Trump: Staying the course led to a year end victory

In the waning hours of 2017, it’s traditional for political journalists to review the previous year, and the one person that seemed to dominate the national scene was the 45th president of the United States, Donald Trump, who after a tumultuous election led an even more tumultuous administration, which was preceded by the contentious presidential election of 2016. And, while the definitive account of that election has not been written, let’s take a look back on the year under his leadership.

To the surprise of many, following election day, where results were uncertain, and the front pages of many of the nation’s daily newspapers bannered that uncertainty, it finally became official that Donald J. Trump had indeed won the American presidency, if only by a slim margin. What ensued, on Inauguration Day, after a brief thumbs up sign,was a short inaugural speech that said little, and promised much. Then the bedlam began: first there was the chaotic first press conference with seemingly everyone, screaming and shouting questions, and Trump giving snarky answers and pithy putdowns, accompanied by a noise level akin to Barnum and Bailey; an unprecedented scene from the elegant and historic East Room of the White House, under the watchful gaze of George and Martha Washington, from their gilt framed portraits.

Then there was the implementation of the travel ban against those travelling from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and North Korea. The ensuing chaos at the nation’s airports gave more credence to the ethos of Steve Bannon, an advisor plucked from the alt-right press, who bent toward chaos, and got it. With his removal and the challenge from the appeal courts the ban is now in place while the appeals court follows procedure, in a move from the Supreme Court, who in an unsigned order said that the ban could remain; and seemed to suggest that Trump was not exceeding his constitutional powers with immigration laws, and does not reflect an anti-Muslim bias. Critics do not agree, and the Administration is not entirely happy with less than a full court press.

As each new day dawned the president was front and center news with his incessant tweets, attacking everyone,(including GOP leaders) , obscuring the facts, and even downright lying; there were calls to pull the plug. When someone did just that, many applauded. Upon its restoral, some saw the role of advisor to favourite daughter, Ivanka, that she could control her father. Yet, nothing or no one could, even bringing in the Marines, in the role of chief of staff, with General John Kelly, did no good, Trump kept keeping on, keeping on, despite charges that the West Wing resembled an adult day care facility.

Race has seemed to plague Trump in the White House with charges that he is a racist, and while some have begun to accept the label, despite his denials, his early campaign to deny President Obama his tenure, claiming that he was foreign born, buttressed by his attacks on the protest against racial profiling by some American police, from mostly black players made many pause. That was lifted after the demonstrations in Charlottesville, Va, over the threatened removal of statues of Confederate leaders,erupted with a stream of tiki lantern carrying white supremacists marching on a rather ragtag assembly of local protesters, mostly undergraduate students from the University of Virginia. Things got ugly when a protester was killed by a car that ran over a young woman.

Trump’s response waffled at best, and was less than what was expected from the chief executive. Writing during that time, I noted, “Trump was also criticized for a slow response to the incident, and when he did, did not call out, or identify such people as David Duke, a Klan member, (who was present) or even the Klan itself, (which was there), among other groups present, is ironic, for he continually criticized President Obama, during terrorist attacks for not saying, “radical Muslim extremists.” He after a more equivocal response backtracked, on a trip to New York and said that there was fault on both sides. The die was cast.

Concern among GOP leaders was unequivocal in its condemnation of both the march and the death; and some including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell noted privately that the president did not know how to govern, and did not want to learn. All of this was against the clear evidence that Russia had intervened in the 2016 election, and that the possibility that Trump was linked to that effort, in his desire to thwart Hillary Clinton in the presidential campaign; as belief supported by both the FBI and CIA. While the president denied the charges, credible reports showed that his son-in law Jared Kushner, had secret talks with Russian officials to establish a back channel, without informing the U.S. government. With most people believing that this was done with Trump’s full knowledge, his polls fell and fell some more when Paul Manafort, a campaign official was charged with further collusion.

Soon after rumors swirled across the supper tables of Georgetown, as well as the local diner, that Trump was money laundering, as well as cavorting with Russian prostitutes. To separate the wheat from the chaff, the esteemed Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel to lead an investigation, that is still ongoing. Seasoned observers where beginning to think of Trump making Richard Nixon and the Watergate break-in looking like kindergartners. But, the seriousness, and the Trump administration's ineptitude at crafting meaningful legislation was beginning to take its toll, as conservative critics were equally incensed that Obamacare was still in place, and the wall between Mexico was not.

