Trump's Tax Cuts Add $18,600 in Debt for each Taxpayer per Year

A social media post comparing the Biden plan with the Trump tax cuts notes a lot of middle income families paid somewhat less under the Trump plan compared to the Obama years.  I presume the goal of the comparison is to help in figuring out for whom to vote. The posting computed how much taxes a regular family would pay over a couple years before and after the Trump tax cuts. 

The post neglected to consider the National debt. Considering the National Debt exposes how the Trump tax cuts were crassly aimed at buying votes now with total disregard for future generations.  

The bottom line:  For each year the Trump Tax cuts have been in effect $18,600 in debt has been added per taxpayer.  Here is the data (and a website to help with your own computations - don't take my word for it).

In 2017 (the latest year for which the internet has data) around 144 million people filed Federal Income tax returns.  If you divide the National Debt by the total number of taxpayers here is what you get. 

The current National debt is approaching $27 Trillion.  (https://www.usdebtclock.org/ ).  When the Trump Tax cuts were enacted in 2017 the debt was $20 trillion.  At $20 Trillion the share of the debt for each of the 144 million taxpayers was about $158,000.  With the debt currently at $27 trillion each taxpayers share of the debt has increased to about $215,000.

So in the three years the Trump tax cuts have added $56,000  to each taxpayers share of the debt, about $18,600 per year, vastly more than the short term tax savings realized by any hypothetical middle income taxpaying family.  

This isn't just about Donald Trump, he is just playing out of the Republican party playbook.  Here are some historical facts:  

Between 1933 and 1981 the wealthiest taxpayers paid an average of 70% tax on that portion of their yearly income that was far beyond what the average taxpayer made.  In those years GDP growth averaged nearly 3% per year, and in 1981 the National Debt was the same as it was in 1933 - no net growth, even after funding WW II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War and sending folks to the Moon.  This period also saw middle class incomes peak in the decade before Reagan.  

In 1981 when Ronald Reagan became President the National debt stood at about 30% of GDP.  Keeping taxes low on the wealthy was a top priority for Reagan and every Republican since, as Republican's have dominated Congress and government policy since Reagan.  The National debt has increased every year while GDP growth has been mediocre and middle class buying power has deteriorated. 

The net result is since Reagan the National Debt, as a percentage of GDP, has grown faster than GDP.  As a country we have gone backwards in economic development. 

Republican tax cuts for the wealthy (trickle down economics) are an abject failure.  Globalization hid the extent of the failure, the shrinking wealth of the middle class in the United States was offset by big corporations selling stuff to people all over the world so GDP was at least mediocre.  Wall Street did great, Main Street did badly.  

Forget Donald Trump and all his...quirks.  To get this country back on a sustainable fiscal path voters need to realize the problem has been and is Republican economics.

P.S. - Don't be confused by folks talking about a lower National Debt figures.  About 20 years ago Republicans who wanted to finance more tax cuts borrowed money from the Social Security Trust Fund.  The debt to the Social Security Trust Fund is often excluded (since it is the Fed owing money to the Feds) and only debt owed to the rest of the world is counted as the "National Debt".  Ironic in that the Social Security Trust fund is working folks retirement money - by borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund Republicans managed to put workers on the hook for paying the interest on their own retirement funds.

Will the Protests Help or Hurt the Racial Justice Cause?

Been engaged in a long discussion on Facebook with various members of younger generation who basically excuse all the violence over George Floyds death for various historical and emotional reasons.  I tried to make the point if they want to make progress on racial justice they have to distinguish between non-violent protest and violent protest.  Didn't feel like I made much progress so decided to do some research.

Since the 2014 events in Ferguson Missouri seemed to offer a recent similar sequence of events, I decided to see what happened in the 2016 Presidential election.  Interestingly, in an election that saw very low voter turnout in many states, in Missouri the turnout was unusually high, around 70%.

Then the question becomes who did the Ferguson events motivate to vote.

In the 2016 election in Missouri Hillary Clinton got the lowest vote percentage (just under 38%) for a Democrat since 1972.   Donald Trump got 56.4%.

It seems to me to suggest that the outrage at the violence sent more people to the polls than outrage at the original shooting.  

Be happy if someone can find some other statistics to explain this result. 

Why Are Republicans so Prone to Conspiracy Theories?

During Obama's era there were always lots of conspiracy theories floating about, like the one that Obama was born in Africa that Trump promoted for years.  But it used to be the conspiracy theories came from outside government.  Since Donald Trump arrived in the White House the conspiracy theories seem to often begin in the White House.

