New Poll Shows Public Opinion Starting To Turn Against Trump

 

The charts above are from the Marquette University Law School Poll -- done between January 27th and February 5th of a nationwide sample of 1,018 adults, with a 3.5 point margin of error.

Comparing The Tax Policies Of Trump And Biden

Robert Reich writes about the tax policies of Donald Trump and Joe Biden:

I know that tax policy isn’t the most exciting thing I could be talking about with you today. The mainstream media are focusing on immigration and access to abortions. But tax policy is among the most important and revealing differences between another term of Trump or another of Biden.

Start with Trump.

 

During his wild term in the White House, Trump had one major legislative accomplishment, if you want to call it an accomplishment: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act he signed into law in December 2017. 

It has an enormous cost: Although Republican leaders claimed it would generate growth and lead to “$1 trillion in additional revenue,” the Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would cost $1.9 trillion before the tax cuts expired in 2025. The CBO’s estimate has proven to be right on the mark. The Trump tax cut has exploded the national debt. 

With no benefits: The Trump tax cut did not generate the wave of new investment Trump promised. 

It just widened inequality: The Trump tax cut has given an undeserved windfall to its major beneficiaries: the very rich and big corporations. 

Corporations didn’t use it to reward workers or increase productivity. Instead, corporations merely increased their stock buybacks, which will exceed $1 trillion by 2025.

The rise in buybacks is another way Trump’s 2017 corporate rate cut translated into higher wealth for the already wealthy rather than a boost in worker pay. 

In stock buybacks, corporations distribute profits to shareholders by offering to buy back shares, which automatically raises the stock’s price. This increases wealth for all stockholders, especially those with the most shares, who are wealthier to begin with. 

A recent study by economists from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Federal Reserve Board found that workers below the 90th percentile of their firm’s income scale (a group whose incomes were below roughly $114,000 in 2016) saw no change in earnings from the Trump tax cut. Earnings rose only for those at the top, with the largest gains for those at the very top. 

If reelected, what will Trump do? The 2017 Trump tax cut ends in 2025. This gives policymakers an opportunity to move toward a tax system that raises revenue through progressive tax policies — ending the Trump tax cut and increasing the corporate tax rate.

But Trump is telling his largest funders that if he is reelected, he’ll extend his tax cut. That was his message at his April fundraiser that supposedly made $50 million for his campaign. 

The cost of extending the Trump tax cut will be mammoth: The Congressional Budget Office has a new estimate of the cost of keeping Trump’s tax cut in place over the next decade: $4.6 trillion, which is more than double the original cost. It would cause the federal deficit and debt to soar.

It would be trickle-down economics on steroids. 

GOP lawmakers and some of Trump’s economic advisers are considering even more corporate tax breaks, arguing that they would improve the U.S.’s global competitiveness.

Why do you suppose so many CEOs, big corporations, and the wealthy are coming around to Trump?

 

Why is the Business Roundtable investing big bucks in Trump? Because he’ll cut their taxes (and roll back regulations), making them even richer. But the rest of us will pay — with more of our tax dollars devoted to paying interest on the larger debt, and fewer devoted to keeping Social Security and Medicare solvent or to any other public need.

And now, Joe Biden’s tax plan. It’s the exact opposite of Trump’s. 

Biden says he will not extend the Trump tax cuts.

Biden has proposed to increase taxes on incomes in excess of $400,000 a year, while cutting taxes for lower-income Americans. 

Biden wants billionaires to pay at least 25 percent of their incomes in taxes. He wants corporations to pay at least 21 percent.

 

Biden would end corporate tax breaks for multimillion-dollar executive compensation.

And he’d quadruple the tax that corporations pay when they buy back their own shares of stock.

This would increase revenue. The conservative American Enterprise Institute’s analysis of Biden’s plan found that, rather than costing another $4.6 trillion, as Trump’s plan would, Biden’s changes would result in $3.8 trillion in increased revenue. 

It would also make the tax system fairer and progressive.

There are obviously many reasons to reelect Biden in the fall. And tax policy sometimes causes eyes to glaze over. But it’s hugely important. 

The $8.4 trillion difference in revenue between Trump’s plan to extend his tax cuts for the rich and big corporations and Biden’s plan to increase taxes on the rich and big corporations needs to be shouted from the rooftops. 

It’s the difference between a government that’s capable of responding to what Americans need, and one designed to make the rich far richer.

Biden Has Signed Climate Legislation - Is It Enough?