Efforts to repeal Obamacare fell flat more than once with the last iteration from Sens.Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. With the CBO stating that 13 million Americans would lose coverage, the law, officially known as the Affordable Care Act, they got a chilly reception from constituents who acknowledged, along with their medical providers, how much the ACA helped them with preventive measures, as well as emergency surgery.

With hands wrung on both sides of the aisle, and aching for a victory, the GOP dominated Congress passed a tax reform bill that solidified great tax cuts for the wealthy and cleverly using the rules, gave temporary tax cuts to some people, depending on where they lived, while capping state and local tax deductions, and the popular homeowner deduction, under the guise that a simplified system would benefit individuals, while the corporate tax would provide trickle down benefits; a charge not seen since the Reagan administration.

Declaring a victory, and soothing some Republican nerves, the Act gives cover to some officials, but not to those in high tax states such as New York, or California, who lose more than gain benefits. Riding on this success, the GOP is looking forward to infrastructure change - much needed effort and one that should include the Democrats; but hovering in the background is Speaker of the House Paul Ryan ready, and now emboldened, to try to slash away at Medicaid and Medicare, his long held wish. 

If you are experiencing any problems viewing this post, as a Chrome user, please use IE. Blogger is experiencing some technical problems. My apologies.

Jones' win in Alabama: a win for party and politics

Tuesday night’s victory by Doug Jones over Roy Moore in the Alabama special election to fill Jeff Sessions seat, when he became U.S. Attorney General, is one for the record books: the first time in 25 years that a Democrat has been elected from this true red state.

With a reliably conservative base, and an equally reliably electorate, Moore should have won, and handily defeated the 63 year old, former U.S. judge, but the inversion of popular wisdom, favored Jones with his slim record of mostly practical legislation.

This win has given new life to Democrats who now face future Senate legislation with a renewed vigor, but also a pathway for the midterm elections in 2018, and maybe, to recapture the White House in 2020.

With the onslaught of women standing up to, and outing, their sexual predators, and the near decapitation of such mega celebrities such as Charlie Rose, Harvey Weinstein, and even the venerable, and avuncular, Garrison Keillor, the time came when even, the South, as in capital letters, synonymous with political conservatism, draws a line against electing officials accused of sex with underage girls, as also did GOP establishment figures such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who wanted to ensure that Moore did not win.

McConnell was not alone, standing by him was a cluster of other Republican leaders, and lawmakers, who cringed at the idea of serving alongside of a man who autographed Bibles, said homosexuality should be punishable by law, and that Muslims should not be allowed to serve in Congress.

“Even Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.), who switched to the Republican Party in 1994 after winning reelection to the Senate as a Democrat,” opposed Moore. “He says he wrote in the name of a conservative Republican,” according to the Hill.

While Moore stood under the klieg lights of scandal, Jones created, and crafted, a strong and well-founded campaign that focused on his base, and then some.

Zac McCrary, an Alabama-based Democratic pollster, credited Jones with doing the leg work to make sure he took advantage of an energy among Democrats that has been evident in special elections across the country since Trump won the presidency. And, to no one’s surprise is that the Democrats will use the win and that of Virginia as a new chapter in political science.

“The Jones' campaign built a real infrastructure and funded it,” McCrary said. “So they poured gasoline on the fire that was already going,” reported NBC News.

One group of voters that was deeply affected were women, as  “He became the latest focal point in a long-running war between Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and former White House strategist Steve Bannon, who has made a mission out of toppling sitting senators in primaries and trying to oust McConnell from his job.”

Payback comes in many forms, and just as success has many fathers, failure is an orphan, and Bannon now stands as the reason the seat was lost, say GOP leaders.

Jones’ focus on women was a smart move, but even smarter was his focus on creating a “coalition [that]  was built on women, African-Americans, college graduates and younger voters — many of them in and around the metropolitan centers of Huntsville, Birmingham, Montgomery and Mobile. Black voters accounted for 28 percent of the electorate, a slightly higher figure than their share of the population.”

As NPR reported, “Jones also made important inroads with the white vote. In 2012, Mitt Romney won white, college-educated women in Alabama by 55 points; this week, Moore won them by only 11, according to the exits.

Overall, Jones got 30 percent of the white vote. In the Deep South, that's the holy grail for Democrats and really hard to achieve. (In 2012, Barack Obama got just 15 percent of the white vote in Alabama.)”

