Poll: 56 percent say Trump 'tearing the country apart'
By CRISTIANO LIMA
Fifty-six percent of voters say they believe President Donald Trump is “tearing the country apart” instead of drawing people together, according to a new Fox News poll released Wednesday.
While the findings are sharply divided along partisan lines — with 15 percent of Republicans describing Trump as “tearing the country apart” but a whopping 93 percent of Democrats saying he is — only 33 percent of voters overall said they believe the president is “drawing the country together.”
The findings underscore a string of increasingly negative perceptions of the Trump White House, which continues to register low ratings on a wide array of issues, including its handling of North Korea, Russia, the environment, health care and race relations, with a majority of voters registering disapproval of each. A majority of voters did not approve of Trump’s handling of any of the major policy areas covered in the poll.
The president’s general approval rating, which has yet to clear the 50 percent threshold in Fox News surveys since he entered office, remained at 41 percent, the same score he received last month, and is 7 percentage points down from the poll’s first post-inaugural findings in February. Trump’s disapproval rating, meanwhile, reached a high of 55 percent this month.
Despite the findings, more than 90 percent of voters still support the ballot they cast in the November 2016 presidential election.
The president’s handling of recent national events drew more mixed results, with a plurality of 44 percent approving of his handling of the Hurricane Harvey relief efforts and a majority of 56 percent disapproving of his response to the events in Charlottesville, Virginia, this month. While Trump’s response to the natural disaster in Texas has been praised by local officials, including Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, his equivocations when addressing a white supremacist rally in Virginia drew the scorn of political and business leaders across the political spectrum.
According to U.S. voters, fault for the violent clashes in Charlottesville was largely that of the white supremacists in attendance: 52 percent of those surveyed blamed their actions and only 17 percent blamed counterprotesters.
White supremacists, however, only narrowly edged out the news media in the eyes of U.S. voters on who “poses a greater threat to the United States,” by a 47 to 40 percent margin. Seventy-percent of voters agreed, though, that Trump “dislikes” the news media more than he does white supremacists, highlighting the increasingly combative relationship between the president and the press.
Congress continued to register abysmal ratings in the Fox News survey, with only 15 percent approving and an overwhelming majority of 74 percent disapproving of the job they are doing. That ranking was only a slight dip from its prior rating of 17 percent approval in January.
The findings also registered the worst margin for the way people feel about how “things are going in the country today” since October 2013, with only 35 percent saying they are “satisfied” with the state of current affairs, compared with 64 percent who said they are “not satisfied.”
Among the most positive results in the latest Fox poll were those on the economic front: 36 percent said the economy is either in “excellent” or “good” shape, the highest ratings for the survey since August 2004
The Fox News poll randomly sampled 1,006 registered voters via landline and cellphone from Aug. 27 to 29, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
August 31, 2017
Blocks Texas immigration law
Federal judge blocks Texas immigration law
By TED HESSON
A federal judge in Texas blocked the bulk of the state’s immigration law targeting sanctuary cities on Wednesday, a victory for civil rights groups and Democratic-led city governments that oppose the measure.
The order came two days before a Sept. 1 deadline to implement the new law, which seeks to ensure local police cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
U.S. District Court Judge Orlando Garcia issued a preliminary injunction against most provisions of the measure, known as SB 4. The law authorizes local police to ask about immigration status during routine stops, and threatens police chiefs with misdemeanor charges and fines if they fail to enforce federal immigration laws.
The decision to put the law on a hold is a blow to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, and also to the Trump administration. In June, the Justice Department submitted a legal filing in the case to demonstrate its support.
Five of the six largest cities in Texas — Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin and El Paso — are part of the suit against the law, a fact the judge noted in his order on Wednesday.
“Their cumulative population exceeds six million people,” he wrote. “This is representative of the public opposition to SB 4 and the overwhelming public concern about its detrimental effect.”
Garcia, appointed by President Bill Clinton, ruled that key provisions of SB 4 conflicted with federal law. At the same time, he noted in the order that Texas law enforcement officers would not be prohibited from inquiring about immigration status during lawful stops, or sharing that information with federal authorities.
Unfazed by the setback, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton vowed to continue the legal battle to see the law put into action.
“Texas has the sovereign authority and responsibility to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens,” he said in a written statement. “We’re confident SB 4 will ultimately be upheld as constitutional and lawful.”
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Austin Mayor Steve Adler, a Democrat, praised the decision in a statement issued Wednesday evening.
He also cited the ongoing hurricane relief efforts in South Texas and concerns that undocumented immigrants may be afraid to seek aid amid an immigration crackdown.
“This week’s crisis with Hurricane Harvey is just the most recent example why people need to feel safe approaching our local police and support groups, no matter what,” Adler wrote.
Terri Burke, executive director of the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, stressed that the legal challenge to the law would continue to wind its way through the courts.
“This fight isn’t over yet,” she said in a written statement, “so we call upon law enforcement, local officials and supporters who have fought so hard to stop this law not to let up until SB 4 is well and truly dead.”
By TED HESSON
A federal judge in Texas blocked the bulk of the state’s immigration law targeting sanctuary cities on Wednesday, a victory for civil rights groups and Democratic-led city governments that oppose the measure.
The order came two days before a Sept. 1 deadline to implement the new law, which seeks to ensure local police cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
U.S. District Court Judge Orlando Garcia issued a preliminary injunction against most provisions of the measure, known as SB 4. The law authorizes local police to ask about immigration status during routine stops, and threatens police chiefs with misdemeanor charges and fines if they fail to enforce federal immigration laws.
The decision to put the law on a hold is a blow to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, and also to the Trump administration. In June, the Justice Department submitted a legal filing in the case to demonstrate its support.
Five of the six largest cities in Texas — Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin and El Paso — are part of the suit against the law, a fact the judge noted in his order on Wednesday.
“Their cumulative population exceeds six million people,” he wrote. “This is representative of the public opposition to SB 4 and the overwhelming public concern about its detrimental effect.”
Garcia, appointed by President Bill Clinton, ruled that key provisions of SB 4 conflicted with federal law. At the same time, he noted in the order that Texas law enforcement officers would not be prohibited from inquiring about immigration status during lawful stops, or sharing that information with federal authorities.
Unfazed by the setback, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton vowed to continue the legal battle to see the law put into action.
“Texas has the sovereign authority and responsibility to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens,” he said in a written statement. “We’re confident SB 4 will ultimately be upheld as constitutional and lawful.”
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Austin Mayor Steve Adler, a Democrat, praised the decision in a statement issued Wednesday evening.
He also cited the ongoing hurricane relief efforts in South Texas and concerns that undocumented immigrants may be afraid to seek aid amid an immigration crackdown.
“This week’s crisis with Hurricane Harvey is just the most recent example why people need to feel safe approaching our local police and support groups, no matter what,” Adler wrote.
Terri Burke, executive director of the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, stressed that the legal challenge to the law would continue to wind its way through the courts.
“This fight isn’t over yet,” she said in a written statement, “so we call upon law enforcement, local officials and supporters who have fought so hard to stop this law not to let up until SB 4 is well and truly dead.”
Afghanistan
Pentagon finally comes clean on Afghanistan troop levels
By WESLEY MORGAN
The Pentagon revealed Wednesday there are some 2,600 more American troops in Afghanistan than it previously acknowledged — approximately 11,000, not the longtime public figure of 8,400.
“The number 11,000 is an approximation. It may be slightly above that, it may be slightly below that, it will certainly vary,” Marine Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, Jr., the director of the Joint Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon.
That figure has been “the reality over the last six months or so,” he added.
The admission comes after mounting scrutiny of the Pentagon's so-called Force Management Level policy, which has downplayed the full size of U.S. military contingents to stay beneath caps in Afghanistan as well as Iraq and Syria, where the full numbers remain classified.
The new Afghanistan figure does not include any of the additional troops President Donald Trump has authorized as part of the revamped strategy he announced last week.
“No troops have started to flow. No deployment orders have been issued,” McKenzie said of the reinforcements, which could reach as many as 3,900. “Should that number change significantly," he said, "we will come back in here to tell you that.”
The gap between the public numbers and reality had been an open secret until Wednesday.
Last week, in a background briefing with reporters, a National Security Council official acknowledged that the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan exceeded 10,000, and other reports have placed the number at 11,000 to 12,000.
The announcement follows a review of troop-counting procedures that Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis commissioned earlier this year.
