GOP - Wants One-Party Rule, A Warning

1934 Nazi Rally at Nuremberg were orderly by comparison to the Trump campaign
 rallies, but they are both built around a cult of an infallible leaders. (Bundesarchiv)

"Congressional GOP Wants One-Party Rule for a Thousand Years.  They Aren't Fearful of Trump.  They Want Him to Succeed." by Mark Karlin, BuzzFlash 2/17/2020

No, Congressional Republicans (with the exception of Mitt Romney) will not suddenly reveal themselves as principled even if Trump were to resign, which is near impossible to consider.  Democrats who pride themselves on civility and honorable behavior make the mistake of projecting those virtues onto Senate and House Republicans.

Yes, the rumors of some Senate Republicans who only voted to acquit Trump out of fear may have some truth, but then again, it may be nothing more than Bill Barr’s contrived claim that Trump’s tweeting was making his job more difficult.  In the end, Barr has just been engaging in a cover-up, most likely coordinated with the White House, of multiple cover-ups of acts of injustice to get Trump capos not to reveal evidence of Trump’s criminal behavior and to investigate Trump’s “enemies.”  Not to mention Barr’s dishonest summaries of DOJ investigations that concern Trump.

There is no reason to believe that Congressional Republicans want to rein in Trump anymore than to believe Barr is engaged in carrying out impartial justice.

No, Republicans didn’t acquit Trump just our of fear.  To the contrary, they share Trump’s goal of one-party rule — attained through stolen elections and massive disinformation campaigns — that would last, as Hitler declared for his Third Reich, a thousand years.  Lost in Democratic leadership speculation that it was Trump’s vindictiveness and fear that he would support primary challengers to anyone who voted against him on impeachment, lost to that simplistic explanation is that the Republican Party has been engaged in trying to suppress the two-party system for decades.  Not to mention, the Neo-Confederacy brand of the Republican Party since Nixon.

With the advent of an unhinged vengeful despot demagogue in the White House, who is openly soliciting help in stealing the 2020 election, the Congressional Republicans probably have two thoughts: 1) The Trump campaign’s open commitment to use dirty tricks, voter suppression and foreign interference to steal the election for Trump will help those up for re-election down ballot; and 2) The Republicans know that they are now a minority and cannot win a popular vote nationally and that they control the Senate only because of the artifact of (at the time of the Constitution) slave states (now including rural Western and Midwestern Red States) being granted two senators.

Thus a state such as Wyoming has two senators as a population of 580,000, while California has two senators, with the same power, with more than 40 million people.  So the Senate Republicans control the Senate under the pernicious and underhanded Mitch McConnell even though Democratic Senate candidates received 12 million more votes than Republican candidates in 2018.  So don’t rule out that the vast majority of Republicans in the Senate were thinking more about a strong man who would preserve minority Republican rule without the least compunction of fair play.

It is hard for many Democrats who believe in the Constitution and the lore of American democracy being a role model for the world to accept that the Republican white Christian minority are looking to hold on power at all costs even it means they are helping dismantle democracy and emboldening an aspiring dictator.  The reality is that democracy is a threat to their rule, and Trump is their leader in suppressing majority rule and enfranchisement, and a Republican dictatorship preserving minority rule would be just fine with them.

As Barry Craig noted in LA Progressive:  “Trump isn’t driving Republican opinion.  He’s just reflecting it.”

In 1947, while a Congressman John F. Kennedy said in a speech:  “There is nothing in the record of the past two years when both Houses of Congress have been controlled by the Republican Party which can lead any person to believe that those promises will be fulfilled in the future.  They follow the Hitler line – no matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as truth.”

For those Democrats who are squeamish about any comparisons to Hitler and the Third Reich, JFK was right on the money.  Trump is, it goes without saying, the master of the big lie, more than 15,000 and counting.  Like Hitler, he believes in one party rule.  Like Hitler, who damned the democratic Weimar Republic, Trump believes Democratic leaders are “vermin” and “scum” and should be imprisoned.  Like Trump, Hitler used mass audiences to appeal to the basest instincts of his followers, to lure them into the fanciful notion of a pure German bloodline, to promise them that he would make Germany great again (ergo The Third Reich).

Don’t for a minute think that the Republicans in Congress are abandoning principles out of fear alone.  Trump is their leader advancing the minority white Christians into a thousand years of one-party rule.

TRUMP AGENDA - Backdoor Elimination of 'Obama Care'

"Look.  Our heal care system will cost you less!" shouts the carny barker.  Of course he fails to tell you that you get what you pay for, aka cheap health care means minimal (don't get sick) health care.

"Short-term health plans allowed by Trump come with a major caveat" PBS NewsHour 8/1/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Trump administration took another step toward eliminating the Affordable Care Act by changing rules that will allow consumers to buy cheaper, shorter-term health insurance and for longer.  But insurers would not have to cover pre-existing conditions or offer the same benefits as required by law.  Lisa Desjardins learns more from Julie Appleby from Kaiser Health News.

GOP FEUD - Immigration Policy

"In feud over immigration, House GOP scrambles for a deal" PBS NewsHour 6/7/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Republicans engaged in a high-stakes, closed-door fight on Thursday over immigration, and especially on the fate of so-called "Dreamers."  Moderates have rebelled against the GOP leaders in order to try and force votes on the issue.  Their meeting was an attempt at finding an internal GOP compromise, before moderates join forces with Democrats.  Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff for more.

REPUBLICAN AGENDA - The War Against the FBI

"Why the FBI went public with its objection to the Nunes memo release" PBS NewsHour 1/31/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Conservative Republicans have been urging President Trump to release the classified House Intelligence Committee memo, believing it would discredit the FBI and the Russia investigation.  But the FBI has issued a statement saying the agency has "grave concerns and material omissions of fact" in the memo.  John Yang learns more from Devlin Barrett of The Washington Post.