The key to the Jones success was African American voters, who while only 25 percent of the state’s population, gave the push that mattered. And,, of this the core was the Black female vote, that pushed Moore off the stage on election night.

The turnout among Black voters was 96 percent, and that included 98 percent of Black women, prompting DNC Chair Tom Perez to say, “Black women led us to victory. Black women are the backbone of the Democratic party,” and furthermore, “We can’t take that for granted.”

As Charles Barkley, former NBA star, remarked, “Democrats, and I told Mr. Jones this, and I love Doug, they've taken the black vote and the poor vote for granted for a long time. It's time for them to get off their ass and start making life better for black voters and people who are poor. They've always had our votes and they've abused our votes and this is a wake up call for Democrats to do better for black people and poor white people.”

Twitter lit up and noted that all of the efforts to suppress the Black vote - id requests, inadequately staffed polls, etc  - all came to naught.

Jones also captured something stronger: the hearts of minds of that population: “One of his African-American supporters, Mae Stevenson, told NPR's Russell Lewis Tuesday night that Jones was "somebody who really and truly had a heart for the black people." She cited his prosecution while U.S. attorney of two Ku Klux Klan members for the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham in 1963, in which four African-American girls were killed.”

If that alone was not enough, that prosecutorial legacy for that heinous act that is a nearly iconic representation of America’s struggle for civil rights, Jones listened to Black Alabamians who feared a return to the old ways of Jim Crow South, as they see the deleterious changes that the Trump administration has done.

Helping to forge the fear was Moore himself who said, in response to a query at a rally by a Black man that he felt that even under slavery, families in the South were better.

Barkley called Bannon a white supremacist and said Moore should have been disqualified for his alignment with the former White House strategist for President Trump.

Taking it further, “Jones cast the election as an opportunity for Alabama voters to reject the embarrassment he said Moore was sure to bring the state. And campaigned “with civil rights icon and Georgia Rep. John Lewis, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and other black leaders,” said CNN.

“While African-Americans make up roughly a quarter of Alabama’s population, years of dismal Democratic returns have left his party without much of a ground game,” to counter that aspect, “Jones’s campaign has furiously fought to find every vote, making 1.2 million phone calls and knocking on more than 300,000 doors, according to the campaign.”

Campaigning is one thing and governing is another, and while Jones won’t begin until January, If the past is any indication, then he will focus on education, job training, and energy.

Another legislative concern for him is health care, and to note he supports Obamacare, but not single payer care..

Despite Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s earnest wish to hold off on tax reform until he can vote, the hard and fast of Jones’ character, and record, seems to indicate someone that will focus on “bread and butter” issues, and as Barkley, said, for poor whites and blacks to get at least a lion’s share of attention.

U.S. Senate pulls off win with a Hail Mary pass on tax bill

In the wee hours of Saturday morning, the U.S. Senate passed on a 51-49 vote, a tax reform plan that the Republican majority has said will redefine not only the tax structure for Americans, but also help add jobs to the economy, and give tax relief to the middle class. But, as Democrats have noted, those claims have disingenuous, as the bulwark of them cited in a study by the Congressional Budget office, show that instead of relief, there would be a tilt towards deficit, and that only some people, not all would get tax relief.

Then a much anticipated report from the Joint Committee on Taxation, came out with its assessment of the plan, but not one to bring joy to the debate. It revealed: “A new analysis released today by the Joint Committee on Taxation found that the Senate tax bill would generate enough economic growth to lower its $1.4 trillion revenue cost by only about $458 billion over a decade. After accounting for interest rates, the growth figure would fall to $407 billion, said the JCT, Congress's official scorekeeper on tax legislation. That would leave a 10-year revenue loss of roughly $1 trillion.”

Eager for a legislative win, by the end of the year, The GOP, despite its trifecta of holding majorities in both chambers of Congress, has failed to secure any wins, and only losses, especially in promises made on the 2016 campaign trail, such as repealing Obamacare, which failed miserably on two attempts.

Nerves were shot, as the Capital lights burned late into the night, with 14 hours of debate, and there was some horse trading to get to the final vote, as well as a dramatic shift by some that were essentially opposed to the plan. But, if politics is the art of compromise, then adding a few more made the day.