The following is part of an op-ed by Paul Krugman on President Biden's climate policy:

Many observers, myself included, have wondered whether Biden’s climate policy is a big enough deal. 

The media often uses hyperbolic language about any program that involves spending hundreds of billions of dollars, so Biden’s climate initiative, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will involve roughly $400 billion in climate spending, gets described as “massive.” But that’s spending over the course of a decade. And the budget office expects cumulative gross domestic product over the next decade to be more than $300 trillion.

So we’re talking about spending only a bit more than one-tenth of 1 percent of G.D.P. Can this possibly be enough to make a real difference in facing an existential threat?

Well, there are two important reasons to believe that Biden’s climate policy may be a much bigger deal than the numbers might suggest. But there are also reasons to worry that the policy may fall short, not because the spending is inadequate, but because of one crucial limiting factor: an inadequate power grid.

The first reason to believe that Biden’s policy may be a big deal is that it comes at a crucial technological juncture.

There was a time, not that long ago, when it seemed as if limiting greenhouse gas emissions would require hard choices — that it would have to be achieved largely through conservation and increased energy efficiency, which in turn would require putting a substantial price on carbon, either via carbon taxes or via a cap-and-trade system in which emitters would have to purchase permits. In fact, there would still be a good case for a carbon tax, if it were politically feasible.

But huge progress in renewable energy and related technologies, notably batteries, means that it now looks almost easy to achieve a low-emission economy. We can now easily envision a society in which people drive electric vehicles and cook on induction ranges, using power generated by solar panels and wind turbines, and experience no sense of sacrifice.

The role of policy then becomes to accelerate this transition — to push us over the tipping point into a sustainable economy. And this need not involve huge amounts of public money, just enough to act as a sort of catalyst for change.

A second, somewhat related reason to think that Biden’s climate policy is a big deal is that it doesn’t actually mandate $400 billion in spending. What it does, mainly, is set conditions under which consumers and businesses can receive tax credits for adopting green technology. That $400 billion is based on an estimate of how many people will actually take advantage of these tax credits — and given the spectacular rate of technological progress, that estimate may well turn out to be low.

A report from Credit Suisse suggests that the credits might “propel much higher activity levels” than the budget office projects — that in practice federal climate spending might be $800 billion or more. And there may also be a multiplier effect as private firms make investments complementary to those directly subsidized, so Credit Suisse suggests that the true size of the climate plan may be more like $1.7 trillion.

So Biden’s deal may be bigger than it looks. Which is a good thing, given the importance of the issue.

Now for my concern. America finally has a serious climate strategy. However, it depends not just on a rapid expansion of solar and wind power, but also on linking these new energy sources to the electrical grid. But the U.S. power grid doesn’t have enough capacity, and it is in general a mess.

Part of the reason is that there isn’t really a U.S. grid: Investment in electricity transmission is, as a Reuters report put it, “controlled by a Byzantine web of local, state and regional regulators who have strong political incentives to hold down spending.” And this regulatory system wasn’t designed to handle the sudden influx of new energy sources; as a result, simply getting permission to connect to the grid can take years.

Here’s how I think of it: A clean-energy future suddenly looks eminently possible thanks to a technological miracle — incredible cost declines for renewable energy — and a political miracle — Democrats’ success, despite the narrowest of congressional majorities, in enacting legislation that looks even better when examined closely.

But we may need a third, bureaucratic miracle to fix the electricity grid and make this whole thing work.

Most Americans Support Stricter Gun Policies

The chart above is from the recent AP / NORC Poll -- done between July 28th and August 1st of a nationwide sample of 1,373 adults, with a 3.8 point margin of error.

What Is U.S. Policy? Would We Defend Taiwan Or Not?

If you ask a government representative if our policy regarding Taiwan is a clear one, they would probably say yes. But frankly, I don't think that is true. And I'm not sure anyone in government even knows exactly what our policy is. Would we defend Taiwan if China attacked, or not?

Two of the leading Democrats in government recently seemed to say that we would. On May 23rd, President Biden was asked if the U.S. would use force to defend Taiwan. He answered:

“Yes.”

“That’s the commitment we made.”

And just a few days ago, Speaker Pelosi visited the island nation and said the U.S. would not abandon Taiwan. She went on to say:

 "America's determination to preserve democracy, here in Taiwan and around the world, remains ironclad."

