 39, Tax policy
State Senator Bob Onder (R-2) is really, really worried that Missouri will go the way of Illinois, which is not experiencing good fiscal times. Onder, under the guise of “religious freedom,” is proposing a Constitutional amendment that would permit folks who don’t like LGBT folks to discriminate against them in the business sphere. Faced with the rather clear evidence provided by Indiana and Georgia, states that have backed away from faux religious freedom-to-discriminate legislation in the face of potential economic blowback, as well as the brewing economic disaster in North Carolina which just passed one of these ugly laws, Onder seems to be more than a little desperate to defend his earlier statement that no one has proved to him that such a bill could hurt the Missouri economy. How to do that? Find a state that has an anti-discrimination culture that is reflected in legislation that protects LGBT individuals and that, like Illinois, is also having a rough time economically.
Onder may be overusing the example of Illinois’ financial status though. It seems to be his all-purpose scapegoat. Earlier he blamed Illinois’ financial problems on the fact that it extended Medicaid according to the provisions of Obamacare. One cannot be faulted for wondering just what it is it that is driving Illinois so close to the edge? Addressing bigotry or providing healthcare for the working poor?
Of course, it’s always possible that Illinois’ problems have an entirely different source. Indeed, Illinois Democratic State Senator Heather Steans noted in response to Onder’s claims that, “if Illinois’ tax rates were as high as Missouri’s, we wouldn’t be struggling with the budget problems we have today.”
There’s lots of evidence to support Steans’ statement. After Republican Governor Bruce Rauner came into office in Illinois he rolled back the temporary tax increases implemented by former Governor Quinn – although financial experts agreed that, no matter how severely the budget was cut, if Illinois was to emerge from its financial crisis, the higher tax rates should be extended. As a consequence of this action, combined with the open war between he hide-bound Republican Rauner and the Democratic legislature, the picture for Illinois is truly bleak.
If you want more evidence for Steans’ contention, I have one word for you: Kansas. Kansas enacted great big ol’ tax cuts for business and the wealthy and the place is a disaster area, huge deficits, degraded public services and, get this, it’s losing jobs. And none of the blame can be attributed to LGBT friendly laws or Medicaid extension. Of course, as a Missouri Republican who has touted tax cuts as the yellow brick road leading to unimaginable trickle-down rivers of wealth, I don’t imagine Onder will be any more interested in exploring the Kansas example than he is in acknowledging the impact of the anti-LGBT legislation in Indiana, Georgia or North Carolina.
Better yet, look at the roster of prospering cities with a strong anti-discrimination culture. As one commentator notes, it “is no coincidence. San Francisco and Austin are arguably the most gay-friendly cities in the country, and they check in at #1 and #2 respectively on the Milken Institute’s 2014 List of Best-Performing Cities.” Of course, as Steans response to Onder implies, there are probably lots of other factors that affect prosperity – certainly the oil industry might be key to the relative prosperity in Texas and Oklahoma, rather than the bigoted LGBT policies that Onder cites.
But one thing is sure. Lots of businesses don’t want to be associated with states that enshrine discrimination in their laws. The evidence is undeniable that there is a growing economic backlash against freedom-to-discriminate bills, no matter how pandering politicians attempt to disguise them under the high-minded rubric of ensuring “freedom of religion.” We all know nobody’s religious freedom is under threat. I know that the GOP has come to stand for retrograde ideological purity over any practical consideration, including fiscal responsibility, but is Onder really ready to take the blame for what his follow-the-ugly-leader legislation could cost the state?