Most notable was James Lankford, the concerned senator from Oklahoma, whose focus on the prospect of a deficit had many worried, and who along with Bob Corker of Tennessee wanted a trigger to remove the tax cuts, and increase taxes, should the plan refuse to refuel the economy as promised. This was dashed when it was defeated by the senate’s parliamentary rule.

The Oklahoman reported that “On Thursday, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, taking into account that economic growth, estimated the bill would increase the national debt by $1 trillion. On Nov. 5, Lankford told “Meet the Press” that he would oppose a tax bill that significantly raised the debt, saying, “I'm actually not comfortable with increasing the debt.”

Lankford and other fiscal conservatives were faced with a decision Friday: to accept a bill that will add to the debt or vote it down, spoiling a major Republican initiative. The Oklahoma City Republican chose the former.”

This would not be the first, or possibly the last time, that political expedience, and no doubt, the last helps to win the day, albeit through party loyalty.

"This is a great day for the country," Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said during a 2 a.m. press conference after the vote., and added, "We have an opportunity now to make America more competitive, to keep jobs from being shipped offshore and to provide substantial relief for the middle class."

The statement is somewhat dubious, and while it does reflect a change in competitiveness, by lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate, it does so by siphoning off tax deductions from the very people it purports to defend, like the middle class, by removing the state and local income tax deduction.

With some, there is an echo of Reaganomics, when the plan’s supporters suggest that this will result in greater job creation, and the money funnelled back into employment when previous efforts showed that, when given tax holidays, most of the companies gave the money back to their shareholders, and there was no job creation.

Wags are saying that the plan’s creators, along with their House counterparts, think that the American public is dumb, dumber, and dumbest, when it comes to seeing the picture behind the picture.

Holding firm for a profile in courage, was Corker who voted no on the bill, and said ". . . At the end of the day, I am not able to cast aside my fiscal concerns and vote for legislation that I believe, based on the information I currently have, could deepen the debt burden on future generations,” in a statement.

“But GOP leadership appeared confident on Friday that they would be able to pass the legislation after GOP Sens. Ron Johnson (Wis.) and Steve Daines (Mont.) came on board, reported the stalwart news forum, The Hill.

Johnson and Daines had been pressuring for a larger tax deduction for small- and mid-sized businesses known as “pass-throughs.”

Johnson noted that Republicans had been able to get the deduction increased from 17.4 percent to 23 percent and that he would be involved in further pass-through discussions as lawmakers work to get the bill to Trump’s desk.

"A seat at the table. Not just input. Not just consulting, but a seat at the table," Johnson said when asked what leadership promised him in exchange for voting "yes."

More help came from Jeff Flake of Arizona, when he gave McConnell the 50th vote for the plan.

“The Arizona Republican, who is retiring after 2018, said that, in addition to getting rid of a “budget gimmick” relating to the full expensing of capital investments, he had also gotten a commitment on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.”

The conscience of the senate is Susan Collins, “a moderate who voted against the GOP’s ObamaCare repeal efforts, also voted in favor of the legislation after getting several of her amendments into the bill, including the restoration of a $10,000 deduction for property taxes and a lower threshold for deducting medical expenses, said to reporters, "I will cast my vote in support of the Senate tax reform bill. As revised, this bill will provide much-needed tax relief and simplification for lower- and middle-income families, while spurring the creation of good jobs and greater economic growth.”

Democrats,who were outnumbered, and outfoxed,were forced to complain in sidelines, or in amendments, that were more protest, than hope, an unenviable position, but also was the only one that the minority party can play when it is dealt out of the game.

It brought fellow politico observers, such as myself, a few chuckles to see that the GOP now in the majority, forgot their own similar behavior when the roles were reversed.

The biggest loser was ObamaCare with the repeal of the individual,mandate, the penalty that people must pay, if they choose not to have insurance, yet most -- at least 80 percent of all Americans, get their coverage through their employer, or from the government, in either the form of Medicare or Medicaid.

What is unclear is what the outcome will be after Collins, who was assured by Trump and MCconnell that there would be two more compromise bills (to help Americans retain the cost-sharing benefits of Obamacare) can offer, or retain. Of course, as was attributed to St. Theresa, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The CBO does say that markets will remain stable, on the exchange and a recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, found that this was the sixth straight year that employer provided policies have increased well under five percent, giving some assurance that the markets may not roil with this repeal.