REPUBLICAN AGENDA - The War on the FBI

Republicans are just as scared of the Russia Investigation as Trump.  Also, WHY is the memo classified?  Security reasons, I doubt it.

"Nunes’ classified memo ‘raises more questions than it answers,’ says former FBI agent Rep. Fitzpatrick" PBS NewsHour 1/25/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Congressional Republicans are fanning doubts about the Russia probe.  Without offering direct evidence, one senator spoke of corruption and a "secret society" within the FBI.  Meanwhile, a memo drafted by aides to Rep. Devin Nunes reportedly alleges that the FBI abused its powers to surveil the Trump campaign.  John Yang gets reaction from Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Penn) a former FBI agent.

GOP TAX BILL - Old/Failed 'Trickle Down' Religion

"The surprising winners and losers of the latest GOP tax bill" PBS NewsHour 12/18/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Who benefits most from the latest GOP tax plan?  Who won -- and who lost -- in the last-minute changes?  With the House poised to pass its tax bill on Tuesday, Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to analyze its impact and some of the surprising details inside.

"Tax cuts alone won’t answer U.S. economic needs, Bloomberg says" PBS NewsHour 12/18/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City and billionaire investor and business owner, wrote a column this week calling the tax bill a “trillion-dollar blunder."  He tells Judy Woodruff why he thinks Congress and President Donald Trump put politics ahead of true tax reform.

"Sweeping GOP bill set to revamp U.S. tax code, slash corporate rate" PBS NewsHour 12/19/2017

aka "Coming of United States of America Inc."

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  For Republican lawmakers, it's a day to celebrate.  Cheers went up as the GOP tax overhaul received House passage, signaling the end of a legislative sprint to get the bill wrapped up by Christmas.  Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to discuss what ended up in the bill, a minor snag in the Senate, plus the prospects for passing a federal funding bill and avoiding a government shutdown.

The spin......

"U.S. needs to be a ‘little bit patient’ to see robust economic growth from the GOP tax plan, says Thune" PBS NewsHour 12/19/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  After a year in the majority marked by several legislative speed bumps and dead ends, Republicans are happy with the final tax bill that's poised to pass, according to Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)  Judy Woodruff asks Thune about the long-term tax increase for the middle class, doubts that the tax cuts will spur the kind of growth predicted by the GOP plan and concerns about a ballooning deficit.

Killing the ACA by the back door.....

"The GOP tax bill deals a blow to the Affordable Care Act.  Here’s how" PBS NewsHour 12/20/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The sweeping tax bill passed by Congress on Wednesday extends beyond what you file with the IRS.  It also affects American health care by repealing Obamacare's [ACA] so-called individual mandate.  John Yang learns more from Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News about that and other health care matters on Congress’ agenda.

The uncharitable Republicans......

"Charities fear GOP tax overhaul will dry up donations.  Here’s how" PBS NewsHour 12/21/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Charities are concerned that the GOP tax overhaul disincentives giving.  By doubling the standard deduction, fewer people may end up itemizing deductions, meaning fewer would take the charitable tax break.  Judy Woodruff learns more from Stacy Palmer of The Chronicle of Philanthropy about the effects and gets advice from people who want to give.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 12/15/2017

"Shields and Brooks on GOP tax bill’s economic impact, Doug Jones’ Alabama win" PBS NewsHour 12/15/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks joins Judy Woodruff to analyze the week’s news, including the priorities Republicans are putting forward in their tax overhaul bill, Democrat Doug Jones’ Senate upset in Alabama and what it means for Republicans in elections to come.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields, and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.

I guess it’s now all over but the shouting, Mark.  The Republicans seem to have the votes on this tax bill.  What do you make of it?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Well, Judy, the legendary late conservative columnist Robert Novak was an old friend and a constant frequent debating said the Republican Party stated seriously and approvingly that the Republican Party is put on earth for one reason, that’s to cut taxes, and I think they’ve lived up to the Novak mandate today.  I mean, that’s it.  I mean, that’s all it’s about.

I mean, think about this — cut the effective corporate tax rate by 46 percent, to 21 percent from 35.  And at the same time, 8.9 million American children who get coverage, medical coverage under the children’s health insurance plan go unfunded since September 30th because they can’t somehow, in their feverish pursuit of lowering the top tax rate from 39.6 percent down to 37 percent so Steve Schwarzman can somehow have an easier Christmas, they can’t find the money.  These are working poor families who make too much to qualify for Medicaid and not enough to buy their own health insurance.

It is the caricature of the enforcement of the ugliest stereotype of the Republicans as an uncaring party passing a bill that was written by and for the richest and most powerful.

Judy Woodruff:  David?

David Brooks, New York Times:  I’ll dial it back a few notches when you get to my position.  But, you know, I’m not against corporate tax cuts.  You know, Barack Obama once proposed cutting the corporate tax rate to 28 percent.  So, we got 21 percent, so seven percentage points lower.  That doesn’t strike me as a great moral difference.  I think cutting the corporate tax rate as Sweden and all these other countries have done is good for the economy and makes us competitive around the world.  It follows an international trend of people doing this.

But to me, you’ve got to surround it with other things to help the people that Mark is talking about.  And that’s what the Republicans didn’t do, cutting the marginal rates, bad idea.  They didn't even simplify rates.

And so, what strikes me is how irrelevant — I went to work at the Wall Street Journal editorial page in 1986.  We’ve been talking about — Republicans have been talking about tax reform ever since that last tax reform.  And all these ideas have been floated around.  Some of them are — reduce the number of rates, of brackets, make a flat tax.