“There’s a very strange accounting procedure I inherited,” Mattis told reporters traveling with him last week, referring to the elaborate accounting system, under which troops deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria for less than 120 days at a time are not counted.
Mattis’ review covered all three countries but the Pentagon only announced the impact in Afghanistan, leaving greater transparency on Iraq and Syria troop levels for an unspecified later date.
"We are reviewing Iraq and Syria and the same guiding principles will govern how we roll out those numbers as well,” Pentagon press secretary Dana White told reporters. The official numbers in Iraq and Syria remain 5,200 and 500, also significantly lower than recent estimates leaked to the media.
The officials declined to provide a rationale for the delay in releasing numbers for Iraq and Syria. But American troop numbers are a politically sensitive issue in Baghdad, where Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is under pressure to show that the U.S. military presence is not permanent.
Part of the Defense secretary’s purpose in providing more accurate numbers for Afghanistan “was to provide more transparency on how we account for troops on the ground," White said, while still maintaining operational security.
But there were also practical considerations: Under the Force Management Level system, military units have often left hundreds of junior personnel behind to stay below the troop caps, which the Obama administration first instituted in 2011.
“We all recognize that whole units are inherently more prepared, more ready, than units that are fragmented in order to meet an arbitrary force level,” McKenzie said.
Even the numbers released on Wednesday are likely incomplete.
White noted that the numbers still exclude “sensitive units and certain temporary missions." And brief upticks that occur as replacement units rotate in will still not be counted in the public figures.
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) of the House Armed Services Committee praised the move.
“I am pleased to see that as we prepare to execute a new strategy in Afghanistan, President Trump and Secretary Mattis have chosen to put the facts on the table,” Thornberry said in a statement after the news conference. “The Obama administration did not shoot straight on how many people they sent to Afghanistan, which added cost to the mission and made it harder to succeed. It is important to be upfront about the importance of the mission and what it takes to succeed.”
By WESLEY MORGAN
The Pentagon revealed Wednesday there are some 2,600 more American troops in Afghanistan than it previously acknowledged — approximately 11,000, not the longtime public figure of 8,400.
“The number 11,000 is an approximation. It may be slightly above that, it may be slightly below that, it will certainly vary,” Marine Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, Jr., the director of the Joint Staff, told reporters at the Pentagon.
That figure has been “the reality over the last six months or so,” he added.
The admission comes after mounting scrutiny of the Pentagon's so-called Force Management Level policy, which has downplayed the full size of U.S. military contingents to stay beneath caps in Afghanistan as well as Iraq and Syria, where the full numbers remain classified.
The new Afghanistan figure does not include any of the additional troops President Donald Trump has authorized as part of the revamped strategy he announced last week.
“No troops have started to flow. No deployment orders have been issued,” McKenzie said of the reinforcements, which could reach as many as 3,900. “Should that number change significantly," he said, "we will come back in here to tell you that.”
The gap between the public numbers and reality had been an open secret until Wednesday.
Last week, in a background briefing with reporters, a National Security Council official acknowledged that the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan exceeded 10,000, and other reports have placed the number at 11,000 to 12,000.
The announcement follows a review of troop-counting procedures that Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis commissioned earlier this year.
“There’s a very strange accounting procedure I inherited,” Mattis told reporters traveling with him last week, referring to the elaborate accounting system, under which troops deployed to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria for less than 120 days at a time are not counted.
Mattis’ review covered all three countries but the Pentagon only announced the impact in Afghanistan, leaving greater transparency on Iraq and Syria troop levels for an unspecified later date.
"We are reviewing Iraq and Syria and the same guiding principles will govern how we roll out those numbers as well,” Pentagon press secretary Dana White told reporters. The official numbers in Iraq and Syria remain 5,200 and 500, also significantly lower than recent estimates leaked to the media.
The officials declined to provide a rationale for the delay in releasing numbers for Iraq and Syria. But American troop numbers are a politically sensitive issue in Baghdad, where Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is under pressure to show that the U.S. military presence is not permanent.
Part of the Defense secretary’s purpose in providing more accurate numbers for Afghanistan “was to provide more transparency on how we account for troops on the ground," White said, while still maintaining operational security.
But there were also practical considerations: Under the Force Management Level system, military units have often left hundreds of junior personnel behind to stay below the troop caps, which the Obama administration first instituted in 2011.
“We all recognize that whole units are inherently more prepared, more ready, than units that are fragmented in order to meet an arbitrary force level,” McKenzie said.
Even the numbers released on Wednesday are likely incomplete.
White noted that the numbers still exclude “sensitive units and certain temporary missions." And brief upticks that occur as replacement units rotate in will still not be counted in the public figures.
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) of the House Armed Services Committee praised the move.
“I am pleased to see that as we prepare to execute a new strategy in Afghanistan, President Trump and Secretary Mattis have chosen to put the facts on the table,” Thornberry said in a statement after the news conference. “The Obama administration did not shoot straight on how many people they sent to Afghanistan, which added cost to the mission and made it harder to succeed. It is important to be upfront about the importance of the mission and what it takes to succeed.”
Single-payer bill
Harris to co-sponsor Sanders' single-payer bill
By CARLA MARINUCCI
California’s junior senator, Kamala Harris, on Wednesday departed from the position held by the state’s senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, and announced her intention to co-sponsor Senator Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All’’ bill.
To the delight of a hometown crowd at a packed town hall meeting Wednesday in Oakland — where she was raised — Harris announced for the first time that she intended to co-sponsor “Medicare for All,’’ the single-payer health care bill which has the strong support of progressives and groups including National Nurses United, saying it was “the right thing to do.”
But that stated position puts her at odds with Feinstein, who has publicly expressed concerns about the costs and details of single payer, and who this week at the Commonwealth Club of California said she favored a public option for health care instead.
Harris, asked about those differences at a press conference with Feinstein after the town hall, insisted that “it’s about creating an opportunity for a larger number of people” to access good quality health care.
"There’s no question that ... all people should have access to affordable health care, and as we talk about moving toward a single-payer system, I think there is certainly energy and momentum toward that,’’ she told reporters. "Americans are making very clear when they defeated the repeal of ACA ... that they don’t want to play politics with their health care.”
By CARLA MARINUCCI
California’s junior senator, Kamala Harris, on Wednesday departed from the position held by the state’s senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, and announced her intention to co-sponsor Senator Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All’’ bill.
To the delight of a hometown crowd at a packed town hall meeting Wednesday in Oakland — where she was raised — Harris announced for the first time that she intended to co-sponsor “Medicare for All,’’ the single-payer health care bill which has the strong support of progressives and groups including National Nurses United, saying it was “the right thing to do.”
But that stated position puts her at odds with Feinstein, who has publicly expressed concerns about the costs and details of single payer, and who this week at the Commonwealth Club of California said she favored a public option for health care instead.
Harris, asked about those differences at a press conference with Feinstein after the town hall, insisted that “it’s about creating an opportunity for a larger number of people” to access good quality health care.
"There’s no question that ... all people should have access to affordable health care, and as we talk about moving toward a single-payer system, I think there is certainly energy and momentum toward that,’’ she told reporters. "Americans are making very clear when they defeated the repeal of ACA ... that they don’t want to play politics with their health care.”
Directly attacked the Missouri Democrat
Trump urges voters to oust McCaskill if she doesn't back tax reform
Trump directly attacked the Missouri Democrat in his speech, while Pence appeared alongside Sen. Joe Manchin in West Virginia.
By MATTHEW NUSSBAUM and ELANA SCHOR
The White House is kicking off its push for tax reform with the intent of winning vulnerable moderate Democrats to the cause — by threatening punishment at the ballot box if they don’t ultimately sign on.
President Donald Trump targeted Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, a top GOP target in 2018, during his first major speech on the tax plan Wednesday in McCaskill’s home state of Missouri.
“She must do this for you, and if she doesn’t do it for you, you have to vote her out of office,” Trump declared to uproarious applause. “We just can’t do this anymore with the obstruction and the obstructionists.”
McCaskill has voiced a willingness to be involved with tax reform. Her office declined to respond to Trump's comments on Wednesday.
Vice President Mike Pence is heading later Wednesday to West Virginia, where he’ll appear alongside Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) at a Chamber of Commerce event. Manchin, too, is up for reelection in 2018, in a state Trump carried by more than 40 points.
