Congressional Creative Accounting

We're at a place where the only meaningful check on Trump's influence in Congress is fiscal conservatives (yes, they still exist), Tea Party types who want to make the Trumpublican budget worse for lower income Americans by cutting even more social programs. 

I briefly addressed the book-cooking end run around the filibuster in Nobody Likes the Filibuster Until They Do, but I didn't see much about it in the mainstream media until Ezra Klein's New York Times podcast from the other day. Here's a quote from the transcript of the podcast:

But let’s not fall for dumb budget tricks. The bill is full of tax cuts the Republicans have slapped expiration dates on. The way it’s written right now, it wipes out taxes on overtime and tips and car loans, but only for four years. That will all expire in 2028. But we know they have no intention of allowing those tax cuts to expire. They want to run in 2028 on the fear that Democrats will let them expire.

Republicans use this trick a lot. If you look back at those 2017 tax cuts from Donald Trump’s first term, they used the same gimmick. And in this very bill, Republicans are canceling all those expiration dates.

I’d used the old “Fool me once” line, but I wasn’t fooled on this last time, and I’m not going to pretend to be fooled on it this time. But I do think it’s at least a little bit funny that the Republicans want budgetary credit for using that expiring tax-cut trick in the very same bill in which they’re also deleting their last set of expiration dates. One thing you’ll never hear me say about Donald Trump’s Republican Party is that it lacks chutzpah.

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — Washington’s saddest advocacy group — if you take seriously the permanence the Republicans are actually seeking, the Big Budget Bomb will add about $5 trillion to the debt over the next decade. That is an insane number.

Do you remember when Trump promised to balance the budget?

I remember very clearly that the 2017 "tax cuts", which disproportionally benefitted corporations and wealthy Americans, were only able to pass due to creative accounting. They were required, by Senate rules, to demonstrate that the budget would be not add to the deficit over a ten year period. If the proposed tax changes added to the deficit the Democrats would be able to filibuster. The bill, as originally written would add to the deficit. The Republicans swerved around this rule by having the changes expire in eight years, making them revenue neutral over ten years. 

We're in the eighth year right now. 

So, in Congressional pretend-land, we're supposed to forget that the whole scenario that allowed the 2017 tax changes to take place, the thing that would keep the changes from causing the budget deficit and national debt to balloon, depended on these tax cuts expiring this year. They want us to view returning to pre-2017 levels as a tax increase while simultaneously seeing extending the current levels as a tax cut. 

Since the 2017 trick worked so well, they're trying it again, and since they're running the show (again) it will succeed. The current bill, as noted in the Ezra Klein quote above, is full of expiration dates in order to (1) Neuter the Democrats ability to filibuster and (2) Use some sleight of hand to make it seem like it's fiscally responsible. Does anyone believe that Republicans won't do everything in their power to extend the expiring cuts once again? Now it's much more blatantly partisan, with the so-called expiration dates timed to coincide with the 2028 presidential election season, designed to effectively dare the Democrats to vote against extension, making them look like they're against the working class. 

Speaking of Congressional magic tricks, the big items that are designed to fool non-billionaires, in addition to expiring in three years, aren't what they're cracked up to be. 

Elimination of taxes on Social Security benefits:

Currently, Social Security benefits are partially taxable if your adjusted gross income plus half of your benefits exceed a certain amount. This could result in up to 85% of one's benefits being taxable. This mainly applies to people who have started receiving benefits while still working, or if one spouse is receiving benefits while the other is working. The bill as currently written does not eliminate taxes on Social Security. It adds an extra standard deduction for seniors of $2,000 ($4,000 for married filing jointly). How this would affect any specific taxpayer would depend on how much their income plus benefits exceeds the cutoff. It effectively lowers taxable income by $4,000. (Adding actual elimination of taxability of a portion of Social Security benefits to the budget would cause it to be ineligible for reconciliation and therefore subject to a filibuster)

Elimination of taxes on tips: 

Before diving into this, let's clear up some misconceptions. It doesn't apply only to cash. "Cash tips" as defined in the Internal Revenue tax code include cash, credit/debit cards and checks. The bill as written intends to prevent people involved in businesses that typically do not rely on tips from reclassifying their income as tips. (That doesn't mean people won't try to do it, but it's not the intent). Rather than eliminating withholding taxes on tips (including FICA) the bill provides for a deduction of up to $25,000 on any reported tips. How this works in practice remains to be seen. Will servers start reporting the actual cash that they receive as tips that they haven't been previously reporting? Sure, they'll recoup (up to $25,000) any taxes they have paid over the year (less what they paid in FICA and Medicaid taxes), but their paychecks will be smaller and they won't have that under-the-table cash. This arrangement will help their future Social Security benefit calculations, but do people in general think about the future or are they focussed more on making ends meet today?