This bill has nothing to do with any of that work.  This bill has nothing to do with all the intellectual work that real economists put in who are Republican, who are conservative, who have a vision of improving incentives.  What’s big about this is that the Republican Party has become detached from the Republican economic profession.  And so, they pass a bill simply as donor maintenance and it’s about hurting their people and helping our people without really an underlying economic philosophy at all.

So, they took an opportunity to do something pretty good, and they have a few good morsels in there, and they ended up doing something pretty bad that will hurt the worst and without helping growth.

Judy Woodruff:  Will they at least help themselves politically, Mark?

Mark Shields:  No, they won’t.  Judy, I mean, it starts with 45 percent support in the country, and the broadly-held perception that it is written by and for the rich, that it’s a payoff, and they are comforting themselves, Republicans, with somehow the secure knowledge that once it passes and people start to see the benefits of it, that they will feel better about it.

I would remind them of 2010, the Affordable Care Act, not in social policy but political implication, once it passed, Democrats were sure that people would feel a lot better about it.  And in 2010, of course, the Democrats suffered a stinging rebuke.

The Republicans will be on the defensive about this, as well they should be.  The corporations that so desperately need this, there is only $2.3 trillion in offshore money they’re sitting on right now, and there is no provision at all, no requirement that they hire a single worker, retrain a single worker, expand a plant or anything of the sort, and it’s going to go right back to the shareholders, the stockholders and buying back stock.

Judy Woodruff:  So, are they taking — David, are they taking — are Republicans taking a risk by what they’ve done?

David Brooks:  Yes, I think so.  I mean, I take the biggest picture.  The big issue facing American domestic politics is widening inequality and the collapse of the working class.  And so, the Obama administration, given this big problem, decided to spend their entire administration talking about the health insurance markets, which is really related to but tangential.  The Republicans have decided to lose their majority on the corporate tax rates which really has nothing to do with the central problem.

So, what’s mystifying to me is that the two last administration’ and political establishment going on 12 years now is ignoring the big problem and tackling other problems.  And so, that is going to mean that the inequality and the white working class and every working class that’s collapsing, that issue which drove the Trump election is going to be worse and worse and worse, and it will have effects we can’t predict right now.

Mark Shields:  Not to be prickly, but I just point out that Barack Obama confronted the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.  I mean, getting out of that was the prime concern.  He brought us back from the precipice.  I agree with you on the expanding inequality, but it wasn’t comparable in any way of 105 sustained months of job growth and economic growth under Barack Obama that was inherited by Donald Trump and is about to be squandered in this giveaway.

David Brooks:  I’ll give you that, getting over the 2008, 2007 recession was big accomplishment early in the administration, but it still remains the fact that once they got over that, they could then turned to these — the Michigans, the Pennsylvanias, the Ohios, and either done infrastructure.  They could have done a bunch of things, which are always on the table and everybody says they’re in favor of, and nobody actually does because it doesn’t go — and the Republicans, the donor base.  And the Democrats, they have to have a thing about health insurance.

And the insurance markets, they were right to do that.  There was just a small thing they did to help people get a lot more people get insured, but it did not — what mystifies me is our inability to even frontally address the main problem of the day.

Mark Shields:  You’re right, but I just point out one thing, and that is saving the United States automobile industry, Ohio and Michigan, were not minor accomplishments and they were opposed by the Republicans and the Republican standard bearer.

David Brooks:  Fair point. 

REPUBLICAN AGENDA - The Regressive Tax Plan (including final bill)

"How does the GOP tax plan affect you?  You asked, we answer" PBS NewsHour 12/13/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Republicans are poised to work out their differences on the tax overhaul bill, a major piece of legislation that could affect work, health care, education, charity and other facets of American life.  How does it affect you?  We received an avalanche of questions from viewers, and Lisa Desjardins joins Judy Woodruff to answer some of them.

"Republicans rush to finalize tax overhaul as roadblocks loom" PBS NewsHour 12/14/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Republicans are racing to keep their promise of sending a final tax overhaul bill to the White House by Christmas.  On Wednesday GOP lawmakers announced they reached a compromise in principle to bridge the House and Senate bills.  But with only two votes to spare, Senate Republicans are facing health issues and holdouts.  William Brangham reports on how the bill is shaping up.

"Who will reap the wealth of the GOP corporate tax cut?" PBS NewsHour 12/14/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The corporate tax rate is set to drop 14 percent under the new tax bill.  Will big businesses invest more in American plants and factories?  What will it mean for American workers?  Economics correspondent Paul Solman breaks down the numbers.

"What's in the GOP's final tax plan" by Jeanne Sahadi, CNN Money 12/17/2017

Well, that was fast.

Just six weeks after lawmakers and the public got their first glimpse of the first draft of a tax overhaul bill, Republicans on Friday released their final version.  They aim to pass it next week and send it to President Trump for his signature.

The final bill still leans heavily toward tax cuts for corporations and business owners.  But it also expands or restores some tax benefits for individuals relative to the earlier bills passed by the House and Senate.

The individual provisions would expire by the end of 2025, but most of the corporate provisions would be permanent.

All told, the final bill includes trillions in tax cuts, most of which but not all are offset by revenue-raising measures.  The bill on net would increase deficits by an estimated $1.46 trillion over a decade, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.  That number would be much higher if, as Republicans assume, a future Congress does not allow the individual tax cuts to expire after 2025.

One important note:  The bill would not affect 2017 taxes, for which Americans will start filing their returns in a month or so.

With that, here's a quick rundown of 16 key provisions in the final bill.