“It’s about trying to win their votes,” a senior administration official told POLITICO of the Wednesday visits.
The senators’ vulnerable status in 2018 is also a factor, the official added: “If they don’t help us, it could end up hurting them in the 2018 midterms.”
The White House sees both senators as gettable votes on its tax plan. Sens. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) also are top targets for the White House, which wants to avoid the dismal fate of its effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act — an initiative that never attracted Democratic support, robbing the White House of bipartisan cover and an extra cushion against Republicans who refused to support it.
But Trump's riff on McCaskill could indicate a more hard-edged approach, focusing on 2018 threats rather than finding bipartisan common ground.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said after the speech that Trump's comments about McCaskill weren't meant as intimidation. "It's not a political threat when you ask a member of Congress to do their job," she told reporters traveling on Air Force One.
Manchin, Donnelly and Heitkamp were the only three Democratic senators who didn’t sign a letter circulated by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) this month, outlining principles for Democrats on tax reform.
The White House is especially focused on Manchin, who is the only statewide elected Democrat remaining in West Virginia after Gov. Jim Justice switched parties at a rally with Trump earlier this month.
“Sen. Manchin was open to and helped lead tax reform in West Virginia,” said Steven Roberts, president of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, which is hosting the Wednesday event. “I would think if you’re looking at this from a White House point of view, having the vice president come to West Virginia would make good sense. Manchin may be gettable on tax reform.”
Pence is focusing on the tax reform carrot — rather than the 2018 stick — in his sales pitch to Manchin. “We want tax reform, and we want you to work with us,” is how a senior Pence aide described the message. “The people of West Virginia want tax reform.”
“Sen. Manchin has been discussing tax reform with the administration and will continue to work with them on any proposal that can make the current tax system better,” said Manchin spokesman Jonathan Kott. “Sen. Manchin hopes to have the chance to discuss tax reform and other issues important to West Virginia with the vice president today, and he is happy that he’s in the state.”
A Pence trip to Indiana to up the pressure on Donnelly is also under consideration, the Pence aide said.
Outside groups are also getting into the mix. The Koch-backed group Freedom Partners has spent recent days highlighting Manchin’s past support for a comprehensive tax overhaul, as well as similar remarks by McCaskill, Donnelly and other Senate Democrats facing difficult reelection races.
McCaskill raised some GOP hopes for a bipartisan tax package in a Saturday statement that touted “my support for simplifying the tax code by cleaning out loopholes and goodies for special interests, and lowering the corporate tax rate.”
But McCaskill also joined the Democratic letter declaring opposition to any bill that cuts taxes on the top 1 percent as well as any measure that adds to the deficit — a vow that could put her under serious pressure from the left and right as tax legislation takes shape.
McCaskill also said during her latest round of town halls that she would not lower taxes for those making more than $1 million.
The White House hasn’t limited its tax-reform entreaties to Trump-state Democratic senators. Aides to the president have reached out to a small group of moderate House Democrats, including members of the Blue Dog Coalition and the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus.
Democratic leaders and liberal groups are ramping up their campaign to keep the party’s vulnerable lawmakers in the fold on any tax bill that emerges ahead of the 2018 elections.
The Not One Penny campaign, an alliance of progressive activists that has vowed to take on Democrats who back any new tax cuts for the super-rich, is joining with Schumer and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) on Tuesday to publicly slam the GOP tax plan as a gift to the super rich.
Schumer told reporters Tuesday that taxes would be “one of the biggest fights of the next three to four months, and Democrats will be ready.” He advised Republicans to “learn from” the collapse of their one-party attempt to repeal Obamacare “and not repeat the same mistake with tax reform.”
Manchin, however, seems to be shrugging off the pressure he’s facing.
“I just don’t give a shit,” he told the Charleston Gazette-Mail earlier this month. “Don’t care if I get elected, don’t care if I get defeated, how about that. If they think because I’m up for election, that I can be wrangled into voting for shit that I don’t like and can’t explain, they’re all crazy.”
Trump directly attacked the Missouri Democrat in his speech, while Pence appeared alongside Sen. Joe Manchin in West Virginia.
By MATTHEW NUSSBAUM and ELANA SCHOR
The White House is kicking off its push for tax reform with the intent of winning vulnerable moderate Democrats to the cause — by threatening punishment at the ballot box if they don’t ultimately sign on.
President Donald Trump targeted Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, a top GOP target in 2018, during his first major speech on the tax plan Wednesday in McCaskill’s home state of Missouri.
“She must do this for you, and if she doesn’t do it for you, you have to vote her out of office,” Trump declared to uproarious applause. “We just can’t do this anymore with the obstruction and the obstructionists.”
McCaskill has voiced a willingness to be involved with tax reform. Her office declined to respond to Trump's comments on Wednesday.
Vice President Mike Pence is heading later Wednesday to West Virginia, where he’ll appear alongside Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) at a Chamber of Commerce event. Manchin, too, is up for reelection in 2018, in a state Trump carried by more than 40 points.
“It’s about trying to win their votes,” a senior administration official told POLITICO of the Wednesday visits.
The senators’ vulnerable status in 2018 is also a factor, the official added: “If they don’t help us, it could end up hurting them in the 2018 midterms.”
The White House sees both senators as gettable votes on its tax plan. Sens. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) also are top targets for the White House, which wants to avoid the dismal fate of its effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act — an initiative that never attracted Democratic support, robbing the White House of bipartisan cover and an extra cushion against Republicans who refused to support it.
But Trump's riff on McCaskill could indicate a more hard-edged approach, focusing on 2018 threats rather than finding bipartisan common ground.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said after the speech that Trump's comments about McCaskill weren't meant as intimidation. "It's not a political threat when you ask a member of Congress to do their job," she told reporters traveling on Air Force One.
Manchin, Donnelly and Heitkamp were the only three Democratic senators who didn’t sign a letter circulated by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) this month, outlining principles for Democrats on tax reform.
The White House is especially focused on Manchin, who is the only statewide elected Democrat remaining in West Virginia after Gov. Jim Justice switched parties at a rally with Trump earlier this month.
“Sen. Manchin was open to and helped lead tax reform in West Virginia,” said Steven Roberts, president of the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce, which is hosting the Wednesday event. “I would think if you’re looking at this from a White House point of view, having the vice president come to West Virginia would make good sense. Manchin may be gettable on tax reform.”
Pence is focusing on the tax reform carrot — rather than the 2018 stick — in his sales pitch to Manchin. “We want tax reform, and we want you to work with us,” is how a senior Pence aide described the message. “The people of West Virginia want tax reform.”
“Sen. Manchin has been discussing tax reform with the administration and will continue to work with them on any proposal that can make the current tax system better,” said Manchin spokesman Jonathan Kott. “Sen. Manchin hopes to have the chance to discuss tax reform and other issues important to West Virginia with the vice president today, and he is happy that he’s in the state.”
A Pence trip to Indiana to up the pressure on Donnelly is also under consideration, the Pence aide said.
Outside groups are also getting into the mix. The Koch-backed group Freedom Partners has spent recent days highlighting Manchin’s past support for a comprehensive tax overhaul, as well as similar remarks by McCaskill, Donnelly and other Senate Democrats facing difficult reelection races.
McCaskill raised some GOP hopes for a bipartisan tax package in a Saturday statement that touted “my support for simplifying the tax code by cleaning out loopholes and goodies for special interests, and lowering the corporate tax rate.”
But McCaskill also joined the Democratic letter declaring opposition to any bill that cuts taxes on the top 1 percent as well as any measure that adds to the deficit — a vow that could put her under serious pressure from the left and right as tax legislation takes shape.
McCaskill also said during her latest round of town halls that she would not lower taxes for those making more than $1 million.
The White House hasn’t limited its tax-reform entreaties to Trump-state Democratic senators. Aides to the president have reached out to a small group of moderate House Democrats, including members of the Blue Dog Coalition and the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus.
Democratic leaders and liberal groups are ramping up their campaign to keep the party’s vulnerable lawmakers in the fold on any tax bill that emerges ahead of the 2018 elections.
The Not One Penny campaign, an alliance of progressive activists that has vowed to take on Democrats who back any new tax cuts for the super-rich, is joining with Schumer and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) on Tuesday to publicly slam the GOP tax plan as a gift to the super rich.