Both of the items I cited Expire at the end of 2028. 

As usual, the party that screams about fiscal responsibility doesn't hold themselves to the same standard. 

Nobody Likes The Filibuster Until They Do

Nobody likes the filibuster when the other guys are doing it, and everybody likes it when it prevents the other guys from doing things that you don't like. When Democrats were in the majority there was a lot of talk about eliminating the filibuster in order to enshrine a right to abortion in legislation, as well as accomplishing other Democratic priorities. But since Democratic Senators Manchin and Sinema were not in favor, it never got done. Now that the Republicans are in the majority, the Democrats in Congress love the filibuster. 

The Senate rules allow for unlimited debate on any bill. However debate can be ended by a three fifths (60 vote) "cloture" (Cloture = ending debate). A filibuster is an attempt to extend debate indefinitely, therefore effectively killing a bill since it will never be voted upon. In practice the threat of a filibuster is enough to kill a bill if it is determined that there are not 60 votes for cloture, which is why major legislation is said to require 60 votes in the Senate, allowing the minority to kill any bills they don't support. Or simply to hamstring the majority just because. As frustrating as the filibuster, and by extension the 60 vote requirement can be to getting anything done, I believe it serves an important function. 

I am well aware that the filibuster was long used by segregationists to stymie civil rights legislation. It's possibly one of the main reasons that this rule existed in the Senate. However, it is my belief that it serves as a brake on major changes that are supported by a slim or transient majority that might not represent a majority of the electorate. The founders couldn't think of everything (in fact they didn't include the filibuster in the Constitution, that was added later as part of Senate rules) but one thing that they included as part of the design of the new government was a framework to prevent things from preceding without due consideration. There were three branches. The executive and legislative had to come to agreement before legislation could pass and the judicial could override any legislation that was unconstitutional. Even within the legislative branch there were two houses of Congress which may not agree. (Originally Senators were appointed by state governments, not directly elected). Every part of the governing process served as an invitation to stop and think about what was happening and get buy-in from other stakeholders. 

We often hear the phrase, which I first heard from President Obama, "elections have consequences". It's true that whoever wins an election has the constitutional authority to carry out their agenda, but with majorities so thin that a case of the flu can leave the majority party without enough votes to pass their bill, and a president who won a majority of the electoral votes but beat out the main competition by a razor thin margin (with slightly less than 50% of the votes), should we be attempting a major restructuring of government, with changes affecting millions of ordinary Americans, on such a shaky foundation? And I'm not even factoring in the arguably unconstitutional power grab by the president who is attempting to rule by fiat. 

Currently the Senate majority (53 Republicans) is attempting to circumvent the filibuster, and therefore the 60 vote threshold, in order to push through their budget which includes huge changes in the government. A process called reconciliation allows a bill that includes only spending or taxes to proceed with limited debate and no option of a filibuster. One of the requirements is that it be revenue neutral over ten years. The Republicans in 2017 were able to push through their tax plan in this manner. They were able to claim that it was revenue neutral over ten years by having it expire in 2025. Yet here we are seeing an attempt to extend it past this year, so the original terms have been thrown out the window. This year's subversion is using similar creative accounting -- having aspects of the plan -- those that benefit ordinary Americans and not billionaires and corporations -- expire at the end of Trump's term. 

Government policy should embody at least some consistency. Our allies have no idea how to interact with us as each administration seesaws back and forth; domestically we have no idea what the next day will bring -- inflation and stock prices (and with them our 401(k)'s) are at the mercy of a man ignorant of economic reality, and Congress, at least the majority, willing to acquiesce to his whims.  Even aside from questions of constitutionality, we need some bulwark against the tyranny of the (bare) majority. The filibuster is one of those checks.

Gerontocracy on Parade

There's a new book out that sheds an uncomfortable spotlight on President Biden's mental and physical condition during the last few years of his term in office. It alleges that Biden's inner circle, especially his wife Jill, hid the extent of his decline, and that Democratic office holders and party officials deluded themselves that everything was fine. If it's true, was it as bad as this book claims, is it just another excuse for the Democrats' failure to prevent Trump from regaining power? 

