Saturday, November 2, 2024

Lobbying Frenzy Begins on Tax Bill

November 4, 2017 by  
Filed under Choosing Lingerie

Comments Off

“It’s pretty weedy stuff,” said Dave Camp, a former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who wrote a 2014 tax bill that laid some of the groundwork for the current one. Mr. Camp, who is now a senior adviser for PricewaterhouseCoopers, said that when lawmakers attempt to overhaul the code, “you get significant pushback on just about everything.”

The groups pushing back the hardest on Friday included those in the real estate industry. Some of them had raised concerns before the bill was released, only to discover their biggest fears realized in the draft legislation. The bill includes several measures long opposed by those groups, including a limit on interest deductions for new home purchases of $500,000 or more and an expansion of the standard deduction.

The Mortgage Bankers Association plans conference calls and discussions with members of Congress throughout the weekend, said David Stevens, the group’s president. Realtors are running online ads raising concerns over those provisions.

Mr. Stevens complained about the “piling-on effect” of the bill’s provisions on homeownership incentives, and said the bill is “moving really fast” through the House. “Every special interest is going to have concerns,” he said. “If Congress is going to have integrity, they’re going to listen to them and make the best decisions.”

Some of those groups were already training their efforts on a still-unfinished Senate version of the legislation, fearing that House leaders — who introduced their bill on Thursday — were intent on speeding the plan to a vote with little time or opportunity to amend it. The House bill, as one consultant to business groups put it, feels “pretty baked” already.

If Republicans decide to take aim once more at the Affordable Care Act, that would add yet another dimension to the battle over taxes.

Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said no decision had been made about whether to include repeal of the so-called individual mandate. But he said Mr. Trump wants its inclusion, and he indicated that Republicans wanted to evaluate the fiscal effects of taking that step. Senate Republicans may not be as enthused about its inclusion.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“While I support replacing the individual mandate with an auto enrollment system that allows for a consumer to opt out, it would make it more difficult to pass a tax relief bill if it is combined with a repeal of the individual mandate,” Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said on Friday.

Members of Mr. Brady’s committee will meet Monday to begin marking up the tax bill, but lobbyists fear the process will not yield any substantive changes. Republican leaders are hoping to pass it through the House by Thanksgiving. The Senate, meanwhile, stands ready to release its bill as soon as the House committee approves its version.

Representatives from industry groups were carefully analyzing how the companies they represent would be affected by a proposal in the House bill that would create a 20 percent excise tax on payments to foreign affiliates.

Photo

A nurse attending to medical equipment at the Orange County Children’s Hospital in Orange, Calif. By ripping out a major component of President Barack Obama’s health law, Republicans could claim at least a partial victory on an issue that has stymied them all year.

Credit
Mike Blake/Reuters

The small-government advocacy groups spearheaded by the billionaire Republican megadonor brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch have been seeking to rally opposition to the excise tax from other conservative groups, as well as trade and industry associations.

The Koch groups already have expressed concern about the provision — as well as a plan to retain an upper-income tax bracket — in meetings this week with the Speaker, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Brady and Senate leadership.

The proposed excise tax is “misguided” and its costs would be passed along to consumers, said Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit group funded by the Koch brothers and their network of donors.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

Yet Mr. Phillips said Americans for Prosperity remains supportive of the overall legislation and is walking a delicate line between trying to tweak the bill without diminishing its prospects.

“It’s important to keep this thing moving forward in the House as we try to improve it,” he said, “and then we get another bite at the apple in the Senate.”

Republican leaders warned on Thursday that interest groups would attack the bill and said they would resist efforts to keep things “status quo.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“You’re going to gore some sacred cows in an operation like this,” said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma, on Friday. “But I really worry about more what happens inside the building. And as I talk to members, they’re not feeling a lot of pressure at this point against this.”

Any lobbyist push is complicated by the House’s math problem: The bill must contain enough revenue to offset its corporate and individual tax cuts. An independent analysis of the bill from the Tax Foundation on Friday suggested that problem might be larger than Republican leaders anticipated.