Smaller companies are the exception and according to KFF, over the last five years, “the percentage of business with under 50 workers, offering coverage, has fallen from 59 percent to 50 percent,”  reported The New York Times at the end of September.

There is still some hope that the Alexander-Murray compromise will hold firm yet most realists say that there is such firm opposition to that bipartisan efforts, that hopes rest on reinsurance, where there will be monies for sick people, and help to decrease premiums.

For now, the remaining chance is for the House to approve the Senate bill, or both chambers to reconvene to pass a compromise bill, and at this point, it may be all over but for the fighting.

McCain gives support to imperfect Senate tax plan

On Wednesday the U.S. Senate moved their proposed tax bill from Committee to a floor debate, along partisan lines, signalling the desire to make the deadline to put tax reform on President Trump’s desk by Christmas; and after reconciliation with the House version, to win a sorely needed legislative win from an administration that has seen only failure in its attempts to craft successful legislation, and that many, including conservatives, especially the ultra-right wing have written off as ineffective.

Hope springs eternal, and one of the more illuminating signs is that Trump who has been mostly disengaged from the process, but now, some observers have noted, he is on more familiar ground, having used a loss of $916 million for a tax break, and that he touted on the 2016 campaign. In fact, to the surprise of some of his staff, they have never seen him so energized.

The Senate version does have many senators nervous about deficits, as we have noted before, so much so that Bob Corker of Tennessee, has asked for a trigger to automatically increase taxes, if the bill fails to both generate and stimulate the economy, and increases the deficit.

This has become wildly unpopular by his fellow senators, with the exception of Sens. Flake of Arizona and Lankford, of Oklahoma. In fact, the consensus of many is that this has the effect of “hobbling the bill’s ability to spur economic growth.”

With a need to get 50 votes, versus 52 with Democratic help, which is nigh to impossible at this point, conservative senators, such as those three, could help push the bill to get the needed votes.

In a surprise move on Thursday, Arizona Sen. John McCain gave his, albeit reserved endorsement, of the Senate plan, and said in a statement: “I believe this legislation, though far from perfect, would enhance American competitiveness, boost the economy, and provide long overdue tax relief for middle class families.”

With the veteran senator giving his even limited imprimatur on the plan, this is a boost to moving it along. Yet, his support on previous tax cuts has been underwhelming, as he did, by dissing them, with President Bush’s considerations in both 2001 and 2003.

Is the old warrior merely tired, after health issues, or has he been persuaded to help push the boat into the water, even if others have to keep it sailing?

Crain’s Chicago Business noted in its coverage, that “The Arizona lawmaker joins Lisa Murkowski of Alaska -- another GOP senator whose support had been in question -- in publicly endorsing the Senate tax bill in recent days. “

A much anticipated report from the Joint Committee on Taxation, came out with its assessment of the plan, but not one to bring joy to the debate. It revealed: “A new analysis released today by the Joint Committee on Taxation found that the Senate tax bill would generate enough economic growth to lower its $1.4 trillion revenue cost by only about $458 billion over a decade. After accounting for interest rates, the growth figure would fall to $407 billion, said the JCT, Congress's official scorekeeper on tax legislation. That would leave a 10-year revenue loss of roughly $1 trillion.”

As mainstream media has noted, “Discussions have centered around a $350 billion tax-increase trigger, far short of the $1 trillion revenue loss the JCT projects.

This is not the first misrepresentation -- on Sunday Kevin Brady, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said on FOX-TV that there would be a 70 percent, or better tax savings to families making less than $200,000 --  but as FactCheck.org showed, that this figure would only apply to individuals under tax changes that would only be seen in 2019.

Perhaps the most glaring discovery was that by 2027, 50 percent of the tax relief would go to those making over $200,000, exceeding the markers of what defines a middle-class income in America.

Going even further is that the new tax proposed bracket consolidation, after being adjusted for inflation, will have most people pushed into higher tax brackets.

The Senate bill includes a provision that repeals all the individual tax cuts by 2026, which would tend to crimp economic growth. Senate tax writers included the expirations to make the bill comply with Senate rules against budget legislation increasing long-term deficits.

The new estimate “ends the fantasy about magical growth and claims that tax cuts pay for themselves,” said Senator Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, who called the finding the “total opposite” of what Republicans have said.