Schumer told reporters Tuesday that taxes would be “one of the biggest fights of the next three to four months, and Democrats will be ready.” He advised Republicans to “learn from” the collapse of their one-party attempt to repeal Obamacare “and not repeat the same mistake with tax reform.”
Manchin, however, seems to be shrugging off the pressure he’s facing.
“I just don’t give a shit,” he told the Charleston Gazette-Mail earlier this month. “Don’t care if I get elected, don’t care if I get defeated, how about that. If they think because I’m up for election, that I can be wrangled into voting for shit that I don’t like and can’t explain, they’re all crazy.”
Legal questions
Trump's electoral threat against Sen. Claire McCaskill raises legal questions
By JOSH GERSTEIN
President Donald Trump’s public electoral threat Wednesday against Sen. Claire McCaskill during a speech in Missouri on tax reform triggered another round of questions about the administration’s blurring the line between partisan politics and official business.
Speaking at an industrial-fan factory in Springfield, Trump singled out McCaskill, a Democrat who is up for reelection next year in a state the president won decisively in 2016.
“We must — we have no choice — we must lower our taxes. And your senator, Claire McCaskill, she must do this for you, and if she doesn’t do it for you, you have to vote her out of office,” Trump said to loud applause and whistling from the audience. “She’s got to make that commitment. She’s got to make that commitment. If she doesn’t do it — we just can’t do this anymore with the obstruction and the obstructionists.”
Ethics experts said the main issue raised by the president’s comments is whether he was ad-libbing or whether White House aides planned for him to urge McCaskill’s defeat.
Trump is not covered by the Hatch Act, the federal law prohibiting politicking while on official duty, but White House officials are subject to the measure.
“The Office of Special Counsel should examine very closely if staffers were involved in the preparation of these remarks,” said Nick Schwellenbach, a former OSC official now with the Project on Government Oversight.
Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush and now a University of Minnesota law professor, underscored that point.
“The issue to look at is: Was someone charged with writing an official speech writing political lines?” Painter said. “If he ad-libbed it, the president can do that.”
The White House did not respond to a question about who prepared the speech or how the related expenses would be paid for. But press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, “It's not a political threat when you ask a member of Congress to do their job."
While political campaigns or national party committees typically reimburse the White House for some of the costs associated with political speeches, one or two offhand political remarks by the president or other officials are not typically enough to require such a payment, officials said.
An Office of Personnel Management regulation on divvying up the costs of government officials’ trips says no reimbursement is required when “a minor, clearly incidental percentage” of an official trip is devoted to political activity. The rule suggests that 3 percent or less should be considered too trivial to trigger a reimbursement.
“If the president goes on this official trip, he may make a political comment to the press every now and then if he’s doing that de minimis and that’s not the purpose of the trip,” Painter said. “I don’t think you need to run for a small reimbursement to the RNC."
However, the former White House lawyer said any involvement by White House officials in preparing Trump’s speech would be more complicated. While certain senior officials are permitted to do some political activities during work hours, they’re not supposed to mix official business and electoral work, he said.
The questions about Trump’s targeting McCaskill come after Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson faced allegations that he violated the Hatch Act by appearing at a reelection campaign rally that Trump held in Phoenix last week. Cabinet members are permitted to speak at such events but are not supposed to discuss their official duties or be identified by their official title.
An offstage announcer introduced Carson as the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, but a department spokesperson said Carson was unaware that was going to happen. The episode led to at least two complaints to the Office of Special Counsel: one from former Obama Cabinet secretary Chris Lu and another from the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit organization focused on election law and democracy issues.
OSC officials declined to comment on Trump’s speech Wednesday or on the complaints about Carson’s appearance last week.
The office has occasionally rebuked White House officials and Cabinet members for Hatch Act violations. In June, OSC concluded that White House social media director Dan Scavino ran afoul of the law when he used Twitter to urge a primary defeat for Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.). The office also faulted Carson’s predecessor, Julian Castro and Kathleen Sebelius, President Barack Obama’s secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, for failing to observe a line between official and political activities.
Obama sometimes peppered his official speeches with seemingly spontaneous political exhortations like, “Don't boo! Vote!” However, he doesn’t appear to have used such a speech to go after a political candidate as specifically as Trump did with McCaskill.
A former deputy chief of staff to Obama, Alyssa Mastromonaco, was among Democrats challenging Trump’s choice of forum to target McCaskill.
“DT hitting McCaskill by name and calling for her to be voted out of office,” Mastromonaco tweeted, “is a decidedly political, not official speech.”
By JOSH GERSTEIN
President Donald Trump’s public electoral threat Wednesday against Sen. Claire McCaskill during a speech in Missouri on tax reform triggered another round of questions about the administration’s blurring the line between partisan politics and official business.
Speaking at an industrial-fan factory in Springfield, Trump singled out McCaskill, a Democrat who is up for reelection next year in a state the president won decisively in 2016.
“We must — we have no choice — we must lower our taxes. And your senator, Claire McCaskill, she must do this for you, and if she doesn’t do it for you, you have to vote her out of office,” Trump said to loud applause and whistling from the audience. “She’s got to make that commitment. She’s got to make that commitment. If she doesn’t do it — we just can’t do this anymore with the obstruction and the obstructionists.”
Ethics experts said the main issue raised by the president’s comments is whether he was ad-libbing or whether White House aides planned for him to urge McCaskill’s defeat.
Trump is not covered by the Hatch Act, the federal law prohibiting politicking while on official duty, but White House officials are subject to the measure.
“The Office of Special Counsel should examine very closely if staffers were involved in the preparation of these remarks,” said Nick Schwellenbach, a former OSC official now with the Project on Government Oversight.
Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush and now a University of Minnesota law professor, underscored that point.
“The issue to look at is: Was someone charged with writing an official speech writing political lines?” Painter said. “If he ad-libbed it, the president can do that.”
The White House did not respond to a question about who prepared the speech or how the related expenses would be paid for. But press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, “It's not a political threat when you ask a member of Congress to do their job."
While political campaigns or national party committees typically reimburse the White House for some of the costs associated with political speeches, one or two offhand political remarks by the president or other officials are not typically enough to require such a payment, officials said.
An Office of Personnel Management regulation on divvying up the costs of government officials’ trips says no reimbursement is required when “a minor, clearly incidental percentage” of an official trip is devoted to political activity. The rule suggests that 3 percent or less should be considered too trivial to trigger a reimbursement.
“If the president goes on this official trip, he may make a political comment to the press every now and then if he’s doing that de minimis and that’s not the purpose of the trip,” Painter said. “I don’t think you need to run for a small reimbursement to the RNC."
However, the former White House lawyer said any involvement by White House officials in preparing Trump’s speech would be more complicated. While certain senior officials are permitted to do some political activities during work hours, they’re not supposed to mix official business and electoral work, he said.
The questions about Trump’s targeting McCaskill come after Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson faced allegations that he violated the Hatch Act by appearing at a reelection campaign rally that Trump held in Phoenix last week. Cabinet members are permitted to speak at such events but are not supposed to discuss their official duties or be identified by their official title.
An offstage announcer introduced Carson as the secretary of Housing and Urban Development, but a department spokesperson said Carson was unaware that was going to happen. The episode led to at least two complaints to the Office of Special Counsel: one from former Obama Cabinet secretary Chris Lu and another from the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit organization focused on election law and democracy issues.
OSC officials declined to comment on Trump’s speech Wednesday or on the complaints about Carson’s appearance last week.
The office has occasionally rebuked White House officials and Cabinet members for Hatch Act violations. In June, OSC concluded that White House social media director Dan Scavino ran afoul of the law when he used Twitter to urge a primary defeat for Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.). The office also faulted Carson’s predecessor, Julian Castro and Kathleen Sebelius, President Barack Obama’s secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, for failing to observe a line between official and political activities.
Obama sometimes peppered his official speeches with seemingly spontaneous political exhortations like, “Don't boo! Vote!” However, he doesn’t appear to have used such a speech to go after a political candidate as specifically as Trump did with McCaskill.
A former deputy chief of staff to Obama, Alyssa Mastromonaco, was among Democrats challenging Trump’s choice of forum to target McCaskill.
“DT hitting McCaskill by name and calling for her to be voted out of office,” Mastromonaco tweeted, “is a decidedly political, not official speech.”
Change Texas
How Harvey Will Change Texas
The storm’s most lasting legacy might be the end of the Lone Star State’s rugged individualism.