The analysis found that the draft legislation would cost too much to survive the budgetary requirements needed to pass the Senate on a party-line vote — a sign that Republicans will almost certainly need to rework it in order to keep their hopes alive for delivering a bill to Mr. Trump’s desk by Christmas.

The analysis found that the bill would add $2 trillion to the federal budget deficit over the next decade, an amount that shrinks to $1 trillion even when additional economic growth effects from the bill are factored in.

“This does not pay for itself,” said Scott Greenberg, a senior analyst at the Tax Foundation.

The bill would continue to add to deficits after 10 years, violating the procedural budget rules that Republicans are hoping to use to avoid a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

The White House is projecting robust economic growth from the tax cut, and the analysis found that, if those growth projections hold, the bill would create an additional one million jobs and raise incomes for rich, poor and middle-class Americans. If those growth projections fail to materialize, the top 1 percent of earners would see income gains twice as large as those seen by middle-class workers.

When economic growth is taken into account, the gains would be more evenly distributed, with the middle class seeing the biggest income increase on a percentage basis. That is because the Tax Foundation assumes additional growth spurred by business tax cuts largely finds its way into workers’ paychecks.

Republicans are looking for other ways to squeeze more dollars out of the bill. On Friday, they released an amended version that would reduce the value of the income tax cuts for individuals by $90 billion over the course of a decade and slightly shrink the estimated cost of the legislation.

The amended bill includes a technical change that immediately adopts a revised measure of inflation, known as “chained C.P.I.,” which would change how inflation is calculated, thus slowing the speed at which tax brackets grow with inflation. As a result, Americans would more quickly find themselves in higher marginal tax brackets — jumping from a 12 percent top bracket to 25 percent, for example — as their incomes increase.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The chained measure would also slow the value growth of some inflation-adjusted tax benefits, such as the earned-income tax credit.


Continue reading the main story

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

Trump breaches boundaries by saying DOJ should be ‘going after’ Democrats

November 4, 2017 by  
Filed under Choosing Lingerie

Comments Off

President Trump on Friday repeatedly called on the Department of Justice and FBI to investigate his Democratic political opponents, a breach of the traditional executive branch boundaries designed to prevent the criminal justice system from becoming politicized.

Trump urged federal law enforcement to “do what is right and proper” by launching criminal probes of former presidential rival Hillary Clinton and her party — a surprising use of his bully pulpit considering he acknowledged a day earlier that presidents are not supposed to intervene in such decisions.

In a flurry of accusatory morning tweets, Trump claimed there was mounting public pressure for new Clinton probes, including over her campaign’s joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic National Committee that effectively gave her some control over the party’s finances, strategy and staffing before the primaries began.

Trump invoked Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who had said that she believed the Democratic primaries were rigged in Clinton’s favor based on details of the arrangement in a new book by former DNC interim chair Donna Brazile. Using his pejorative nickname for Warren, Trump tweeted: “Pocahontas just stated that the Democrats, lead [sic] by the legendary Crooked Hillary Clinton, rigged the Primaries! Lets [sic] go FBI Justice Dept.”

President Trump listens as Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks during a swearing in ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House on Feb. 9. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Trump also called for probing the deleted emails from Clinton’s private server while she was secretary of state, as well as the sale of a uranium company to Russia and the international business of Democratic super-lobbyist Tony Podesta, the brother of John D. Podesta, who served as Clinton’s campaign chairman.

“People are angry,” Trump wrote in one tweet. “At some point the Justice Department, and the FBI, must do what is right and proper. The American public deserves it!”

Trump amplified his message later Friday morning, as he spoke to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before he departed for a 12-day trip to Asia.

“I’m really not involved with the Justice Department,” Trump said. “I’d like to let it run itself. But honestly, they should be looking at the Democrats . . . And a lot of people are disappointed in the Justice Department, including me.”

Trump has long been irritated, and at times outright angry, with Attorney General Jeff Sessions for refusing to prosecute Clinton and for not better protecting him from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s wide-ranging probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, the president’s advisers have said.

Trump made his displeasure clear in a Thursday radio interview on “The Larry O’Connor Show.”