Not to be outdone, the right had its reply and “A  conservative-leaning policy center, the Washington-based Tax Foundation, released a statement saying JCT's findings were “likely underestimating the economic growth spurred by this tax bill.”

“The range of estimates from JCT includes several important assumptions that limit its growth results, particularly, assumptions regarding the Federal Reserve's response to potential inflation and the United States being a closed economy,” the policy group said in a statement. The group is working on its own score for the latest version of the Senate bill.”

Up next is a spirited debate, about 20 hours worth, on the Senate floor, and votes on various amendments that every bill goes through -- a time honored process that has been given the name of “vote-a-rama,” by waggish veterans.

This is a developing story, be sure to come back for updates.

Lisa Murkowski endorses repeal of the individual mandate

For the last several days, there has been more ink spilled about the Senate version of Tax Reform that, as the old adage said, “than Carter had pills.” Perhaps the biggest news is that there may be less damage to the markets, but far less money saved than is touted by the Trump Administration, and that has also had many heads shaking, and tongues wagging, over what was the main selling point touted by the White House, and had Democrats seething.

“In a recent report, Standard & Poor’s estimates that a repeal of the individual mandate would save the government about $60 billion to $80 billion over the next 10 years—far less than the $338 billion that the CBO projected. S&P also predicted that a repeal would increase the number of uninsured individuals by just 3 million to 5 million, while the CBO estimated 13 million,” reported the blog, FierceHealthcare.

On the other side of the political coin, are those that are saying that repealing the individual mandate, has only a minimal affect on whether they will, or won’t buy healthcare, because they need it, and some are young, and some are not so young.

On the GOP side, there are those that want to traverse the divide, and the most prominent seems to be Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski, who wrote in an Alaskan newspaper, “I have always supported the freedom to choose,” Murkowski said in an opinion column published a few days ago and now her official stance, the national media reported Thursday. “I believe that the federal government should not force anyone to buy something they do not wish to buy, in order to avoid being taxed.”

She also noted, in an appeal to those who might object, “the repeal of the tax penalty will not take care away from anyone but rather “provides important relief to those who have been penalized for choosing not to buy unaffordable insurance.”

Straight from the Republican playbook, this assertion holds less than it seems, but after being somewhat of a renegade in previous attempts for health care legislation, Murkowski might have felt the need to carry at least some water for the GOP.

Later on she transitioned to a more Solomon-like position when she acknowledged that “The ACA has helped many people in our state, and across the country. There is no question about that.”

She also affirmed what has been previously noted, when she said. “Some people have been able to buy insurance for the first time in their life, mental health and substance abuse coverage is more accessible now, and insurers cannot arbitrarily deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.”

Her remarks seem to highlight the dilemma for heavily GOP states such as Alaska and even Maine: their lawmakers cannot ignore the fact that the ACA, colloquially known as Obamacare has helped thousands, but can’t quite step up to the fore, in working with Democrats to fix the problems of both perception, and fact.

One of the less known truths is that the IRS who manages the tax penalty, has been far less aggressive, in collecting than was first thought.  So, when one reads Murkowski’s statement, that “Alaskans paid over $9 million to the IRS under this penalty in 2014, and over $12 million in 2015.  There are Alaskans making the calculated risk to go without insurance and pay the tax,” she said. “Eliminating this tax would allow Alaskans to have greater control over their money and health care decisions,” it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

It’s important to remember that some plans in Alaska are not as plentiful due to the opposition hammering away at the mandates, that were designed to bring younger and healthier people to buy insurance on the marketplace exchanges, something that did not happen in larger numbers; with many of the young today, as in yesteryear, thinking that they were mostly invincible, when it came to health.

But, the biggest myth about their costs has been spread by President Trump himself. To set the facts, in response, The Washington Post, said: “The White House provided us a May 23, 2017, report by the Department of Health and Human Services, showing premium increases for the individual market. It shows the average national premium increased 105 percent from 2013 (before Obamacare’s major provisions took effect) to 2017, from $232 to $476. In Alaska, the average monthly premium increased to $1,041 in 2017 from $344 in 2016 — a 203 percent increase. That is among the highest percentage increases reported between those two years. But buried in one of the footnotes is a disclaimer that the data used in this report do not take into account premium tax credits, that’s a big caveat.”  

Furthermore, they continued, “The reason it’s important to look at how people are affected after subsidies is that on average, eight out of 10 marketplace enrollees receive government premium subsidies, and they are protected from a premium increase (and may even see a decrease) if they stay with a low-cost plan.”