By RICHARD PARKER
Until Monday, Eldridge Park was an emerald subdivision surrounding a 40-acre park, in the upper-middle-class Sugarland suburb of Houston. Then, around 1:40 a.m., the water came. A foot of water became two. One flooded subdivision in Sugarland became 10. A few inundated homes became 3,000. The water will remain, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for weeks.
Hurricane Harvey will set many heart-breaking records in its time hovering over Texas—from biblical rainfall to death tolls to massive economic damage. Yet as the storm trails away, its most lasting legacy might be how it punctures Texas’ famous ethos of self-reliance, embodied by the independence-era symbol on its state flag: the Lone Star.
Texans might pride themselves on their rugged individualism, but this time, they’ll have no choice but to accept years of state and federal help for the recovery. By the time Harvey leaves the city on Wednesday, Greater Houston will have been drenched with 1 trillion gallons of water and an estimated 30,000 people will be living in temporary housing. The Federal Emergency Management Agency expects to receive at least 450,000 claims for damage caused by the storm. And early estimates point to least $150 billion in total economic losses.
Stubborn self-reliance in Texas is as much fact as myth. It was likely born among the original Spanish settlers, who in the early 1700s were often as not ignored, 800 miles from Mexico City. In the 19th century, settlers were on their own against fierce tribes like the Comanche. Even today, Pecos County, in West Texas, boasts just three people per square mile.
But Texas politics hasn’t always been so averse to big government as it is now. Texas Democrats during their decades in power tended to stress ways to bridge Texas’ vast distances with government programs like rural electrification, dams and road-building. Populist agrarian policies meant to prop up farmers during monetary crises were a powerful force, as were the New Deal and its most important son: Lyndon Johnson, congressman, senator, vice president and later, the 36th president. Johnson was architect of the Texas dams and rural schools upon which he modeled the Great Society. Even Republicans like George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Rick Perry all talked the talk of individualism but practiced the politics of community.
All that has changed in Texas over the past several years as the far-right wing of the Republican Party has taken control not only of the state party but also the state government. When Gov. Greg Abbott won election in 2014, he said of his agenda: “We will celebrate the frontier spirit of rugged individualism.” Since then, he and the legislature have sought to limit government power—except their own. They have enabled individuals to more freely carry guns and knives and diverted taxpayer money from public to private schools. Most recently, Abbott led the failed effort to nullify local tree ordinances—regulations limiting tree removal—because these posed, Abbott argued, a threat to individual freedom.
But Harvey has changed all that.
“A Texas-sized storm requires a Texas-sized response, and that is exactly what the state will provide,” Abbott said Monday in Corpus Christi. “While we have suffered a great deal, the resiliency and bravery of Texans’ spirits is something that can never be broken. As communities are coming together in the aftermath of this storm, I will do everything in my power to make sure they have what they need to rebuild.”
This is a man whose signature boast was that he got up every day, went to work and sued the federal government, who has called for a constitutional convention to strip power from Washington and yet, on Monday, said, “To see the swift response from the federal government is pretty much unparalleled.”
He also gave FEMA an “A+” for its efforts. Which only makes sense: The agency has said it will be in Texas for years. Trailing Abbott and reassuring people that the federal government would be there to help was none other than Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who, along with Sen. Ted Cruz and much of the Texas House delegation, voted against storm relief for New York and New Jersey following Hurricane Sandy. “The congressional members in Texas are hypocrites and I said back in 2012 that they’d be proven to be hypocrites,” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said, according to the Star-Ledger. “It was just a matter of time.”
The reality is that recovery from a major hurricane—and, in this case, unprecedented flooding—takes many years. The federal government will be setting up camps, delivering food and writing checks for what is likely to be a decade. It took that long for the federal government to finish spending the last $20 billion on recovering from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. By last count, only 60 percent of structures on Galveston Island destroyed by Ike in 2008 have been rebuilt. But Ike damaged a small city that is largely a beach getaway. Harvey swamped one of the largest engines of the U.S. economy; Houston’s gross product was last measured at over $400 billion per year.
People in the area will be needing help from each other and the government long after the boats are gone and the water has receded. Crop and livestock insurance will not cover all the damage left in ruined rice fields and by drowned cattle. In the suburbs as well as the city, most Houston property owners don’t have flood insurance. For many, there will be no workplaces to go to, let alone homes in which to live.
This future won’t haunt just Houston’s Democratic inner core. Despite its sprawling size—about that of Maryland—Houston’s population density of nearly 4,000 people per square mile extends into what are staunchly Republican suburbs, like Sugarland in Fort Bend County. Already, the residents of the leafy subdivisions are encountering a Katrina-like reality. They were flooded out because the Army Corps of Engineers opened the spillways of two nearby dams to avert a catastrophic dam break that would have sent an uncontrolled cascade swamping much of the county.
Suffering in the face of disaster knows no bounds, not even rugged individualism. I know: In 2015, my Texas town of Wimberley was struck in the dark by a 26-foot wall of water that took 11 lives, destroyed 1,000 homes and leveled a cypress forest of thousands of trees dating back to Columbus. Though a small town, Wimberley was not spread over a vast distance but crowded into a narrow valley with a population density twice that of the average in Texas.
When we emerged at daylight, there was little more humbling than a house full of mold, a lifetime of wrecked possessions, feeling dirty, drenched and powerless, literally. It is then that you find each other, like finding God. But you’re not just grateful for that neighbor. You need that Salvation Army food truck, those helicopters buzzing overhead and National Guard troops out front in the pitch dark of night. And you desperately need that FEMA check.
It will be interesting to watch Texas politics square itself with reality. Yes, self-reliance is a virtue. No man or woman, however, is an island—at least not on purpose. Harvey has proved that. So, if ever the era of going it entirely on your own in Texas ever existed, it’s over.
The storm’s most lasting legacy might be the end of the Lone Star State’s rugged individualism.
By RICHARD PARKER
Until Monday, Eldridge Park was an emerald subdivision surrounding a 40-acre park, in the upper-middle-class Sugarland suburb of Houston. Then, around 1:40 a.m., the water came. A foot of water became two. One flooded subdivision in Sugarland became 10. A few inundated homes became 3,000. The water will remain, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for weeks.
Hurricane Harvey will set many heart-breaking records in its time hovering over Texas—from biblical rainfall to death tolls to massive economic damage. Yet as the storm trails away, its most lasting legacy might be how it punctures Texas’ famous ethos of self-reliance, embodied by the independence-era symbol on its state flag: the Lone Star.
Texans might pride themselves on their rugged individualism, but this time, they’ll have no choice but to accept years of state and federal help for the recovery. By the time Harvey leaves the city on Wednesday, Greater Houston will have been drenched with 1 trillion gallons of water and an estimated 30,000 people will be living in temporary housing. The Federal Emergency Management Agency expects to receive at least 450,000 claims for damage caused by the storm. And early estimates point to least $150 billion in total economic losses.
Stubborn self-reliance in Texas is as much fact as myth. It was likely born among the original Spanish settlers, who in the early 1700s were often as not ignored, 800 miles from Mexico City. In the 19th century, settlers were on their own against fierce tribes like the Comanche. Even today, Pecos County, in West Texas, boasts just three people per square mile.
But Texas politics hasn’t always been so averse to big government as it is now. Texas Democrats during their decades in power tended to stress ways to bridge Texas’ vast distances with government programs like rural electrification, dams and road-building. Populist agrarian policies meant to prop up farmers during monetary crises were a powerful force, as were the New Deal and its most important son: Lyndon Johnson, congressman, senator, vice president and later, the 36th president. Johnson was architect of the Texas dams and rural schools upon which he modeled the Great Society. Even Republicans like George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Rick Perry all talked the talk of individualism but practiced the politics of community.
All that has changed in Texas over the past several years as the far-right wing of the Republican Party has taken control not only of the state party but also the state government. When Gov. Greg Abbott won election in 2014, he said of his agenda: “We will celebrate the frontier spirit of rugged individualism.” Since then, he and the legislature have sought to limit government power—except their own. They have enabled individuals to more freely carry guns and knives and diverted taxpayer money from public to private schools. Most recently, Abbott led the failed effort to nullify local tree ordinances—regulations limiting tree removal—because these posed, Abbott argued, a threat to individual freedom.
But Harvey has changed all that.