One of things most people know about Biden is that he stammers in certain situations, and that he rambles when telling a story. And he loves to tell stories that are exaggerated and embellished. I can empathize with all of those traits. Anyone who has heard me speak publicly would probably agree that I'm a fairly articulate and engaging speaker. But catch me without a script, and I'll ramble and repeat myself, losing the thread sometimes. If I'm in a meeting and have to address issues that I am not up to speed on, or don't have all the facts lined up, I'll stammer a little. To compensate I'll speak slowly, with frequent pauses, in order to make my point, sometimes causing others to interrupt and finish my thoughts. But give me a script (even in Spanish!), or even good notes, and I'm as polished and articulate as the next guy. Biden has always rambled, he has always embellished his stories, and he has never been a great public speaker. 

The debate with Trump is looked upon as the proof that he had lost it -- he looked terrible, acted confused, and gave rambling answers to questions. His slacked-jawed expression (as one anti-Trump friend of mine described it) made him look "out of it". Defenses from his allies that the debate was a one-time problem were not believed and led to his withdrawal from the presidential race. But I look at other appearances that same year -- notably a speech that same week, as well as the State of the Union speech where he dealt masterfully with Republican hecklers, and agree that the debate could be looked at as the exemption, not the rule. I look back at the notes that I took during that debate and what I observed at the time was that although Biden looked bad, he answered most of the questions about policy clearly. There was one answer that rambled a bit and ended with him petering off in a mumble that was not understood, and there was he and Trump arguing about golf handicaps, but, unlike Trump, he actually answered the questions. Trump was as rambling and incoherent, but he did it in a loud voice and a smirk on his face, and was not held to the same standard. 

There's a saying: "perception is reality". It's really not, but people's perception guides how they think and act. If people perceive that the president is weak and mentally debilitated, they will not have confidence in his ability to lead. The MAGA Cult believes that Trump is a strong leader, despite all evidence to the contrary, so that's the "reality" that they act upon. After that debate the suspicion that Biden wasn't up to the task became the perception that he wasn't which became the reality. 

The job of the president is like and unlike other management jobs. He isn't micromanaging all aspects of the government, but is providing leadership and guidance for his appointees to turn his vision into reality. The president might have to make life or death decisions quickly on the basis of incomplete or contradictory information in some situations, but most of the job involves the slow and plodding business of legislation, and the minutia of governing. The president shouldn't be, and can't be an expert on all things. The president's staff, including cabinet secretaries and agency heads, are doing all the work. (Does anyone think Trump is personally writing all of those executive orders?) Conservatives and other Republicans might disagree about whether Biden's agenda was right for the country, but no one can argue that he wasn't effective as president. He got things done. His biggest failure was his lack of an effective border policy. His decades in the Senate convinced him that it was the job of Congress to legislate the border policy, but unfortunately he was blind to how hyper partisan the legislative branch had become. His executive order to secure the border was effective, but too late to benefit him politically. 

So far it sounds like I'm arguing that Biden was fine and the concerns were unfounded. Not at all. Biden was not my first choice during the 2020 Democratic primaries -- then-Senator Kamala Harris was. But the majority of Democratic primary voters disagreed. (Sit down Sanders fans) Biden was the consensus choice, possibly viewed as the safe choice, to defeat Trump in the 2020 general election -- which he did. My opinion was that we needed a younger candidate -- I thought at the time that Biden's age would mean that he would be a one-term president, gracefully declining to run for re-election to make room for his Vice President, or encouraging an open primary. My age-related objection to Biden in the first place, and my hope that he would voluntarily limit himself to one term might be interpreted as ageism, but it's inarguable that people's faculties deteriorate with age. I thought it was too much of a gamble to bet that Biden would retain enough sharpness to be the leader we needed. And it's not just Joe Biden. Senator Grassley is 90 years old and frequently fails to make sense in his public pronouncements. Mitch McConnell, on two occasions froze, staring mutely for almost a full minute while his aids panicked. And does anyone really believe that Trump is in his right mind? Or makes any sense in his rambling, incoherent speeches or Truth Social posts? I'm going to be 67 next month, and even at my age I feel less sharp than I did ten years ago, and someone my age would be considered young running for president or sitting on the Supreme Court bench. 