FOR INDIVIDUAL FILERS

1.  Lowers (many) individual rates:  The bill preserves seven tax brackets, but changes the rates that apply to: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% and 37%.

Today's rates are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35% and 39.6%.

Here's how much income would apply to the new rates:
-- 10% (income up to $9,525 for individuals; up to $19,050 for married couples filing jointly)
-- 12% (over $9,525 to $38,700; over $19,050 to $77,400 for couples)
-- 22% (over $38,700 to $82,500; over $77,400 to $165,000 for couples)
-- 24% (over $82,500 to $157,500; over $165,000 to $315,000 for couples)
-- 32% (over $157,500 to $200,000; over $315,000 to $400,000 for couples)
-- 35% (over $200,000 to $500,000; over $400,000 to $600,000 for couples)
-- 37% (over $500,000; over $600,000 for couples)

2.  Nearly doubles the standard deduction:  For single filers, the bill increases it to $12,000 from $6,350 currently; for married couples filing jointly it increases to $24,000 from $12,700.

The net effect:  The percentage of filers who choose to itemize would drop sharply, since the only reason to do so is if your deductions exceed your standard deduction.

3.  Eliminates personal exemptions:  Today you're allowed to claim a $4,050 personal exemption for yourself, your spouse and each of your dependents.  Doing so lowers your taxable income and thus your tax burden.  The GOP tax plan eliminates that option.

For families with three or more kids, that could mute if not negate any tax relief they might get as a result of other provisions in the bill.

4.  Caps state and local tax deduction:  The final bill will preserve the state and local tax deduction for anyone who itemizes, but it will cap the amount that may be deducted at $10,000.  Today the deduction is unlimited for your state and local property taxes plus income or sales taxes.

The SALT break has been on the book for more than a century.  The original House and Senate GOP bills sought to repeal it entirely to help pay for the tax cuts, but that met with stiff resistance from lawmakers in high-tax states.

Residents in the vast majority of counties across the country claim an average SALT deduction below $10,000, according to the Tax Foundation.  So for low- and middle-income families who currently itemize because of their SALT deduction, they're likely to take the much higher standard deduction under the bill if it becomes law, unless their total itemized deductions, including SALT, top $12,000 if single or $24,000 if married filing jointly.

Preserving the break -- albeit with a cap -- is likely to provide more help to higher income households in high-tax states.

5.  Expands child tax credit:  The credit would be doubled to $2,000 for children under 17.  It also would be made available to high earners because the bill would raise the income threshold under which filers may claim the full credit to $200,000 for single parents, up from $75,000 today; and to $400,000 for married couples, up from $110,000 today.

Like the first $1,000 of the child tax credit, $400 of the additional $1,000 also will be refundable, meaning a low- or middle-income family will be able get the money refunded to them if their federal income tax liability nets out at zero.

Even with the additional $400 in refundability, however, 10 million children from working low-income families would receive only an additional $75 in benefit under the bill, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates.

6.  Creates temporary credit for non-child dependents:  The bill would allow parents to take a $500 credit for each non-child dependent whom they're supporting, such as a child 17 or older, an ailing elderly parent or an adult child with a disability.

7.  Lowers cap on mortgage interest deduction:  If you take out a new mortgage on a first or second home you would only be allowed to deduct the interest on debt up to $750,000, down from $1 million today.  Homeowners who already have a mortgage would be unaffected by the change.

The bill would no longer allow a deduction for the interest on home equity loans.  Currently that's allowed on loans up to $100,000.

8.  Curbs who's hit by AMT:  Earlier bills called for the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax.  The final version keeps it, but reduces the number of filers who would be hit by it by raising the income exemption levels to $70,300 for singles, up from $54,300 today; and to $109,400, up from $84,500, for married couples.

9.  Preserves smaller but popular tax breaks:  Earlier versions of the bill had proposed repealing the deductions for medical expenses, student loan interest and classroom supplies bought with a teacher's own money.  They also would have repealed the tax-free status of tuition waivers for graduate students.

The final bill, however, preserves all of these as they are under the current code.  And it actually expands the medical expense deduction for 2018 and 2019.

10.  Exempts almost everybody from the estate tax:  Unlike the House GOP bill, the final bill does not call for a repeal of the estate tax.

But it essentially eliminates it for all but the smallest number of people by doubling the amount of money exempt from the estate tax -- currently set at $5.49 million for individuals, and $10.98 million for married couples.  Even at today's levels, only 0.2% of all estates ever end up being subject to the estate tax.

11.  Slows inflation adjustments in tax code:  The bill would use "chained CPI" to measure inflation, which is a slower measure than is used today.  The net effect is your deductions, credits and exemptions will be worth less -- since the inflation adjusted dollars defining eligibility and maximum value would grow more slowly.  It also would subject more of your income to higher rates in future years than would be the case under the current code.

12.  Eliminates mandate to buy health insurance:  There would no longer be a penalty for not buying insurance.  While long a goal of Republicans to get rid of it, the measure also would help offset the cost of the tax bill.  It is estimated to save money because it would reduce how much the federal government spends on insurance subsidies and Medicaid.

The Congressional Budget Office expects fewer consumers who qualify for subsidies will enroll on the Obamacare exchanges, and fewer people who are eligible for Medicaid will seek coverage and learn they can sign up for the program.

But policy experts also note that the mandate repeal could raise premiums because more healthy people might decide to skip buying insurance.

FOR BUSINESSES AND CORPORATIONS

13.  Lowers tax burden on pass-through businesses:  The tax burden on owners, partners and shareholders of S-corporations, LLCs and partnerships -- who pay their share of the business' taxes through their individual tax returns -- would be lowered by a 20% deduction, somewhat less than the 23% called for in the Senate-passed bill.