“A Texas-sized storm requires a Texas-sized response, and that is exactly what the state will provide,” Abbott said Monday in Corpus Christi. “While we have suffered a great deal, the resiliency and bravery of Texans’ spirits is something that can never be broken. As communities are coming together in the aftermath of this storm, I will do everything in my power to make sure they have what they need to rebuild.”
This is a man whose signature boast was that he got up every day, went to work and sued the federal government, who has called for a constitutional convention to strip power from Washington and yet, on Monday, said, “To see the swift response from the federal government is pretty much unparalleled.”
He also gave FEMA an “A+” for its efforts. Which only makes sense: The agency has said it will be in Texas for years. Trailing Abbott and reassuring people that the federal government would be there to help was none other than Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who, along with Sen. Ted Cruz and much of the Texas House delegation, voted against storm relief for New York and New Jersey following Hurricane Sandy. “The congressional members in Texas are hypocrites and I said back in 2012 that they’d be proven to be hypocrites,” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said, according to the Star-Ledger. “It was just a matter of time.”
The reality is that recovery from a major hurricane—and, in this case, unprecedented flooding—takes many years. The federal government will be setting up camps, delivering food and writing checks for what is likely to be a decade. It took that long for the federal government to finish spending the last $20 billion on recovering from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. By last count, only 60 percent of structures on Galveston Island destroyed by Ike in 2008 have been rebuilt. But Ike damaged a small city that is largely a beach getaway. Harvey swamped one of the largest engines of the U.S. economy; Houston’s gross product was last measured at over $400 billion per year.
People in the area will be needing help from each other and the government long after the boats are gone and the water has receded. Crop and livestock insurance will not cover all the damage left in ruined rice fields and by drowned cattle. In the suburbs as well as the city, most Houston property owners don’t have flood insurance. For many, there will be no workplaces to go to, let alone homes in which to live.
This future won’t haunt just Houston’s Democratic inner core. Despite its sprawling size—about that of Maryland—Houston’s population density of nearly 4,000 people per square mile extends into what are staunchly Republican suburbs, like Sugarland in Fort Bend County. Already, the residents of the leafy subdivisions are encountering a Katrina-like reality. They were flooded out because the Army Corps of Engineers opened the spillways of two nearby dams to avert a catastrophic dam break that would have sent an uncontrolled cascade swamping much of the county.
Suffering in the face of disaster knows no bounds, not even rugged individualism. I know: In 2015, my Texas town of Wimberley was struck in the dark by a 26-foot wall of water that took 11 lives, destroyed 1,000 homes and leveled a cypress forest of thousands of trees dating back to Columbus. Though a small town, Wimberley was not spread over a vast distance but crowded into a narrow valley with a population density twice that of the average in Texas.
When we emerged at daylight, there was little more humbling than a house full of mold, a lifetime of wrecked possessions, feeling dirty, drenched and powerless, literally. It is then that you find each other, like finding God. But you’re not just grateful for that neighbor. You need that Salvation Army food truck, those helicopters buzzing overhead and National Guard troops out front in the pitch dark of night. And you desperately need that FEMA check.
It will be interesting to watch Texas politics square itself with reality. Yes, self-reliance is a virtue. No man or woman, however, is an island—at least not on purpose. Harvey has proved that. So, if ever the era of going it entirely on your own in Texas ever existed, it’s over.
Tax reform talk
The reality beneath Trump's tax reform talk
While he emphasizes benefits to regular taxpayers, much of the push is about cutting corporate rates.
By BRIAN FALER
President Donald Trump’s tax plans hardly match his populist rhetoric.
Though he sold his plan to rewrite the tax code as a boon to the average American worker in a speech Wednesday, he mostly focused on the taxes paid by America’s largest corporations.
Trump argued that his plans to cut the 35 percent corporate tax rate for the first time in 30 years would benefit regular wage earners by putting more money in corporate coffers, which he said business leaders would then use to hire more people and raise wages.
But most economists say companies’ shareholders would be the primary beneficiaries of a corporate tax rate cut. That’s because it would make companies more profitable, which would boost their stock price while also leaving them with more money to pay out dividends.
The official Joint Committee on Taxation, as well as the Treasury Department and the independent Tax Policy Center, all say shareholders bear roughly three-quarters of the burden of the corporate tax, and therefore would be the main winners were it cut.
The administration rejects those studies, pointing to other analyses showing workers bearing the brunt of the tax.
“Multiple economic studies have shown that over 70 percent of the cost of the corporate tax are actually born by the worker,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in May, contradicting his agency’s analysis.
Trump wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, while House Republicans have proposed a 20 percent rate. But it’s hard to know exactly what Republicans have in mind for the tax code. Trump has repeatedly revised his plans, which have gradually become less specific. His administration is now working behind closed doors with lawmakers on what they hope will be a consensus plan backed by the House, Senate and administration.
There’s long been a mismatch between how Trump described his tax plans and what he’s actually proposed, going back to his days on the campaign trail. But some are likely to end up in any final proposal, especially with congressional Republicans seconding many of his ideas.
Republicans are well aware of polls showing corporate taxation is hardly a top concern for voters, and that historically Congress has only tended to cut business taxes when they’ve been paired with comparable cuts for individuals.
Trump has proposed cutting the number of individual tax brackets from seven to three, and setting the rates at 10, 25 and 35 percent. The top rate is now 39.6 percent. He has also said he wants to double the standard deduction and expand subsidies for child care.
"We will lower taxes for middle-income Americans so they can keep more of their hard-earned paychecks, and they can do lots of things with those paychecks," Trump said in his speech.
But his plan could actually raise taxes for some low-income people, though, because he wants to end the head-of-household filing status that benefits single parents.
Workers would benefit from a corporate tax cut, albeit more gradually, economists say. Companies could invest in new things like, say, building a hotel for which they’d have to hire workers. It could also persuade companies considering moving overseas to remain in the U.S.
But independent analyses of Trump's tax plans have found the wealthy would be the biggest winners, thanks to not just his proposed cuts in business taxes, but also his plans to cut the top marginal income tax rate and eliminate the estate tax.
“It doesn’t fit the model for a populist plan,” said Roberton Williams, a Tax Policy Center economist. “The business cuts really help the rich, and the individual tax cuts somewhat help the rich, and overall the benefits disproportionately go to the top end."
That’s sure to be a political headache for Republicans — one that Democrats immediately seized upon — as GOP lawmakers push to rewrite the code by the end of the year.
“If the president wants to use populist to sell his tax plan, he ought to consider actually putting his money where his mouth is, and putting forward a plan that puts the middle class, not the top 1 percent, first,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said.
While he emphasizes benefits to regular taxpayers, much of the push is about cutting corporate rates.
By BRIAN FALER
President Donald Trump’s tax plans hardly match his populist rhetoric.
Though he sold his plan to rewrite the tax code as a boon to the average American worker in a speech Wednesday, he mostly focused on the taxes paid by America’s largest corporations.
Trump argued that his plans to cut the 35 percent corporate tax rate for the first time in 30 years would benefit regular wage earners by putting more money in corporate coffers, which he said business leaders would then use to hire more people and raise wages.
But most economists say companies’ shareholders would be the primary beneficiaries of a corporate tax rate cut. That’s because it would make companies more profitable, which would boost their stock price while also leaving them with more money to pay out dividends.
The official Joint Committee on Taxation, as well as the Treasury Department and the independent Tax Policy Center, all say shareholders bear roughly three-quarters of the burden of the corporate tax, and therefore would be the main winners were it cut.
The administration rejects those studies, pointing to other analyses showing workers bearing the brunt of the tax.
“Multiple economic studies have shown that over 70 percent of the cost of the corporate tax are actually born by the worker,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in May, contradicting his agency’s analysis.
Trump wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, while House Republicans have proposed a 20 percent rate. But it’s hard to know exactly what Republicans have in mind for the tax code. Trump has repeatedly revised his plans, which have gradually become less specific. His administration is now working behind closed doors with lawmakers on what they hope will be a consensus plan backed by the House, Senate and administration.
There’s long been a mismatch between how Trump described his tax plans and what he’s actually proposed, going back to his days on the campaign trail. But some are likely to end up in any final proposal, especially with congressional Republicans seconding many of his ideas.
Republicans are well aware of polls showing corporate taxation is hardly a top concern for voters, and that historically Congress has only tended to cut business taxes when they’ve been paired with comparable cuts for individuals.
