House Republicans Pass Budget Bill With Tax Cuts

The Washington Post reports Republicans passed a budget bill with Donald Trump's planned tax cuts:

No Democrats voted for the budget Thursday, nor did 20 Republicans, indicating ongoing qualms about the tax push within the party.

Donald Trump cares about one thing: businesses making money. If people pay less taxes, he thinks they will spend more money, which is good for business owners. It's a bad bill and I doubt it will make it through the Senate in its present form.

< Paddock's Estranged Brother Bruce Arrested in LA on Unrelated Matter | Trump Channels Nancy Reagan in Drug Speech >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, the good news is that this (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Anne on Thu Oct 26, 2017 at 02:17:52 PM EST
    wasn't a law, it was a resolution.

    Vox has a good explainer - here are some of the lowlights:

    The budget resolution adopted by the US Senate last week, and by the House of Representatives on Thursday, is not a law. It cannot be signed or vetoed by the president, and the policies it recommends are just that -- recommendations.

    But it still matters. The budget resolution changes the rules for passing certain legislation, especially in the Senate, and this resolution in particular will allow Republicans to pass $1.5 trillion in tax cuts (or more, depending on how they choose to do the math) over 10 years with only 51 votes.


    The agenda the resolution outlines is radical. The federal welfare state would be rolled back in just about every dimension, with health care programs particularly affected. All non-Medicare health programs would see a cut of $1.3 trillion, or nearly 30 percent, by 2027, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

    Medicare would be cut too, to the tune of $473 billion. There is $1 trillion over 10 years in mystery cuts to mandatory programs, cuts that would in practice almost certainly hurt programs for the poor.


    Also facing huge cuts, to the tune of $653 billion or 13 percent over 10 years (and 15.8 percent by 2027), is the "income security" spending category.

    That includes a variety of major programs, most notably the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps), Supplemental Security Income (SSI, an anti-poverty program that gives cash to seniors and disabled people), the earned income tax credit (EITC) for people too poor to pay taxes, unemployment insurance, and both military and civilian federal employee pensions.

    There's more, and it's worth reading, if only because it makes starkly clear that this proposed budget gives the lie to all that hogwash the GOP is spewing about how much they care about the 99%.

    Oh, and they're also looking at a ban on abortions later than 6 weeks.  Yes, by all means, more babies to deny health care, food and housing to just screams "we care about the people" doesn't it?

    Um, no.  These are horrible, horrid people.

    Probably cannot viscerate Roe v. Wade (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 26, 2017 at 08:15:49 PM EST
    via resolution, thank gawd.

    this is scary (none / 0) (#3)
    by linea on Fri Oct 27, 2017 at 12:00:44 AM EST
    from the linked artlcle:
    Several members of the House and Senate tax-writing committees said they were open to changes that could affect the rules for tax-advantaged retirement accounts used by tens of millions of Americans, such as 401(k)s and IRAs, or individual retirement accounts. But Trump and other Republicans have expressed reservations.

    my plan was to begin putting money into a 401K starting january 2018. but if the politial commitment to this program is so fragile that the annual limit can be reduced to 2500-dollars on a whim then it's better to not lock away this money for the next thirty-five years. i'll just keep trying to save money post-taxes to buy a condo like i originally planned.

    IF (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by jmacWA on Fri Oct 27, 2017 at 05:04:24 AM EST
    your employer matches your contributions, IMO it would be foolish to not put in at least the amount they will match.  I have never worked anywhere where they would match your entire contribution, but 1500 -2500 was pretty normal.  Save the rest for the condo.



    My company (none / 0) (#6)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 08:11:26 AM EST
    matches up to 6% of gross salary. Cutting the contribution to a max of $2500 would be nearly devastating. And severely limit my ability to retire.

    Thats GREAT (none / 0) (#7)
    by jmacWA on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 09:51:20 AM EST
    I trust you are taking full advantage of it.

    Of course. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 04:53:11 PM EST
    To not do so, would be turning down free money. And it's 100% vested immediately.

    It doesn't mean you can't still save, it (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anne on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 01:14:38 PM EST
    just means you won't get a tax advantage for doing so.

    But neither will your company, for which those contributions have represented deductions on the company's tax return. If the limits change, so will the ability of companies to deduct the contributions they are making.


    linea, please (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by NYShooter on Fri Oct 27, 2017 at 03:46:49 PM EST
    Listen to jmacWA.

    Can't stress it enough, great advice.


    CNN (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 29, 2017 at 05:02:03 PM EST
    The House hasn't even released its tax reform bill yet, and Republican lawmakers are already making a big concession over one of their most controversial proposals.
    Kevin Brady, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has decided to only partially repeal the state and local tax deduction, bending to concerns of colleagues from high-tax states.

    ONLY partially!  well!  THAT changes everything.