The 20% deduction would be prohibited for anyone in a service business -- unless their taxable income is less than $315,000 if married ($157,500 if single).

14.  Includes rule to prevent abuse of pass-through tax break:  If the owner or partner in a pass-through also draws a salary from the business, that money would be subject to ordinary income tax rates.

But to prevent people from characterizing their wage income as business profits to get the benefit of the pass-through deduction, the bill would place limits on how much income would qualify for the deduction.

Tax experts nevertheless have warned that this kind of anti-abuse measure still presents taxpayers with a lot of opportunities to game the system, and favors passive owners of a business over active owners who actually run things.

15.  Slashes corporate rate:  The bill cuts the corporate rate to 21% from 35%, starting next year.  That's somewhat higher than the 20% called for earlier.  The increase was made to free up some revenue to accommodate lawmaker demands on other provisions.  The bill would also repeal the alternative minimum tax on corporations.

16.  Change how U.S. multinationals are taxed:  Today U.S. companies owe Uncle Sam tax on all their profits, regardless of where the income is earned.  They're allowed to defer paying U.S. tax on their foreign profits until they bring the money home.

Many argue that this "worldwide" tax system puts American businesses at a disadvantage.  That's because most foreign competitors come from countries with territorial tax systems, meaning they don't owe tax to their own governments on income they make offshore.

The final GOP bill proposes switching the U.S. to a territorial system.  It also includes a number of anti-abuse provisions to prevent corporations with foreign profits from gaming the system.

In the meantime it would require companies to pay a one-time, low tax rate on their existing overseas profits -- 15.5% on cash assets and 8% on non-cash assets (e.g., equipment abroad in which profits were invested), slightly higher than the rates in the Senate- and House-passed bills.

GOP TAX PLAN - The Rape of the American Taxpayer

REMINDER:  You are seeing the fulfillment of the GOP's dream to gut your benefits to give bigger tax breaks to business interests.  Their next dream (nightmare) is killing your entitlement programs, aka Social Security and Medicare.  It's worshiping 'trickle-down economics' which has never worked when they tried in the past, including the Ronald Reagan era.

"The term trickle-down originated as a joke by humorist Will Rogers, and today is often used to criticize economic policies which favor the wealthy or privileged, while being framed as good for the average citizen." - Wikipedia

As I've said before, Republicans behave as if 98% of Americans are NOT worth spending money on.

"CBO report predicts GOP tax plan would hammer poorest Americans" PBS NewsHour 11/27/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Congress returns from Thanksgiving to face an extreme to-do list for next month, including funding the government and voting on a tax plan.  That comes on the heels of a public apology by Sen. Al Franken after allegations of groping women, and the decision by Rep. John Conyers to temporarily step down from the Judiciary Committee.  Lisa Desjardins joins William Brangham to take a closer look at the tax plan.

William Brangham (NewsHour):  So, CBO analysis is out.  I would like to go through with what this means for different segments of the American population.

Let’s start with, what does this do for the poorest Americans?

Lisa Desjardins (NewsHour):  That’s the big headline out of the CBO report that we got over the weekend.

In the past, William, we have seen analysis for how you do with the tax cuts portion of this, and in the Senate bill in particular, it phases out, for example, kind of in the out years.  And so a lot of Americans would see a tax increase at the very end of this bill.

But what the CBO did is different.  It didn’t just look at the tax cuts.  It looked at the net effect, because, William, this bill is so large that it would likely trigger automatic spending cuts in various programs.

So, the CBO said, OK, let’s look at the combined effect of those two things, how your taxes would change under this bill, plus any benefits you get, any government programs that you get, any loss you would see from spending cuts.

And they found that those two things combined would have a dramatically larger effect on lower classes, people earning under $40,000, many times the effects we have seen in other analyses so far.

William Brangham:  And impact meaning they would be paying more.

Lisa Desjardins:  That’s right.  They would be paying a little bit more in taxes, but they would lose a lot more in benefits, as programs like Medicaid, maybe Medicare would be hit by cuts.

William Brangham:  Does the GOP agree with this analysis that this is really going to hammer the poor in America?

Lisa Desjardins:  What they have said in the past — it’s notable, first of all, that none of the Republican committees overseeing this bill responded to my questions about this today directly.

They usually do.  They’re busy.  But, still, we don’t know their word on this.  But in the past, William, what they have said is that the numbers actually don’t give you the full picture, because they say what they’re trying to do here is to cut taxes especially for the middle class.

And they say what is happening with the lower classes is, they have the biggest amount of benefits in the system, so what looks like a big cut to them is something coming off of already what the Republicans think are benefits that are outsized and a bloated government.

Now, of course, Democrats argue against that.  They say the lower classes are the ones that need the biggest amount of benefits to begin with.

William Brangham:  You mentioned this middle-class tax cut.  That’s always been the President’s main objective in this.

What does the analysis show about that?

Lisa Desjardins:  All right, let’s talk about where we are with middle classes.

The first statistic I want to look at is an important one.  This is actually from a different analysis, from the Joint Committee on Taxation.

They found that, looking at the Senate bill, if you look at anyone making over $40,000, all of the income groups over that, on average, would see their taxes cut for the next eight years.  Now, that’s a big deal.  That’s what the Republicans want to do.

William Brangham:  Sure.

Lisa Desjardins:  They want to cut everyone’s taxes.

But, William, the average really doesn’t apply here.  You can’t look at the tax cuts that way, because many millions of Americans fall into very broad groups whose deductions would be taken away.