Trump has proposed cutting the number of individual tax brackets from seven to three, and setting the rates at 10, 25 and 35 percent. The top rate is now 39.6 percent. He has also said he wants to double the standard deduction and expand subsidies for child care.
"We will lower taxes for middle-income Americans so they can keep more of their hard-earned paychecks, and they can do lots of things with those paychecks," Trump said in his speech.
But his plan could actually raise taxes for some low-income people, though, because he wants to end the head-of-household filing status that benefits single parents.
Workers would benefit from a corporate tax cut, albeit more gradually, economists say. Companies could invest in new things like, say, building a hotel for which they’d have to hire workers. It could also persuade companies considering moving overseas to remain in the U.S.
But independent analyses of Trump's tax plans have found the wealthy would be the biggest winners, thanks to not just his proposed cuts in business taxes, but also his plans to cut the top marginal income tax rate and eliminate the estate tax.
“It doesn’t fit the model for a populist plan,” said Roberton Williams, a Tax Policy Center economist. “The business cuts really help the rich, and the individual tax cuts somewhat help the rich, and overall the benefits disproportionately go to the top end."
That’s sure to be a political headache for Republicans — one that Democrats immediately seized upon — as GOP lawmakers push to rewrite the code by the end of the year.
“If the president wants to use populist to sell his tax plan, he ought to consider actually putting his money where his mouth is, and putting forward a plan that puts the middle class, not the top 1 percent, first,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said.
No Plan....
Republicans promise tax overhaul but still have no plan
By Ashley Killough, Deirdre Walsh, Lauren Fox and Ted Barrett
President Donald Trump took the stage Wednesday in Missouri to sell a tax reform plan that's not yet complete and still lacking in detail.
But from the view of congressional leaders and their aides, that's just fine.
The bill is still in the drafting process, and Republican aides say the President is doing exactly what they need him to be doing at this point -- using the bully pulpit to go out there and ramp up public support for a tax reform push.
"President Trump is taking the case for tax reform straight to Main Street," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement after the speech.
"He explained clearly today why Washington must act now on pro-growth tax reform," said Texas Rep. Kevin Brady, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which writes the tax reform bill.
"I share the President's goal of wanting this endeavor to be bipartisan," said Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee.
Desperate for a legislative win, Congress and the White House are trying to paint a picture of a more united front on tax reform than they had on health care. They've formed a group dubbed the "Big Six" that includes Trump's chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, the two leaders of the House and Senate -- Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- and the two chairmen of the tax-writing committees, Brady and Hatch.
Trump, who's scheduled to meet with all six next week, said he was "fully committed" to work with Congress on the issue, but still took the liberty to poke at lawmakers in his speech and throw more pressure their way.
"I don't want to be disappointed by Congress," he said. "Do you understand me?"
The "Big Six" has held meetings for months, and the two committees in the House and Senate have worked on tax reform policies for years.
But if tax reform is anything, it's not simple. And it's unclear when exactly the House Ways and Means Committee -- which will release the first body of legislative text -- will put out the initial draft for committee markup.
House Republicans laid out a blueprint last year, but the White House put out its own one-page proposal back in April. It's a process that's further complicated by heavy input from lobbyists and outside groups who have a wide variety of interests in a major overhaul of the tax code.
While Republicans are seeking to build a brand of unity on the issue, Democrats are calling them out for not including both parties.
"Work with Democrats, Mr. President? Your office hasn't called ..." Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden tweeted during the speech. Wyden is the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee and has expressed frustration that Democrats have been left out of the drafting process.
No clear plan
The challenge remains that despite controlling the White House and Congress, there's no clear plan yet laid out for reform even as Trump hits the road to stump for it.
Republicans have been promising tax reform for years but the last significant tax overhaul was 30 years ago -- an effort that took more than two years to get through Congress.
White House officials said last month they'd like to see a bill in September, but aides in the House and the Senate are being cautious about committing to any sort of timeline.
Tax reform is just one of many major items on the legislative agenda this fall, with a slate of big debates happening in September alone, like passing a budget and raising the debt ceiling. The devastation wrought from Hurricane Harvey -- and the disaster relief funds that will need congressional approval -- further busies out the calendar.
Because of the demanding schedule, some are predicting the tax effort will end up as simply temporary tax cuts, which would be an easier lift than a massive overhaul of the tax code and still a popular selling point on the campaign trail next year. Congressional leaders, however, have been bullish that reform will be the final result.
Perhaps the biggest question that remains is how to offset the cost of tax reform.
To pass the bill in the Senate, Republican leaders plan to use a special procedure called budget reconciliation that would allow them to approve the tax changes with a simple majority of 51 votes instead of the 60 often required in the Senate. But to use reconciliation, the bill needs to meet certain requirements, including an assurance the tax overhaul would not increase the deficit after the first 10 years.
Cohn, in an interview with the Financial Times last week, said it will be paid for through a mix of closing certain loopholes and any economic growth that results from tax reform.
Critics, however, say there's no guarantee that economic growth will be enough, and Democrats are eager to preemptively protect any massive budget cuts to offset any tax cuts.
"Republicans should not use fuzzy math or blatantly partisan estimates to provide the mirage of deficit neutrality," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on a conference call Wednesday with progressive advocates. "It should actually be deficit neutral."
Getting on the same page
Both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue also want a lower corporate tax rate. But initially Trump said he wanted to cut it down to 15%, from the current rate of 35%. But lobbyists, members and aides are skeptical the number could get that low because it would significantly increase the deficit.
White House officials have even backed off pushing the 15% number. Asked about the low rate by the Financial Times, Cohn simply said he'd "like to get the tax rate as low as possible so that businesses want to create jobs here."
The powerful House Freedom Caucus, a group of roughly three dozen House conservatives, is emerging as a decisive force on tax reform, and they, too, are calling for a corporate tax rate that drops into the teens.
The group has threatened to hold up a budget blueprint that would be essential to advancing tax reform if they don't see a detailed tax reform plan before the budget is on the floor.
Because Republicans are using reconciliation, House Republicans must pass the budget for the fiscal year before they can advance tax reform. As long as the Freedom Caucus digs in, they can stop the process from moving forward all together, since lawmakers are still debating over how to get that budget passed.
Their threat doesn't come lightly.
The House Freedom Caucus, which remains close to Trump, has already flexed its muscle in the debate. They were essential in getting House leadership to drop its plan to apply a border adjustment tax, which would have helped finance tax reform, but also would have taxed imported consumer goods.
But without a way to pay for the massive overhaul Republicans are grappling with the reality that their goal of getting something on the scope of their initial proposals gets much harder. No one has outlined an alternative that can get both the House, Senate and White House on the same page.
And while Democrats, who are in the minority in both chambers of Congress, have little power to stop the legislative process, they'll be active in shaping the optics of the tax debate this fall. They're already mounting a large messaging campaign to protest any tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Missouri, said in the same news conference call as Schumer that Trump's tax plan is "going to fall right into the laps of the wealthy."
By Ashley Killough, Deirdre Walsh, Lauren Fox and Ted Barrett
President Donald Trump took the stage Wednesday in Missouri to sell a tax reform plan that's not yet complete and still lacking in detail.
But from the view of congressional leaders and their aides, that's just fine.
The bill is still in the drafting process, and Republican aides say the President is doing exactly what they need him to be doing at this point -- using the bully pulpit to go out there and ramp up public support for a tax reform push.
"President Trump is taking the case for tax reform straight to Main Street," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement after the speech.
"He explained clearly today why Washington must act now on pro-growth tax reform," said Texas Rep. Kevin Brady, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which writes the tax reform bill.
"I share the President's goal of wanting this endeavor to be bipartisan," said Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee.
Desperate for a legislative win, Congress and the White House are trying to paint a picture of a more united front on tax reform than they had on health care. They've formed a group dubbed the "Big Six" that includes Trump's chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, the two leaders of the House and Senate -- Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- and the two chairmen of the tax-writing committees, Brady and Hatch.
Trump, who's scheduled to meet with all six next week, said he was "fully committed" to work with Congress on the issue, but still took the liberty to poke at lawmakers in his speech and throw more pressure their way.
"I don't want to be disappointed by Congress," he said. "Do you understand me?"
The "Big Six" has held meetings for months, and the two committees in the House and Senate have worked on tax reform policies for years.
But if tax reform is anything, it's not simple. And it's unclear when exactly the House Ways and Means Committee -- which will release the first body of legislative text -- will put out the initial draft for committee markup.
