Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category

The Republicans who made Reagan president mourn the party they once knew – Los Angeles Times

Feb. 24, 2017, 3:40 p.m.

It was a cool and rainy day when elders of the Republican tribe recently gathered to honor one of their own.

The honoree, Stuart K. Spencer, was unmistakable in his white duck pants and a lime-green sport coat so bright it almost hurt to see. A reformed chain-smoker, he snapped merrily away on a wad of chewing gum.

The event marked Spencer's 90th birthday, but the mood beneath the surface conviviality was unsettled and gray, like the clouds fringing the mountains outside.

If the occasion was intended as a personal celebration, it also had the feel of a wake for a time in politics long passed.

Along with former Vice President Dick Cheney and former California Gov. Pete Wilson, veterans of the Reagan years turned out in force. It was Spencer, more than anyone, who took a political long shot and washed-up B-movie actor and helped transform him into the Reagan of legend.

Here is the original post:
The Republicans who made Reagan president mourn the party they once knew - Los Angeles Times

The Republicans Who Will Stop Trump – Forbes

The Republicans Who Will Stop Trump
Forbes
A month into the embryonic Presidency, the Trump locomotive is struggling to gain speed. Dealt the great fortune of a unified governmenta Republican controlled Congress and a soon to be restored conservative majority in the high courtthe president ...

Read this article:
The Republicans Who Will Stop Trump - Forbes

Republicans claim their tax cuts will mostly help the middle class. It’s a lie. – Washington Post (blog)

We are going to massively lower taxes on the middle class, reduce taxes on American business and make our tax code more simple and much more fair for everyone including the people and the business, said Donald Trump in his speech at CPAC today, with characteristic eloquence.

He didnt say much more on the topic, perhaps because the administration still hasnt figured out exactly what kind of tax reform it wants to pass. But there are two things you can count on.

First, Trump and his senior officials will repeat the words middle class over and over whenever they talk about it. And second, the vast majority of the tax cuts are going to go to the wealthy.Simply put, there is no higher priority for this or any Republican government than cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Back in November, future Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin made a bizarre promise: Any reductions we have in upper-income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class. This demonstrated Mnuchins lack of political experience. A more practiced Republican figure would have known that youre supposed to imply that the benefits of GOP tax cuts wont accrue mostly to the rich, then quickly change the subject. Its much more dangerous to make a concrete promise you have no intention of keeping.

Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs banker and Hollywood financier, is President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for treasury secretary. He spoke at Trump Tower Nov. 30. (The Washington Post)

Yesterday, Mnuchin was at it again, only with language that gave him a little more wiggle room: Look, as Ive said before, were primarily focused on a middle-income tax cut and simplification for business. Andon the high end, if there are tax cuts, that they are offset with reduction of deductions and other things. Yes indeed, the collection of billionaires and Goldman Sachs alumni populating the Trump administration thinks of little apart from the interests of the middle class. Thats where theyre primarily focused.

We dont know exactly what the administration and congressional Republicans will produce, but we can get a pretty good idea from the plans theyve already floated. During the campaign, Trump put out a tax plan; heres what the Tax Policy Center concluded when they analyzed it:

The highest-income taxpayers (0.1 percent of the population, or those with incomes over $3.7 million in 2016 dollars) would experience an average tax cut of nearly $1.1 million, over 14 percent of after-tax income. Households in the middle fifth of the income distribution would receive an average tax cut of $1,010, or 1.8 percent of after-tax income, while the poorest fifth of households would see their taxes go down an average of $110, or 0.8 percent of their after-tax income.

Theres that focus on the middle class for you. Of course, any tax reform has to go through Congress, and there are already plans there waiting. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has a plan, and the gifts it showers on the wealthy put even Trumps plan to shame. Heres the Tax Policy Centers analysis:

The top quintile or fifth of the distribution would receive an average tax cut of about $11,800 (4.6 percent of after-tax income). Three-quarters of total tax cuts would go to the top 1 percent, who would receive an average cut of nearly $213,000, or 13.4 percent of after-tax income. The top 0.1 percent would receive an average tax cut of about $1.3 million (16.9 percent of after-tax income). In contrast, the average tax cut for the lowest-income households would be just $50, 0.4 percent of after-tax income. Middle-income households would receive an average tax cut of $260, about the same relative to after-tax income 0.5 percent as for the lowest-income households.

And in 2025, a remarkable 99.6 percent of the benefits of the Ryan tax cuts would go to the top one percent. When Ryan gets asked about this, he says that even discussing the way his tax cut helps the rich is ridiculous, because People dont think like that.