Let’s start with one big one, the medical expenses deduction.  If you have a very large amount of medical expenses, anything more than 10 percent of your income, you can deduct that on your taxes.  So, say someone is facing a cancer diagnosis, and they don’t have strong insurance.  They’re paying $100,000 out of pocket.  They can deduct that from their taxes now.

The Senate and House bills would wipe that away.

William Brangham:  That’s a huge tax increase.

Lisa Desjardins:  It would be a massive punch to the gut for people who are already dealing with a major health crisis.

Then another group — we talked about before state and local taxes.  Now, this is also a very huge group.  Almost a quarter or maybe more than a quarter of Americans take state and local taxes off of their federal taxes.  Of course, this affects mostly high-tax states.  New Jersey gets brought up a lot, New York, but it’s also states like Maryland, California, Virginia.

A quarter of million American taxpayers would lose that deduction, most or all of it.  And so, when you say, on average, the middle class would see a tax cut, well, really, everyone is unique, and you see a lot of unique situations where the taxes might go up.

William Brangham:  The criticism of all this, of course, by the Democrats and some economists is that this is in a massive giveaway to the wealthiest Americans and corporations.  How true is that?

Lisa Desjardins:  Right.

So, I looked at all of the new data we got, including CBO's yesterday, and I compared it, looked at how much benefit you get or loss you get, combining all the spending cuts, the taxes, everything.

And, in fact, it’s true that the lowest-paid Americans would see the greatest harm.  And if you go all the way to the top of the scale, by many times, those at the highest income level, say, $500,000 and above, would see not only the biggest benefit in dollar terms, William, but also in terms of percentage of their own income.

And that’s per person.  So, it’s not a broad category.  I really dove in on that analysis.

"If you pay student loans, the GOP tax overhaul could affect you.  Here’s how" PBS NewsHour 11/28/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Both the Senate and House tax overhaul bills could make higher education more expensive for some students, though in different ways.  The biggest proposed changes in the House bill would end the deduction for interest paid on student loans, a deduction used by some 12 million people in 2015.  John Yang learns more from Danielle Douglas-Gabriel of The Washington Post.

"Under this proposed tax cut, big small businesses benefit most" PBS NewsHour 11/30/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The corporate tax rate is not the only important tax cut affecting businesses that's being considered in the Republican tax bills.  The pass-through tax rate affects millions of small businesses, and has been a point of debate and dealing.  Hari Sreenivasan talks to Jim Tankersley of The New York Times about that and who really gets the biggest cuts.

"Senate Republicans make 11th-hour changes in push to pass tax cut bill" PBS NewsHour 12/1/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Winning over holdouts like Sen. Jeff Flake, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters that Republicans had the votes to pass their tax bill, which could affect the U.S. for at least a decade.  But as the clock ticked down, the final bill hadn't appeared, and Democrats railed against the idea of passing something without the final language in hand.  Lisa Desjardins talks to Judy Woodruff.

"What were the last-minute changes to the Senate tax bill?" PBS NewsHour 12/2/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Senate passed a $1.5 trillion tax package early Saturday, pushing closer to one of the largest overhauls of the U.S. tax code in decades.  But the vote came just hours after the final text of the nearly 500-page bill was released, provoking several, last-minute negotiations on the Senate floor.  Lisa Desjardins joins Hari Sreenivasan for more on what made it into the bill and what’s next.

REPUBLICAN AGENDA - Tax Reform

aka "How Do We Give Even More to the Rich"

"Tax reform is the next big GOP push.  Here's what to expect" PBS NewsHour 8/3/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Republican leaders are starting to make decisions on how they will approach tax reform, an issue that's equally important as health care to Republicans, and one that's arguably even tougher to solve.  Lisa Desjardins sits down with Judy Woodruff to walk through where efforts stand.

LISA DESJARDINS:  First point, Judy.  This is a process very different than health reform, than health care.

First of all, let’s look at who Republicans are using right now, who is determining this.  It is the big six leaders.  That means two leaders from the White House, the treasury secretary and also the president’s national economic adviser, then Leader McConnell in the Senate, as well as the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and then Speaker Ryan himself and his tax-writing chairman. [note no Democrats]

RELATED:  "A (quick) guide to the upcoming battle over tax reform" by Lisa Desjardins, PBS NewsHour 8/1/2017

ETHICS - Political Opposition Research

IMHO:  Political opposition research has been around for centuries but crosses the line when fabricated of lies or out-of-context information.  But especially if the information comes from ANY foreign government.

"The ethical dos and don'ts of opposition research" PBS NewsHour 7/13/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Donald Trump Jr. and his father, President Trump, have defended the decision to meet with a Russian government lawyer to potentially discuss information about Hillary Clinton as standard opposition research.  Judy Woodruff speaks with Tim Miller a former Jeb Bush campaign official, and Christina Reynolds a former Hillary Clinton campaign official, discuss what goes into good opposition research.

HEALTH CARE - Virginia

"What Virginia's poorest citizens want from health care reform" PBS NewsHour 7/11/2017

and they are NOT going to get from Trumpcare.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As Republicans on Capitol Hill try to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, we visit patients and health care providers at a free clinic in rural southwest Virginia -- a region that strongly supported President Trump, in a state that did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act -- to listen to the extreme health care challenges they face and what they think should be done.

"Deep in coal country, West Virginia patients speak out about GOP health bill" PBS NewsHour 7/11/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  As Republicans on Capitol Hill try to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, we visit patients and health care providers at a health center in Mingo County, West Virginia -- a region that strongly supported President Trump, in a state that has been ravaged by the opioid epidemic -- to listen to the health care challenges they face and how the expansion of Medicaid has benefited them.

REPUBLICAN AGENDA - Trump's Voter 'Suppression' Commission

The perpetration of a lie.