House Republicans laid out a blueprint last year, but the White House put out its own one-page proposal back in April. It's a process that's further complicated by heavy input from lobbyists and outside groups who have a wide variety of interests in a major overhaul of the tax code.
While Republicans are seeking to build a brand of unity on the issue, Democrats are calling them out for not including both parties.
"Work with Democrats, Mr. President? Your office hasn't called ..." Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden tweeted during the speech. Wyden is the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee and has expressed frustration that Democrats have been left out of the drafting process.
No clear plan
The challenge remains that despite controlling the White House and Congress, there's no clear plan yet laid out for reform even as Trump hits the road to stump for it.
Republicans have been promising tax reform for years but the last significant tax overhaul was 30 years ago -- an effort that took more than two years to get through Congress.
White House officials said last month they'd like to see a bill in September, but aides in the House and the Senate are being cautious about committing to any sort of timeline.
Tax reform is just one of many major items on the legislative agenda this fall, with a slate of big debates happening in September alone, like passing a budget and raising the debt ceiling. The devastation wrought from Hurricane Harvey -- and the disaster relief funds that will need congressional approval -- further busies out the calendar.
Because of the demanding schedule, some are predicting the tax effort will end up as simply temporary tax cuts, which would be an easier lift than a massive overhaul of the tax code and still a popular selling point on the campaign trail next year. Congressional leaders, however, have been bullish that reform will be the final result.
Perhaps the biggest question that remains is how to offset the cost of tax reform.
To pass the bill in the Senate, Republican leaders plan to use a special procedure called budget reconciliation that would allow them to approve the tax changes with a simple majority of 51 votes instead of the 60 often required in the Senate. But to use reconciliation, the bill needs to meet certain requirements, including an assurance the tax overhaul would not increase the deficit after the first 10 years.
Cohn, in an interview with the Financial Times last week, said it will be paid for through a mix of closing certain loopholes and any economic growth that results from tax reform.
Critics, however, say there's no guarantee that economic growth will be enough, and Democrats are eager to preemptively protect any massive budget cuts to offset any tax cuts.
"Republicans should not use fuzzy math or blatantly partisan estimates to provide the mirage of deficit neutrality," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on a conference call Wednesday with progressive advocates. "It should actually be deficit neutral."
Getting on the same page
Both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue also want a lower corporate tax rate. But initially Trump said he wanted to cut it down to 15%, from the current rate of 35%. But lobbyists, members and aides are skeptical the number could get that low because it would significantly increase the deficit.
White House officials have even backed off pushing the 15% number. Asked about the low rate by the Financial Times, Cohn simply said he'd "like to get the tax rate as low as possible so that businesses want to create jobs here."
The powerful House Freedom Caucus, a group of roughly three dozen House conservatives, is emerging as a decisive force on tax reform, and they, too, are calling for a corporate tax rate that drops into the teens.
The group has threatened to hold up a budget blueprint that would be essential to advancing tax reform if they don't see a detailed tax reform plan before the budget is on the floor.
Because Republicans are using reconciliation, House Republicans must pass the budget for the fiscal year before they can advance tax reform. As long as the Freedom Caucus digs in, they can stop the process from moving forward all together, since lawmakers are still debating over how to get that budget passed.
Their threat doesn't come lightly.
The House Freedom Caucus, which remains close to Trump, has already flexed its muscle in the debate. They were essential in getting House leadership to drop its plan to apply a border adjustment tax, which would have helped finance tax reform, but also would have taxed imported consumer goods.
But without a way to pay for the massive overhaul Republicans are grappling with the reality that their goal of getting something on the scope of their initial proposals gets much harder. No one has outlined an alternative that can get both the House, Senate and White House on the same page.
And while Democrats, who are in the minority in both chambers of Congress, have little power to stop the legislative process, they'll be active in shaping the optics of the tax debate this fall. They're already mounting a large messaging campaign to protest any tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Missouri, said in the same news conference call as Schumer that Trump's tax plan is "going to fall right into the laps of the wealthy."
Manafort probe intensifying
Mueller teams up with New York attorney general in Manafort probe
The cooperation is the latest sign that the investigation into Trump's former campaign chairman is intensifying.
By JOSH DAWSEY
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team is working with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on its investigation into Paul Manafort and his financial transactions, according to several people familiar with the matter.
The cooperation is the latest indication that the federal probe into President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman is intensifying. It also could potentially provide Mueller with additional leverage to get Manafort to cooperate in the larger investigation into Trump’s campaign, as Trump does not have pardon power over state crimes.
The two teams have shared evidence and talked frequently in recent weeks about a potential case, these people said. One of the people familiar with progress on the case said both Mueller’s and Schneiderman’s teams have collected evidence on financial crimes, including potential money laundering.
No decision has been made on where or whether to file charges. “Nothing is imminent,” said one of the people familiar with the case.
Manafort has not been accused of any wrongdoing and has previously denied it. A spokesman for Manafort didn’t return phone calls seeking comment.
A representative for Mueller’s office declined to comment, as did the New York attorney general’s office.
People close to Manafort say the team has pressured him by approaching family members and former business partners. A number of other firms and people who have worked with him have received subpoenas.
Federal agents also conducted an early-morning raid at Manafort’s home in late July, seizing documents and other items.
Manafort did not resist the search, his spokesman Jason Maloni said at the time of the raid.
State and federal prosecutors believe the prospect of a presidential pardon could affect whether Manafort decides to cooperate with investigators in the federal Trump investigation, said one of the people familiar with the matter.
While Trump has not signaled any public intention to pardon Manafort or anyone else involved in the Russia investigations, the president has privately discussed his pardon powers with his advisers.
Mueller’s team has been looking into Manafort’s lobbying work and financial transactions, including real estate deals in New York.
Schneiderman has a contentious history with Trump. The president has mocked him relentlessly on social media and TV, denouncing him as a “hack” and “lightweight.”
The attorney general won a $25 million settlement last November after a lengthy investigation into fraudulent practices at Trump University. The president said he settled just to have the matter behind him, though his previous mantra was to never settle cases.
The New York prosecutor’s office also is looking into some of Trump’s business transactions and could potentially share those records with Mueller’s team, one of these people said. Those inquiries are in the preliminary stage.
The cooperation is the latest sign that the investigation into Trump's former campaign chairman is intensifying.
By JOSH DAWSEY
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team is working with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on its investigation into Paul Manafort and his financial transactions, according to several people familiar with the matter.
The cooperation is the latest indication that the federal probe into President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman is intensifying. It also could potentially provide Mueller with additional leverage to get Manafort to cooperate in the larger investigation into Trump’s campaign, as Trump does not have pardon power over state crimes.
The two teams have shared evidence and talked frequently in recent weeks about a potential case, these people said. One of the people familiar with progress on the case said both Mueller’s and Schneiderman’s teams have collected evidence on financial crimes, including potential money laundering.
No decision has been made on where or whether to file charges. “Nothing is imminent,” said one of the people familiar with the case.
Manafort has not been accused of any wrongdoing and has previously denied it. A spokesman for Manafort didn’t return phone calls seeking comment.
A representative for Mueller’s office declined to comment, as did the New York attorney general’s office.
People close to Manafort say the team has pressured him by approaching family members and former business partners. A number of other firms and people who have worked with him have received subpoenas.
Federal agents also conducted an early-morning raid at Manafort’s home in late July, seizing documents and other items.
Manafort did not resist the search, his spokesman Jason Maloni said at the time of the raid.
State and federal prosecutors believe the prospect of a presidential pardon could affect whether Manafort decides to cooperate with investigators in the federal Trump investigation, said one of the people familiar with the matter.
While Trump has not signaled any public intention to pardon Manafort or anyone else involved in the Russia investigations, the president has privately discussed his pardon powers with his advisers.
Mueller’s team has been looking into Manafort’s lobbying work and financial transactions, including real estate deals in New York.
Schneiderman has a contentious history with Trump. The president has mocked him relentlessly on social media and TV, denouncing him as a “hack” and “lightweight.”
The attorney general won a $25 million settlement last November after a lengthy investigation into fraudulent practices at Trump University. The president said he settled just to have the matter behind him, though his previous mantra was to never settle cases.
The New York prosecutor’s office also is looking into some of Trump’s business transactions and could potentially share those records with Mueller’s team, one of these people said. Those inquiries are in the preliminary stage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)