I ask myself - why are Republicans currently so prone to conspiracy theories.  Perhaps some of it is just calculated political expediency - such as the theory Michael Flynn was somehow set up by the Obama administration working in collusion with the FBI.

But then I started wondering if it could be because a some Republicans think that in ideological battles the ends justify means.  So they cut corners and cheat to win.  And since they do it they suspect other people must also be doing it - hence they always look for hidden conspiracies.

That led me to a really interesting wikipedia website that lists all the federal officers convicted of crimes back through history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

I did some computations starting from 2009. 

Six of the folks listed on the Wikipedia list I classified as non-political crimes so did not include in the below computation - drugs or sex/relationship items.  They include 1 Independant, 1 Democrat and 4 Republicans - most the Republicans were Judges.

During the Obama years members of Congress convicted of politically related crimes were pretty evenly split, 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats.  During the Trump years the only listed Democrat convicted is, ironically, Michael Flynn.  Three Republican members of Congress have been convicted, but no Democrats.  (As a passing note of interest we also now have another Republican member of Congress under investigation for insider trading for allegedly using information from Congressional hearings to decide to sell all his stock right before the crash.)

Including all the convictions on the list we have 1 Independent, 7 Democrats and 10 Republicans.

I am certainly not arguing this proves my theory, just throwing it out there because is interesting.  Particularly that Michael Flynn was evidently a registered Democrat?

Climate Change Hysterics and Deniers -Who to Support

The scientific notion burning of fossil fuels is accelerating global temperatures at an extraordinary rate that will cause massive disruption in our climate and life on this earth is, even to my unscientific mind, hugely complicated.  Some are absolutely convinced the theory is true, others are equally convinced it is not.  Our vote will determine which direction policy proceeds.

Who are we normal folk to believe as we decide how to vote?  

Is Burning Fossil Fuels Causing Unprecedented Global Warming?

The fact that the majority of the scientific establishment supports the theory burning fossil fuels is contributing CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate that will change the climate rapidly is compelling.  But history has demonstrated the scientific establishment sometimes is prone to groupthink that hinders advancing knowledge.  You become a member of the establishment by building strong credentials, and often building strong credentials may be accomplished by adopting the theories of your mentors rather than challenging them.  So we cannot blindly accept majority scientific views.

On the other hand the news reports of polar ice caps rapidly disintegrating, small pacific islands preparing to move their entire populations away because of rising sea levels, and New York city subways being filled with water after Hurricane Sandy, all seem consistent with the theory.

But the "Climate Deniers", folks who poo poo the theory, point out the earths climate has always been changing, getting warmer, then colder.   A true fact.  They argue what is happening is simply a natural process unrelated to burning fossil fuels.

So how do I make a decision if choosing for vote for one position or the other?  

This problem is too complex to confidently predict the outcome.  It would seem the best course is to be conservative.  Look at the possible outcomes and choose the least catastrophic if we pursue the wrong course.

What happens if the climate deniers who poo poo the notion burning fossil fuels is overheating the planet, win the political argument so we continue relying on fossil fuels for energy?   If down the road it becomes obvious the climate deniers were wrong the planet will be much hotter, the sea levels will have risen more rapidly, the climate in different parts of the planet will have changed to a degree it causes massive population dislocation and could undermine food production but the process will be so accelerated we will not be able to turn it around and change direction.

What happens if the folks who believe we need to stop overheating the planet win the argument and in the end are wrong?  We will end up with a climate much more similar to what currently exist.  We will pay more for energy in the meantime, and will need to be pretty clever about finding energy sources to replace fossil fuels.  It will be an economic inconvenience, but it will reduce air pollution worldwide.  It may slow development in the poorest countries for some period of time, but it may not as the poorest countries are finding ways to bypass old technology with new technology.  It will probably not be a planet wide disaster.

Climate change is a vastly complex topic, but politics has turned it into a binary choice   The world is not binary - both sides are making educated guesses.  The consequences of being wrong seem much more dire if we chose the climate denier approach. We should be conservative and avoid the possibility of a more catastrophic outcome. 




       

The "Deep State" - Reminds Me of a Scary Story That You Tell Around the Campfire.

You never hear Democrats talking about the "Deep State."  It is always Republicans. I was thinking about how odd that is given the political history of our country the last 40 years.

Facts:

Republicans have controlled both the Presidency and Congress 8 years, Democrats 4.

We have had Republican Presidents for 24 years compared to 16 years of Democratic Presidents.

Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress 18 years compared to 10 years by Democrats.

Republican Presidents have worked with 1 house of Congress controlled by Republicans 6 years.  Democratic Presidents have worked with 1 house of Congress controlled by Democrats 4 years .

By every measure Republicans have dominated government for the last 40 years.  It seems if a deep state exists I have to conclude they have either created it or have been incompetent to deal with it. 

Here is a link to an earlier blog that speculated about why Republicans speak ominously of the "deep state" so often.

https://motrvoter.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-deep-state.html

What Should US Financial Policies Be After Covid-19

Since the US began reshaping the tax law under Ronald Reagan to accord with the fantasy of trickle down economics the increase in our National Debt has exceeded the increase in economic growth.  Now we have a pandemic that has exposed virtually the entire US corporate sector as financially naked.  They have no financial reserves.  They have been too busy borrowing at cheap rates, often simply to fund stock buy-backs or executive bonuses.  Something like 40% of the bank bail out after the 2008 economic collapse ended up going to stock buy-backs and executive bonuses.

Now we are piling on trillions of dollars of  Federal Government debt to hand out money to every kind of business and virtually every consumer to combat the limitations imposed by the Covid-19 virus.  Our fantasy economic policies in the past make this bail out essential to avoid another Great Depression.  

But once Covid-19 is gone and we can get back to some semblance of economic normalcy we need to make a serious course correction in our financial theories.

For decades tax policy, and the policies of the Federal Reserve, have encouraged rampant incursion of debt, mosty to funnel money into the hands of people that don't need to consume much while stripping it away from people who spend almost every dollar on consumption.  

Every time the economy so much as hiccup's the Federal reserve has cut interest rates.  Historically low interest rates have become the norm.

We have taxed Capital Gains at lower rates than what working folks pay so we have cultivated a whole generation who learned the road to success was in trading assets back and forth instead of producing goods or services.  They have magnified their profits by borrowing because interest rates are so low that the profits they can make after paying Capital gains taxes can still make them wealthy, and their mutual overconfidence (the Fed will always bail us out) made them discount the fact that borrowing can also magnify losses.

Regular folks who spend a large part of their income on consumption pay the same or higher tax rate as people who make more in a year than they could spend in a lifetime.

Will Covid-19 be a catalyst for smarter economic policy making?  Of just lead to more of the same, or a pendulum swing back to policies that impoverish everyone but the heads of State?

The Myth of Voter Fraud?

Wisconsin got caught in the unfolding Corona Virus shut-downs that have turned the entire country inside out, so wanted to allow people more voting options to adapt to stay at home orders, absentee ballots being late due to government shutdowns from stay at home orders and the other Covid issues that have turned normal routines upside down.  The Republican dominated legislature challenged the idea in court and won, alleging it would create opportunities for voter fraud.  So all the voters in Milwaukee, a city that normally has about 175 polling places, had to vote in 5 polling locations.  That's the stuff of comic satire, not reality.

The studies I find on the internet that are not commissioned by partisan Republican think tanks suggest that voter fraud is vanishingly rare, although clerical errors by bureacrats are more common.  One comprehensive look at voter fraud found that fraud occurs in about .00003 to .00025 percent of the cases.  Another study found 31 cases of confirmed fraud in 1 Billion ballots cast.  Your chances of getting struck by lightening are higher than the chance of voter fraud occuring.

What tips me toward being pretty confident this cure is far worse than the disease is that the Republican leaning think tanks such as the Heritage foundation focus on anecdotal anecdotal instances of fraud, and then suggest that since they only found these few cases there must be way more.  They make no attempt to figure out if fraud actually changes elections, they just raise suspicions.

Also, curiously I couldn't find much of anything on the internet suggesting the bureacrats who handle voting believe fraud is a big problem, even bureacrats in deeply Red States.

Based on the data I have seen it seems to me fraud is so vanishingly rare making it harder to vote benefits no one but a minority party who wants to depress the vote.

Claims of fraud are pretty common after elections - poor losers sure that voters couldn't have picked another candidate over them. Verified fraud is very rare.  But the President of this country and the Republican party see voter fraud as such a big issue that piles of bills the House sent to the Senate sit unvoted on in the Senate while they rail about voter fraud.

I just wish those Republicans who actually value Democracy would step up and object to their parties blatent win at all costs strategy's.  Republicans have a majority on the Supreme Court and probably will have for some time.  They can take run to the Supreme Court if there are real instances of fraud affecting Republicans and be assured of winning.  The don't need to cheat to win.