"Election Experts See Flaws in Trump Voter Commission's Plan to Smoke Out Fraud" by Jessica Huseman, ProPublica 7/6/2017

The commission told ProPublica that states' voter rolls will be run against federal databases to find potential fraudulent registrations — a move experts say will result in thousands of errors and could distort fraud.

Vice President Mike Pence's office has confirmed the White House commission on voter fraud intends to run the state voter rolls it has requested against federal databases to check for potential fraudulent registration.  Experts say the plan is certain to produce thousands of false positives that could distort the understanding of the potential for fraud, especially given the limited data states have agreed to turn over.

“This just demonstrates remarkable naivety on how this voter data can be used,” said David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research.  “There's absolutely no way that incomplete data from some states — mainly consisting of names and addresses — can be used to determine anything.”

The commission's vice chair, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, sent a letter to states last week requesting detailed information on voters.  The request asked for information such as Social Security numbers and military status most states cannot legally make available.  But most states will be handing over information that is public, such as names, years of birth and whether they've voted in previous elections.

Marc Lotter, spokesman for Pence, told ProPublica the state voter information will be run “through a number of different databases, looking for the possibility for areas where voter rolls could be strengthened.”

While Lotter would not say specifically which databases the rolls would be run against, The Washington Times reported last week the commission may seek to check the names against the federal government's database of non-citizens.  A 2012 attempt by Florida to do that resulted in many legitimate voters being falsely flagged because they had the same names as people in the federal database.  Gov. Rick Scott scrapped the effort and eventually apologized.

Comparing names nationwide could result in far more false positives.

“How many Manuel Rodríguezes born in 1945 who are citizens are going to be on an immigration list?  There are likely to be several,” said Charles Stewart, a professor at MIT and expert in election administration.  “How will you know if he's the immigrant, or he is one of the several people with that name who are citizens and legally registered?”

Kobach runs a matching program that appears to have its own high rate of errors.  A recent study by political scientists at Stanford University found that Kobach's Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program had 200 false positives for every actual double registration.  The Kansas secretary of state's office did not immediately return a call for comment on the program.

Other systems already exist that do rigorous matching.  The Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, is a voluntary, paid system operated by a nonprofit and used by 20 states and the District of Columbia.  The system uses far more information than states are able to make publicly available, such as driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers and even email addresses.

Becker, who helped create ERIC, said it took years of work to ensure careful matches.  The speed at which Kobach and Pence sought information from states, which were given two weeks to hand over their voter rolls, and their plan for the limited amount of information they'll receive “demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of the process,” said Becker.

Lotter, Pence's spokesman, said that even if false matches were made they'd do no harm since the commission can't remove names from states' voter rolls.  He said the commission is simply going to provide recommendations and highlight any common problems that might come up in the matching process.

“What we are trying to do is create the first national look at voter registration and the potential for fraudulent registration that could lead to fraudulent voting,” Lotter said.  “At the end of the day you have to ask yourself who is not for making sure we have one person one vote?”

John Merrill, the Republican secretary of state for Alabama, said any false positive raises the likelihood a voter might be incorrectly purged.

“I would be surprised if they could find a way to improve upon the methods already in place from the consortiums that already exists,” Merrill said.  “Every time you remove a mechanism that more positively identifies a voter, it increases the opportunity for a false positive to match.”

President Trump created the commission after making unsupported claims that there were millions of illegal votes cast in the 2016 presidential election.  Kobach, the commission's public face, has long asserted without evidence that voter fraud is widespread.

Despite numerous academic studies to the contrary, Kobach has claimed that non-citizens regularly vote, that people vote twice with frequency and has backed Trump's claims of illegal voting last year.  Kobach, along with other members of the commission, has also supported restrictions on voter registration, including strict voter ID laws.

Lotter said the bipartisan nature of the commission — currently four of the 10 announced commissioners are Democrats — should assuage any concerns from critics.  The four Democrats include Maine's secretary of state, Matthew Dunlap, whose state has declined to provide the information the commission requested in Kobach's letter.

Lotter also said none of the commissioners had “pre-conceived notions” about voter fraud and that they would fairly judge the results of the matches.

Dale Ho, the director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, disputed Lotter's claims of neutrality.

“It's up is down and black is white,” he said.  “The idea that people who have made repeated public statements that they believe, contrary to all evidence, that there is massive fraud are not biased is ludicrous.”

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 6/30/2017

"Shields and Brooks on GOP's health care bill gridlock, Trump tweet backlash" PBS NewsHour 6/30/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's news, including the difficulty Republican leaders are having getting enough support for the Senate health care bill, including tense relations between the White House and Congress, plus the political reaction to President Trump's tweets about two cable news hosts.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Well, speaking of the tweets, David, we have seen some eyebrow-raisers.  We have heard some gasps.  But I guess the president's tweet yesterday morning about the “Morning Joe” MSNBC cable hosts, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, where the president tweeted very personal insults, low I.Q., face-lift, and so forth, it seemed to reach a new low.

Do we learn anything new about this President at this point?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  Well, one of the nice things, if we can find a silver lining here, is, it's possible for everybody to be freshly appalled, that we are not inured to savage, misogynistic behavior of this sort.

And I saw a lot of people around.  And I certainly felt in myself a freshness, a freshness of outrage.

And I must say, when I hear Roy Blunt say it's unhelpful to himself, well, that's true, but it's more than unhelpful to Donald Trump to tweet in this way.  It's morally objectionable.  And I do wish more Senators would say that.  Lindsey Graham and Ben Sasse have said it, but a lot of others, oh, it's just not helpful.