“You know, the saddest thing is, because I am the president of the United States, I am not supposed to be involved with the Justice Department. I’m not supposed to be involved with the FBI,” Trump said. “I’m not supposed to be doing the kind of things I would love to be doing and I am very frustrated by it.”

The president said it was “very discouraging to me” that the Justice Department and FBI were not “going after Hillary Clinton.” He added, “Hopefully they are doing something and at some point, maybe we are going to all have it out.”

The White House offered no explanation for why Trump publicly pressured the Justice Department on Friday. A Justice Department spokesman also declined to comment.

Senior officials at the White House and some key Republican lawmakers have raised concerns in recent days about the level of access the Justice Department has been providing to congressional investigators to review materials.

Some lawmakers have sought more information than the department has provided related to a dossier that contained lurid allegations about Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, in addition to material related to the uranium deal, according to administration and congressional officials.

A White House official said Trump wants the Justice Department, as a general policy, to be transparent and provide Congress with the information it is requesting. A Justice Department official said the White House overtures were not considered inappropriate because they were about the agency’s compliance with congressional oversight. Both officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter on the record.

Friday’s public pressure marks the latest attempt by Trump to use his presidential megaphone to direct the criminal justice process.

Trump delivered off-the-cuff remarks this week recommending punishment for Sayfullo Saipov, the suspect accused of killing eight people with a rental truck in New York City. He at first said he was considering sending Saipov to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but then reversed course and advocated a civilian trial in federal court and the death penalty for the terrorism suspect he called “an animal.”

The president’s comments complicated the work of FBI agents and federal prosecutors as they were investigating the attack and preparing criminal charges.

The Justice Department is a part of the executive branch; the attorney general is nominated by the president, as is the FBI director. So it is normal for the White House to direct the department and bureau on broad policy goals.

But unlike other executive branch agencies, the Justice Department traditionally enjoys a measure of independence, especially when it comes to individual criminal investigations. Government lawyers have long sought to enforce a clear line preventing White House officials from influencing specific investigations or prosecutions to ensure their work is not politicized.

Trump has departed from tradition when it comes to the Justice Department in other ways as well, including by talking with some candidates for some U.S. attorney jobs. Although they are presidential appointees, U.S. attorney candidates have not traditionally had personal interviews with the president before they were selected.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who is not running for reelection and has become an outspoken critic of Trump’s, issued a statement saying that the justice system should be “independent and free of political interference.”

“President Trump’s pressuring of the Justice Department and FBI to pursue cases against his adversaries and calling for punishment before trials take place are totally inappropriate and not only undermine our justice system but erode the American people’s confidence in our institutions,” Corker said.

Matt Axelrod, who served as the principal associate deputy attorney general interacting with the White House during the Obama administration, said Trump’s comments were “a very troubling and shocking departure from the way things are supposed to work and have worked historically through both Democratic and Republican administrations.”

But former attorney general William P. Barr, who served under former Republican president George H.W. Bush, said it would not be automatically inappropriate for a president to ask for possible wrongdoing to be investigated.

“The president is the chief executive and, if he believes there’s an area that requires an investigation, there’s nothing on its face wrong with that, there’s nothing per se wrong about that,” Barr said.

“I don’t think all this stuff about throwing [Clinton] in jail or jumping to the conclusion that she should be prosecuted is appropriate,” Barr added, “but I do think that there are things that should be investigated that haven’t been investigated.”

The president directing a particular investigation — especially of a former political rival — would be viewed by most officials in law enforcement as improper. This, though, is not the first time Trump has suggested putting Clinton in law enforcement’s crosshairs.

During the campaign, Trump repeatedly led rally crowds in chants of “Lock her up!” that were aimed at Clinton. And during a presidential debate, Trump told Clinton he would “instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception.”

Trump’s comment sparked a torrent of criticism, including from former attorney general Michael Mukasey, who worked under former Republican president George W. Bush and was a vocal Clinton critic.

“It would be like a banana republic,” Mukasey, who could not be reached for comment Friday, said at the time. “Putting political opponents in jail for offenses committed in a political setting, even if they are criminal offenses — and they very well may be — is something that we don’t do here.”

Devlin Barrett, Spencer S. Hsu and Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS