December 19, 2017

Captured for posterity: "Non-partisan" assessment of the Trump tax plan

The Hill quotes a "non-partisan" organization that spells doom and gloom for the that will result from the Trump tax plan.  I'm capturing this from The Hill, because it will be proven wrong:
The GOP tax bill would cost significantly more if tax cuts that are temporary in the legislation are eventually made permanent, according to two new reports.

Most of the bill's changes for individuals sunsets in 2025, even as a cut to the corporate rate from 35 percent to 21 percent is made permanent.

If future Congresses decide to extend the lower tax rates for individuals and families rather than allow them to expire, and also extends other temporary provisions, the bill will end up costing $2 trillion to $2.2 trillion, according to a report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan deficit hawk group.

Even accounting for economic growth, it predicts the bill would add $1.5 trillion to $1.7 trillion to the debt — bringing debt levels close to 100 percent of the nation's GDP.
Where to begin?  Cutting a budget does not COST anything.  It means collecting less tax  from consumers and producers.  It does not mean the government spends more money.  Quite the contrary, it SHOULD mean that the government is forced to spend less.  It costs the government revenue I supposed - but even that notion is wrong. As has been pointed out, lower taxes means more taxable activity and therefore more tax revenue, not less (see video at the bottom for details).

Most importantly the idea that it is a "Non-partisan" organization is laughable. The "Non-partisan" Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is headed by Maya MacGuineas, a walking establishment-liberal resume if ever there was one;
MacGuineas has run the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget since 2003, and works mainly on issues related to fiscal, tax, economic, and retirement policy. Senator Mark Warner called her "a trusted intermediary"[4] as she has worked with Democratic and Republican lawmakers.[5] She has also been called "an obsessively nonpartisan, data-driven, well-connected champion of...fiscal responsibility."[6]

She has also published a number of articles, including in The Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Financial Times and the Los Angeles Times. Once dubbed "an anti-deficit warrior" by The Wall Street Journal[7] and "queen of the deficit scolds" by economist Paul Krugman,[8] MacGuineas has appeared on broadcast news and is often cited by the national press. She also is a regular contributor to the Wall Street Journal 'Think Tank' feature.

MacGuineas also served on The Washington Post editorial board in the Spring of 2009, where she covered economic and fiscal policy and wrote extensively on the health care reform debate.

She was the Director of the Fiscal Policy Program at the New America Foundation—a nonpartisan think tank based in Washington, DC.[9]

Before joining the New America Foundation,[10] MacGuineas worked at the Brookings Institution, the Concord Coalition, and on Wall Street. She has also advised numerous candidates for office from both parties, and works regularly with members of United States Congress on health, economic, tax, and budget policy.

MacGuineas served as a member of the Debt Reduction Task Force[11] at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Everything mentioned there except the debt reduction task force screams liberal, and indicates that anything to do with responsible budgeting is a cover for the liberal agenda.  She's obviously a progressive mole and has been given cover by her organizations seemingly centric title.

But she's not the only one.  The umbrella organization it operates under is rife with far left liberalism. If you follow the trail of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, besides being co-founded by a Republican, it seems to be housed at New America which is clearly, very liberal. Need I go on with the links? Disproving the absurdity of the non-partisan claim is just too easy.

So I'm not buying it.  I'm holding onto the quotes, so that 5 years down the road these people can be pounded with the truth and exposed for the political hacks they really are. 
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Share This