So how can Republicans claim that theyre focused on the middle class? Its going to work the same way it did when George W. Bush passed two rounds of massive tax cuts, which youll recall supercharged the American economy just as Republicans predicted, leading to a period of unprecedented growth in GDP and wages. (Oh, thats not how you remember the Bush years? Strange.) First, they cut income tax rates across the board, which means that the middle class gets something, even if its only a couple hundred bucks. Most Americans actually pay more in payroll taxes (which fund the Social Security and Medicare systems) than they do in federal income taxes, but Republicans arent interested in cutting payroll taxes. The ones hit hard by income taxes are mostly the wealthy, and each percentage point you cut their taxes represents a much bigger giveaway.

Second, Republicans push a series of cuts to other taxes that are paid almost entirely by the wealthy, like the inheritance tax and the capital gains tax. Add them together, and the rich end up making out big league. But the fact that middle class people get some kind of cut becomes the centerpiece of the PR campaign to win support for the cuts.

Bush was particularly good at this. During his 2000 campaign hed pull up people he called tax families on stage, a waitress or plumber who he said would get a $500 or $1000 tax break under his plan, and everyone would cheer. He didnt mention the CEO whod be getting $1 million.

Then, in an absolutely brilliant move, once the first tax cut was signed, the Bush administration sent a letter to every taxpaying household in America, saying, We are pleased to inform you that the United States Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, which provides long-term tax relief for all Americans who pay income taxesAs part of the immediate tax relief, you will be receiving a check in the amount of Then not long after, everyone got an actual check in the mail.

Later, when the Obama administration cut taxes, it decided not to do so in the same splashy way, because research indicated that a check like the one Bush sent was likely to be saved, while a few extra dollars in everyones weekly paycheck were more likely to be spent, having a greater effect on the economy. So the Obama administration got no public relations benefit out of their tax cut.

But Republican administrations arent really worried about maximizing the economic impact of their tax cuts. Their concern is fundamentally a moral one: they view wealthy people as more deserving and upper-end taxes as inherently evil. It would be perfectly fine if cutting them helps the economy, but if it doesnt (and it doesnt), then thats okay, too, because tax cuts for the wealthy are an end in themselves.

So when the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress start talking about how concerned they are about the middle class, look at the actual numbers. Thats where youll find the truth.

Link:
Republicans claim their tax cuts will mostly help the middle class. It's a lie. - Washington Post (blog)

How Citizens United gave Republicans a bonanza of seats in US state legislatures – Washington Post

By Nour Abdul-Razzak, Carlo Prato and Stphane Wolton By Nour Abdul-Razzak, Carlo Prato and Stphane Wolton February 24 at 6:00 AM

This week, federal election commissioner and formercommission chair Ann Ravel publicly announced her upcoming resignation. She didnt mince words: The mission of the FEC is essential to ensure a fair electoral process. Yet since the Supreme Courts Citizens United decision, our political campaigns have been awash in unlimited, often dark money.

Citizens United is one of the most controversial Supreme Court rulings of recent years. Issued in 2010, it establishes that outside spending in elections qualifies as constitutionally protected speech, effectively removing restrictions that date back to 1947. As a result, corporations and unions have the right to spend unlimited (and largely undisclosed) amounts of money advocating in favor of or against specific candidates. Many, including President Barack Obama, have disagreed with the decision. During the past presidential campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly endorsed this view, referring to the super PACs which emerged as a result of Citizens United as a total phony deal. Calls for changehave also come from others within the Republican Party.

Could President Trump lead an effort to reform campaign finance? Theres one challenge: Our recent research shows that Citizens United has earned Republicans a substantial number of state legislative seats.

Our research focuses on state legislative elections because we can more easily isolate the effect of Citizens United compared withother factors that influence election outcomes at various levels (such as the popularity of the president). Before 2010, 23 states had bans on corporations and union funding of outside spending. As a result of the courts ruling, these states had to change their campaign laws. We can then compare the changes before and after Citizens United in these 23 states with the same changes in the 27 states whose laws did not change. Theeffect of the courts ruling is then simply the differences between these two before-and-after comparisons.

We find that Citizens United increased the GOPs average seat share in the state legislature by fivepercentage points. That is a large effect large enough that, were it applied to the past twelve Congresses, partisan control of the House would have switched eight times. In line with a previous study, we also find that the vote share of Republican candidates increased three to four points, on average.

We also uncovered evidence that these results stem from the influence of corporations and unions. In states where union membership is relatively high and corporations relatively weak, Citizens United did not have a discernible effect on the partisan balance of the state legislature. But in states with weak unions and strong corporations, the decision appeared to increase Republican seat share by as much as 12 points.