In the end Murkowski favors the Alexander-Murray compromise to help with the copays, and out of pocket costs of the ACA, but offer states the ability to opt out, of certain provisions, now tied to the repeal of the individual mandate.

Taking a different tack are those people that do like the ACA, or  most significantly that it offers them healthcare, which in some cases, they cannot afford. In fact, 60 percent of people who buy their own insurance, receive subsidies, and do so to avoid costly hospital bills.

A recent article in The New York TImes showed, with interviews, of relatively young people quite different beliefs, than Murkowski has espoused. They state that,”People like  Alexia Manon Senior complicate the argument of Senate Republicans who are counting on repeal of the so-called individual mandate to free up hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for an array of tax cuts to corporations and individuals. They are assuming that without a mandate, many people would no longer buy insurance, so the government would spend billions of dollars less on the subsidies the health law provides to help those under a certain income level pay their premiums.”

So what is the truth? A wise woman once said that it lies in the middle of the two poles, yet with details emerging, it seems, much to the horror and bemusement, of our Canadian neighbors, that it might just be movable, like the unlucky Linus as Lucy once more snatches the ball away at the last minute.

According the Kaiser Family Foundation, only seven percent of people said that would go without coverage if the mandate were no longer enforced.  But, what many are worried about is market stabilization, but if we believe the earlier figures, then the market would stabilize, or at least not  as unstable, as previously thought.

The KFF also found that while most people hated the thought of the mandate, at first blush, when they were told what what it would do, and who it would help they changed their minds, showing that opposition to the ACA, a longheld obsession with the GOP is based on misinformation, in some cases, deliberate.

One effect that most can agree on is that those who would depart the exchange would see a decreased presence by major insurers, and this would weaken the choice that so many toute, was lost with the ACA, or those that are ardently seeking affordable health care coverage, as both KFF and the AAA show.

Also on Thursday, “If the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate is repealed as part of a Republican tax cut plan, premiums will likely rise and insurers will exit the individual market, according to the American Academy of Actuaries, reported the American Enterprise Ideas.

“In a letter to Senate leaders Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, and Chuck Schumer, D-New York, the actuaries warned that without an incentive to obtain coverage such as the mandate, healthier customers would exit the ACA exchanges, leaving a higher-risk pool which is more expensive to cover—a problem the ACA exchanges have already struggled with even with the mandate in place,” they reported.

“Eliminating the mandate without implementing an alternative means to drive enrollment among healthy individuals would likely result in a deterioration of the risk pool due to lower coverage rates among lower-cost individuals,” wrote Shari Westerfield, vice president of the academy’s health practice council.

House passes sweeping tax reform despite critics claims

Thursday afternoon, the House of Representatives in a vote of 227-205 passed what many are calling sweeping tax reform, and also a partisan victory to show that the sagging fortunes of the GOP can be saved with this piece of legislation, and truly govern; especially after the recent victories by the Democrats in elections held earlier this month; and, especially in Virginia.
The bill, known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, as most know by now, slashes the number of individual tax brackets, does away with the state and local tax deduction, puts a cap of up to $10,000 on property tax deduction, and decreases the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent.

It also removes the interest deduction that can be taken by borrowers on federal student loans.

“For too long, this broken tax code has eroded America’s economic leadership around the world,” said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas), the chief architect of the legislation.

It also just made the GOP self-imposed rule of decreasing the federal revenue, or deficit, to $1.4 trillion, which states that legislation cannot increase the federal debt by no more than $1.5 trillion.

13 Republicans broke rank and opposed it, with no Democrats supporting it.

The loss of the state and local tax deduction is a blow to some states such as New York and California; and nearly all of the “no” votes came from these states, and especially from Rep’s, Pete King and John Faso, and from California, Darrell Issa, Tom McClintock, and Dana Rohrbach.

The increase in taxes to most middle class taxpayers, the loss of the so-called SALT (state and local taxes) deduction, the cap on the mortgage deduction, and the loss of the student interest deduction, make it hard to see this as a boon to the middle class, because at its heart this proposal is really about slashing the corporate tax rate, with the subsequent loss of long-standing deductions, to help pay for it.