The thing about power is that once you have it, you are loath to give it up. Trump whines about how the presidency is such a burden to him him, that he gave up his "beautiful life" to run for president. Yet, instead of gracefully walking away when defeated he fought to tooth and nail to pretend he really hadn't lost, and he here is, back in office. Joe Biden had his eye on the White House for a long time. He'd entered the primaries many times without getting very far. He served honorably as Vice President under President Obama, but was disappointed when Obama supported Secretary of State Clinton as his successor. I believe he could have beaten Trump -- as much as I thought Clinton would have made a great president, the irrational hatred that many had for her doomed her run -- but since he wasn't the nominee he should have just rested on his laurels as a lifetime public servant and enjoyed retirement as an elder statesman. But he decided to hang on to power past its sell-by date, leaving us with the chaos of of Democratic leadership having no choice but to endorse Harris, with Democratic primary voters being effectively disenfranchised. If Biden had dropped out even seven months earlier, there could have been an open primary season and a candidate that the Democratic electorate was clearly supportive of. It's possible that inflation and the border would have tanked any Democrat's chances, but as close as the election was, it could have gone the other way.

Democratic leadership, one way or the other, is going to have to take ownership of the whole debacle if they're ever going to get back in control of Congress, let alone the White House.

Whaddaya Want? A Cookie?

One of the things that Trumpists excel at is projection -- led by their leader Donald J. Trump. One example of projection that I hear all the time is that those of us who oppose Trump, whether we're liberals, progressives, mainstream Democrats, old school conservatives, libertarians, disaffected Republicans or just about anyone else, is that we don't really have reasonable, rational reasons for opposing him and his actions. They accuse us of having "Trump Derangement Syndrome", i.e. an irrational hatred of Trump and everything he does; or that we have bought into the left-wing (or sometimes fake media) narrative. They can't imagine that we can look at what he says and does and come to the conclusion on our own that it's dangerous, illegal, unethical or unconstitutional. They have convinced themselves, not only that we are mindless haters who refuse to see the greatness of their leader, but that they have come to their conclusions by careful weighing of the facts and appreciation of what they see as real accomplishments. 

What they don't consider is that for many anti-Trumpers, the Democratic Party isn't much better than the Republicans and we engage in criticism of the party leaders when warranted. We don't have a central figure whom we would support no matter what. A lot of us are as distrustful of the legacy/mainstream media as the Trumpers are. It's true that for many of us the default position is to distrust Trump, assume that he is lying, presume that whatever he is doing is some kind of self-dealing grift. But is that an irrational position to take? When someone who lies as much as Trump does, isn't the safe bet the bet that he's lying again? When he's taking actions that are arguably, if not obviously, unconstitutional, wouldn't the patriotic response be to oppose those actions? But I don't know how many times I have laid out my reasons for opposing some executive order, or expressing revulsion at some horrible thing Trump has said, only to be told "stop watching CNN" (MSNBC, or reading the New York Times) as if I was doing nothing but reposting memes. 

On the other hand, Trumpers have demonstrated that they will cheer for anything that Trump does no matter how bad. It doesn't matter if they were fanatical about inflation and free speech one week, they'd be all for inflation-causing tariffs and arresting people for posting on Facebook the next if Trump started singing a different tune. Indeed, Trump coming and out all but promising higher inflation and admitting that reducing prices was beyond his power has not dissuaded many of the faithful. When Trump changes priorities his followers will change theirs, even if the new priority is something that they would have been against if the other candidate had proposed it. 

In addition to the mindless adherence to whatever Trump says, there's the celebration of "accomplishments" that simply didn't happen. Elon Musk's team was promoted as a drive to increase government efficiency by rooting out waste, fraud and corruption. They haven't done any of that. By  redefining certain programs a priori as "waste" they have illegally eliminated thousands of positions within the government. There's no evidence whatsoever that they have uncovered any fraud or corruption. (If they did, you know that Trump would be crowing about it on social media) Yesterday I responded to a post that claimed that Trump had lowered drug prices and ended the conflict between India and Pakistan, neither of which happened. I've even heard that we should be giving him credit for "at least doing something", or more even more pitiful "at least he's trying". Sure, let's get him a participation trophy. 

There are so many things wrong with how Trump is doing his job that I often don't know where to start. But it's certainly not some imaginary "derangement" or a mindless parroting of some media "narrative" that causes us to point them out and to resist them to the best of our ability.