Citizens United also changed state legislatures in other ways. First, state legislatures became more conservative afterthe ruling, and more so in states with relatively weak unions and strong corporations. Second, the ruling appeared to produce a small increase in the ideological extremism of representatives. Surprisingly, this effect is stronger for elected Democrats, who tend to become more liberal, than for elected Republicans.

Despite the outcry that followed the ruling,some observerswere quick to point out that wealthy interests already had many avenues of influence in elections. So it is too early to claim that Citizens United completely reshaped corporate influence in U.S. politics.

Nevertheless, our findings show that allowing corporations and unions to directly spend in elections has had important consequences. This makes it especially interesting to see if Trump follows up on his criticisms of the campaign finance system. Ravels replacement might give an early signal of his intentions.

Nour Abdul-Razzak is a PhD student at the Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago.

Carlo Prato is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science, Columbia University.

Stphane Wolton is anassistant professor in the Department of Government, London School of Economics and Political Science.

Continued here:
How Citizens United gave Republicans a bonanza of seats in US state legislatures - Washington Post

In a shift, prominent congressional Republicans in short supply at CPAC – Washington Post

Amid the sea of red Make America Great Again hats, blue Socialism sucks T-shirts and the marathon series of speeches and panel discussions featuring top White House advisers and other recognizable faces at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, there was something in much shorter supply: Republican members of Congress.

Just one current U.S. senator spoke on Thursday at CPAC at theNational Harbor complex in Oxon Hill, Md., with no others scheduled for the rest of the four-day gathering. Nine U.S. House members are on the roster of speakers.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who took the stage to AC/DC in 2016, is not here. Nor is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who famously presented a colleague with a gun at CPAC in 2014. And Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who once sought to build buzz here for their budding presidential campaigns, are nowhere to be found.

During Barack Obamas presidency, CPAC served as a tryout of sorts for ambitious Republican lawmakers seeking to brand themselves as the future of the party, and for congressional leaders looking to articulate their vision for governance. Now, its the place where President Trump is expected to reaffirm the themes he rode to victory in a Friday speech a year after hecanceled on CPAC at the last minute.

Last year everybodys putting the wares on display it was kind of auditioning for the presidency, said former representative Tom Davis (R-Va.). This time, it is basically Trumptrying to co-opt these folks.

Davisadded: What a difference a year makes.

Last year, CPAC kicked off during a week when Congress was in session. Davis and several GOP congressional aides noted that Congress is out this week, and members are tending to business in their home states and districts and elsewhere.

Hes on political travel this week, said Ryan spokesman Doug Andres of his boss.

Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for McConnell, said, As you know, this week is a recess week, and Senator McConnell is home in Kentucky. McConnells 2014 appearance came as he was in the midst of a reelection campaign and eager to tout his gun rights record.

Ferrier directed questions about whether McConnell was invited to speak to CPAC organizers. Matt Schlapp, head of the American Conservative Union, which puts on the event, did not respond to a request for comment.

Rubio was invited to speak, his office said, but is not in Washington and had to decline. Aides did not respond with an explanation of why. Rubio has taken heat from demonstrators who have expressed concerns about his refusal to hold town hall meetings during the recess.

The only senator who spoke at CPAC is Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), the firebrand conservative who clashed with Trump during the campaign. Cruz is up for reelection in 2018 and is seen in the party as someone who might still harbor presidential ambitions.

Cruz predicted in his remarks that there will be another vacancy on the Supreme Court later this year but provided no explanation for why he believes that. He seemed to relish the notion of another confirmation fight with Democrats.

Paul, the libertarian-leaning Republican who won CPACs presidential straw poll in 2013 and 2014, has seen his stock in the GOP diminish after a disappointing presidential campaign. His office did not respond to a request for comment explaining why he was not speaking at CPAC.

During the campaign, Trump railed against the political establishment, including bashing GOP congressional leadership in blunt fashion at times. The relationship between Trump and congressional Republicans has been uneasy during the first few weeks of his presidency.

McConnell has said he likes what Trump is doing but not what he is saying and tweeting. Other Capitol Hill Republicans have been deeply unsettled by some of Trumps policies, most notably his entry ban, which was stopped by a federal court.

The House members speaking at CPAC include Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.), who participated in a panel discussion titled FREE stuff vs FREE-dom: Millennials Love Affair with Bernie Sanders.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.), chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, is scheduled to sit for an interview with Alex Marlow of Breitbart News on Friday on the conundrum of tax reform.

Congressional leaders and Congress as a whole continues to be unpopular. A Gallup poll released this month showed that the approval rating of Congress stood at 28 percent up from 19 percent in January.

In his remarks, Cruz vouched for a proposal that some voters might like, given those dismal numbers: imposing term limits on members of Congress.

See the original post:
In a shift, prominent congressional Republicans in short supply at CPAC - Washington Post