The Hill reported that “Democrats denounced the bill, saying it mostly benefit wealthy individuals and corporations while increasing taxes on some in the middle class. Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, brought a giant check to the House floor debate giving $500 billion to “The Wealthiest 1%” from “The American Taxpayers.” The fake check was signed, “Congressional Republicans.”

The Los Angeles Times noted that “House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi drew on the teachings of historic and religious figures to warn Republicans off legislation that she said benefits the wealthy and “preys on the middle class.” She also remarked even before the vote that that is “ . . . a shameful piece of legislation.”

Coming next is the Senate version that will begin mark-up the week after the Thanksgiving holiday. But, news from that quarter is bound to be controversial, and after being buffeted, and lampooned in the national press, not to mention by Democratic lawmakers, such as Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, Republican efforts to pass tax reform took a new tack, late Tuesday night, with an addition to the proposal: the removal of the individual mandate from the Affordable Care Act; something that has always been an option, and that was mentioned just after the inauguration of Donald Trump, as a way for Republican leadership to destroy it.

Of course, all things considered equal the “proposal to the proposal”, is not as popular as it might seem.  First of all, it would increase the insurance premiums offered on the health exchanges that are part of the ACA, as well as employer offered plans, which was also going to happen with Graham-Cassidy, and helped to defeat it.

Secondly, it brings back all of the toxic fumes that swirled on Capitol Hill, each and every time there are attempts to gut the legislative legacy of President Obama; but most of all as the Congressional Budget Office noted, 13 million people would be uninsured, as a result, over the next decade; a true hardship for hardworking American families.

The push for it to be included came in a tweet from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who said, that the money saved  - approximately $338 billion -  could be used to “puff up some of the middle class tax relief that we would like to puff up,” yet the bill has been shown to increase the national deficit, by at least $1.5 trillion, and that is a conservative estimate, by the Manhattan Institute.

It’s still the reality that much like earlier legislative efforts, the Trump Administration is still focused on wealth transfers to make favorable cuts to the wealthy, and a former adviser to John McCain noted in a recent tweet, “A tax ‘reform’ bill which raises taxes on the middle class, strips millions of families from their health care, rewards the top 1% and balloons the deficit is the political nail in the coffin for the GOP,” sad John Weaver.

Conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats opposed the reform bill on Wednesday for adding to the national debt, unlike the House version, which just made it, under their own rules.

Critics note that could change, especially under pressure, as was done in the House version for the change in the pass through to benefit small business owners, and there is no guaranteed support; especially by senators from high tax states.

It could especially damage the fragile alliance with Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and John McCain, because if they insist on the Alexander-Murray agreement, then the whole ship could sink, as the Senate can afford to lose no more than two votes, to pass the measure.

The Senate, like its House counterpart, also increases the tax bill for some Americans, and not others, mostly the wealthy, and especially those living in Illinois, New York or New Jersey, with the removal of the state and local tax deduction.

It will also not help those who might want to buy a new home, and deduct the interest on payments, since with the proposed the doubling of the standard deduction, (despite differing amounts in the both versions), makes that a less attractive option.

Chicago real estate journalist, Don DeBat, noted in his recent column for a Chicago community newspaper, News-Star, that “existing homeowners can keep their existing mortgage interest deductions, but purchases that are made moving forward will be capped for homes valued at up to $500,000, and limit the deductions to $10,000 for property taxes.”

He notes that this especially affects the local luxury market, quoting experts who say that the “deduction would cut $10,000 to $15,000 in write offs. . .”

So, how does the plan help America’s middle class? Well, it can’t, and it won’t.

On the health front, there has been an appeal, from some, to those to use the more common-sense Alexander-Murray proposal to extend some of the ACA provisions with room for opt-outs from the states, but that is anathema to those who oppose the ACA.

The cut, and the tax increases, angered Murkowski, who said, in exasperation: “tell me how that’s making me a happier person in the middle-class here?”

Perhaps the best remark was from Sen. Murray herself, who said, “Tacking Alexander-Murray onto the partisan Republican tax reform effort is like trying to put out a fire with penicillin.”

In a recent CNN Poll, 6 of 10 voters do not feel that the Trump Administration is doing enough to make healthcare work, the way it should, for Americans.

One long-standing issue is when reconciliation comes, between the House and the Senate versions is the fate of entitlements, the long sought after desire of Speaker Paul Ryan, who has hinted that he is comfortable slashing Medicare by at least 30 percent, if that is what it takes to balance the two bills.