That would seem to be.a clear YES. But immediately after those statements government spokesmen said the United States continues to have a "One China" policy. What is the "One China policy"? Here is what the Center for Strategic and International Studies says:

When the United States moved to recognize the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and de-recognize the Republic of China (ROC) in 1979, the United States stated that the government of the People’s Republic of China was “the sole legal Government of China.” Sole, meaning the PRC was and is the only China, with no consideration of the ROC as a separate sovereign entity.

The United States did not, however, give in to Chinese demands that it recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.

If that's not confusing, I'm not sure what could be. We say that the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China, but refuse to recognize their claim to Taiwan. How can both be true? Obviously, both can't be true.

This brings up the question of what would the U.S. do if China invaded Taiwan. 

I think the answer is No. We made that clear by our failure to fight for the Ukrainian democracy. We gave them weapons and money, but no U.S. forces are actively engaged in fighting to defend Ukraine. And one of the main reasons is that while they support sending weapons, the American public does not support sending U.S. troops or aircraft. The second reason given is fear of Russia's nuclear weapons.

Frankly, neither is a good reason to not actively defend a democracy under attack. And the Chinese have been watching. They have a better and larger army than the Russians, and they also have nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't they think we would react to an invasion of Taiwan the same way we reacted to the invasion of Ukraine?

Sending weapons and good wishes will not be enough in Taiwan -- and it would be much harder to get those weapons in the country because there will likely be a Chinese blockade. Is the U.S. ready for a war with China (after backing down from war with Russia)? Probably not, and trying to run a Chinese blockade would be a good way to start that war.

China is going to try to take back Taiwan, and it will happen sooner than later. Xi has made it pretty clear he wants it to happen under his leadership.

What will the U.S. do? The current obfuscation is not going to work. The American people need to know what will happen, and so does China and the rest of the world. It is time for the U.S. to establish a clear and unequivocal policy.

Republican COVID Policies Are Not Popular With U.S. Voters

The charts above are from a new Fox News Poll -- done between September 12th and 15th of a national sample of 1,002 registered voters, with a 3 point margin of error.

Republican officials, on both the state and national levels, have been playing politics with the COVID pandemic. They oppose both wearing of masks and any vaccine mandate. They know this appeals to their base, and they think it can help them in the 2022 election. They think the public will blame President Biden if the pandemic is still going strong next year.

But the public is not as stupid as Republicans think. They are tired of the pandemic, and they know it's the GOP that is keeping the pandemic going. This could easily hurt Republicans in the 2022 general election.

Why Are GOP Officials Trying To Kill Their Own Voters?

I can understand why Republican officials do most things, even though I disagree with most of what they do.

I understand why they want low taxes for the rich and corporations, oppose labor unions, and oppose raising the minimum wage. It's because their only real constituencies are rich people and corporations. They will always do what's best for the rich and corporations, regardless of how bad it might be for all other Americans.

I even understand why they are trying to suppress votes in future elections. It's because they are now a minority party, and know they can't win fair national elections (and their base won't let them adopt more popular policies).

But there is one GOP policy that I really don't understand -- their opposition to Americans getting vaccinated against the Coronavirus. COVID-19 is still killing thousands of Americans, but it is only killing the unvaccinated now. And most of the people refusing to be vaccinated currently are Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents. They are refusing because Republican officials have attacked the vaccination efforts, and convinced many in their base that it's not necessary to be vaccinated.

Why would they do that. They are killing off the people that will vote for them in the next election (while vaccinated Democrats will be voting). This makes no sense to me.

I understand they want to oppose anything President Biden tries to do, and the President has urged all Americans to be vaccinated. But isn't making sure their own GOP voters are not protected from the virus kind of like cutting off their nose to spite their face? Don't they think they'll need every vote they can get in 2022? 

Biden Will Begin By Immediately Reversing Trump Executive Orders

 

We don't know what the make-up of the Senate is going to be yet. If the Democrats can win a couple of run-offs in Georgia they will control the Senate. If they can't, McConnell will still be the Majority Leader --and will likely try to Bloch any legislation passed by the Democratic House or requested by Biden.

But that does not mean change cannot happen that's good for the country. Biden is already planning to immediately reverse most, if not all of Trump's executive orders. This will include rejoing the Paris Accords, rejoing the World Health Organization, protecting DACA immigrants, reverse Trump's environmental damage, and change immigration policy.

Here's part of how The Washington Post reports the plans:

President-elect Joe Biden is planning to quickly sign a series of executive orders after being sworn into office on Jan. 20, immediately forecasting that the country’s politics have shifted and that his presidency will be guided by radically different priorities.

He will rejoin the Paris climate accords, according to those close to his campaign and commitments he has made in recent months, and he will reverse President Trump’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization. He will repeal the ban on almost all travel from some Muslim-majority countries, and he will reinstate the program allowing “dreamers,” who were brought to the United States illegally as children, to remain in the country, according to people familiar with his plans.

Although transitions of power can always include abrupt changes, the shift from Trump to Biden — from one president who sought to undermine established norms and institutions to another who has vowed to restore the established order — will be among the most startling in American history.

Trump Policies Continue To Devastate This Country

(This caricature of Donald Trump is by Niall O'Loughlin.)

The news is full of Trump's possible impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors", and that is important news. The public needs to know what Trump did, and the chances of him being removed from office for those crimes.

But the 24-hour impeachment coverage has moved other things Trump has done out of the news -- things that are devastating this country and its citizens. That's bad, because these policies and actions by Trump are negatively affecting the lives of millions of Americans.

Here is what the editorial board of The New York Time had to say about this:

On the campaign trail in 2015, Donald Trump said it was “disgusting” that a big corporation could escape taxation by using bookkeeping tricks to shift profits out of the United States.

Now the Trump administration is thinking about making it easier to play those tricks. Bloomberg reported this week that the Treasury Department, in a development sure to gladden the hearts of the corporate class, was considering a rollback of rules written by the Obama administration to prevent the very kinds of shenanigans Mr. Trump once condemned.

While Congress focuses on the question of whether to impeach Mr. Trump, the potential change in tax policy is a reminder that the wheels of the government grind on — and that Mr. Trump’s administration continues to make decisions that are bad for most Americans.

In recent months, the Agriculture Department has decided to reduce inspections at the slaughterhouses that process the nation’s pork; the Environmental Protection Agency has decided to let farmers and factories dump toxic chemicals into thousands of acres of previously protected wetlands; and the Labor Department has ruled that states can perform drug tests on applicants for unemployment benefits, allowing Texas, Mississippi and Wisconsin to begin efforts to curtail aid for people who need help.

These changes in regulatory policy are part of a clear pattern. The Trump administration has worked assiduously to reduce federal protections for consumers, workers and the environment, making the United States a dirtier and more dangerous place in which to live.

The Trump administration also continues to flout its obligation to comply with existing law. 

A federal judge said this week that the Education Department, under the leadership of Betsy DeVos, had committed 16,000 violations of a court order by improperly seeking to collect student loan payments, including docking paychecks and confiscating tax refunds.

Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim of the United States District Court in San Francisco described the department’s behavior as “deeply disturbing,” adding, “I’m not sending anyone to jail yet, but it’s good to know I have that ability.”

The Obama administration erased the debts of thousands of former students of Corinthian Colleges, a for-profit company that went out of business in 2015, under a policy that forgives the loans of students who are the victims of a fraud. Under Ms. DeVos, however, the department began to grant only partial debt relief to Corinthian students, prompting a lawsuit. Judge Kim ordered the government to suspend its collection efforts while the case winds through the courts. She said she was “astounded” by the failure to comply.

Meanwhile, the department has finalized a new rule making it much harder for future student loan recipients to get relief from the government even if they are victims of fraud.

The Trump administration’s regulatory policy can generally be summarized as marching to the orders of the businesses it regulates. Indeed, the administration has pushed so hard to reduce regulation that even companies have sometimes expressed reservations: Four major automobile manufacturers have refused to embrace Mr. Trump’s campaign to prevent California from reducing air pollution, instead striking a deal with California to meet stricter emissions standards.

Mr. Trump also has an obsession with erasing rules written under President Barack Obama.

The potential rewrite of the tax rules governing corporate profits is an example of both tendencies. Corporations dislike the Obama-era rules, which cracked down on the practice of sending profits to a foreign branch, lending the money back to the home office and then writing off the interest expense. Under the rules, the government can prevent companies from treating those transfers as loans, and thus from claiming the resulting tax benefits.

Corporations argue that the current rule is broad, burdensome, and no longer necessary because the 2017 tax law limited the incentive for profit-shifting by reducing the tax rate on corporate income. But that overstates the effect of the law, which still leaves room for companies to hide profits in other jurisdictions. There is simply no good reason to weaken the Obama-era rule.

The administration’s penchant for this kind of petty vandalism does not add one whit to the case for Mr. Trump’s impeachment. It is instead a reminder that if Mr. Trump does stand for re-election in 2020, Americans can improve their lives by voting for someone else.