It's more than that.  And the issue here is the corruption of our public sphere.  And that's what Donald Trump does with these things.  And it makes it harder for us, our country, to ever get back to normal, when these things are corrosive to just the way people talk to each other.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Corruption of the public sphere, Mark.

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist:  I think David is guilty of understatement.

No, I think he put it very well.  This is hateful and it's hurtful.  Judy, I don't know what a parent or a grandparent is supposed to say to a 10-year-old or a 12-year-old who said anything comparable to this and was sent — banished to their room or whatever else for it, I mean, that the President of the United States can talk this way, and there are no consequences.

The irony is that he's more engaged on the back-and-forth with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on this than he has been on health care or any other issue.  He obviously — this is what matters to him.  And it's just that classic — not to be sectionally biased, but it's sort of a New York bully approach to life, I mean, that you say anything, you do anything, because the important thing is winning.

And I just — you know, I don't know what else there is to say, other than you want to put yourself through a car wash after you listen to the President talk this way.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Are there consequences, David?  I mean, I heard what you said about some senators are just saying, well, it's not helpful, but other senators are going further and saying, this is really wrong.

But are there ever consequences?  Do we just go on like this?

DAVID BROOKS:  Yes.  Well, we will see if people eventually get disappointed and get tired.

I do think if it — one of the things that may begin to offend people is potential mafioso behavior.  One of the things we heard this morning in the op-ed piece in The Washington Post by the two hosts was that the White House sort of threatened sort of extortion, that, if the show becomes more Trump-friendly, then a National Enquirer investigation into their relationship will be spiked.

And that's sort of mafioso, extortion behavior.  That's beyond normal White House behavior.  It's beyond political hardball.  It's sort of using your media allies, The National Enquirer and the Trump administration, to take down enemies.  And that's not something we have seen in America since maybe Nixon, or maybe never.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  It's true, Mark, we haven't seen anything like this in a while.

MARK SHIELDS:  We haven't.

But I think David's point about extortion certainly strengthens the position of James Comey, that threats and extortion or a hint of extortion is part of the modus operandi.

To Republicans …

JUDY WOODRUFF:  I mean, we should say the White House is denying it.

MARK SHIELDS:  The White House is denying it.  Jared Kushner, I guess, is denying it, or perhaps somebody else through him is denying it.

But the fact that there's negotiations going back and forth or communications on this subject, you do this and we won't print an injurious and harmful article in The National Enquirer, one of the great publications of our time.

But, Judy, I remember when Republicans used to get upset and angry at Bill Clinton because he didn't wear a suit and tie in the Oval Office.  And Donald Trump, who is supposed to be this great deal-maker, I mean, Joe and Mika Brzezinski have a morning show which is a show that watched very much in this area, but it doesn't have a great national audience, and probably 1 percent of the people.

And he [Trump] just made them a national — everybody now knows about this show.  It's probably increased their ratings, juiced them up.  So I don't understand where — if anything, it's but counterproductive in every sense.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Well, it is true, David, that this is — it's hard to find you said there may be a silver lining in fresh outrage, but beyond that, I'm not sure where it is.

DAVID BROOKS:  No.

And, you know, the big question for me is, do we snapback?  Do the norms that used to govern politics reestablish themselves after the Trump administration, or are we here forever?

And I hope, from the level of outrage, that we have a snap back.  But the politics is broken up and down.  And Trump may emerge from a reality TV world that is much more powerful than we think.  And there is the prospect that this is where we are, which is an horrific thought.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Horrific thought.

MARK SHIELDS:  Yes, it is that.

TRUMP AGENDA - Hiding Behind the Lie of Voter Fraud

This is NOT about voter fraud.  It IS about getting data to continue the Republican agenda of vote suppression.

"What does this Trump commission want to do with states' voter information?" PBS NewsHour 6/30/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has authorized a special commission to investigate his unsubstantiated claim that up to 5 million votes were cast illegally in the 2016 election.  Vice Chairman Kris Kobach penned a letter to states to send voter data, including addresses and social security information, directly to the White House.  Hari Sreenivasan speaks with Rick Hasen of the University of California, Irvine.

REPUBLICAN AGENDA - Senate's Trumpcare 2.0

IMHO:  Still mean and uncaring.  America, bend over and spread cheeks.

"Senate finally unveils secret health care bill" by MJ Lee, Tami Luhby, Lauren Fox, and Phil Mattingly - CNN 6/22/2015

The closely guarded [secret] Senate health care bill written entirely behind closed doors finally became public [bill text] Thursday in a do-or-die moment for the Republican Party's winding efforts to repeal Obamacare.

The unveiling of the legislation marks the first time that the majority of the Senate GOP conference gets a comprehensive look at the health care proposal.  With Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pressing ahead for a vote next week, senators only a handful of days to decide whether to support or vote against the bill.

The bill is very similar to the version of the House bill that passed last month but with some key changes.  The text released Thursday showed the Senate legislation would still make major changes to the nation's health care system, repealing Obamacare's individual mandate, drastically cutting back federal support of Medicaid, eliminating Obamacare's taxes on the wealthy, insurers and others.  The Senate plan however would keep Obamacare's subsidies to help people pay for individual coverage.

McConnell's decision to keep the details tightly under wraps until Thursday was intentional and aimed at winning over his colleagues out of the public spotlight, but the secretive process has infuriated Democrats -- and aggravated plenty of Republicans, too.

"I need the information to justify a 'yes' vote.  I have a hard time believing that we would have that in such a short period of time," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, told CNN on Wednesday.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham joked: "We'll know if it's a boy or girl tomorrow."

McConnell has very little room for error -- he can only lose two Republican votes and still pass the bill.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday night he hopes to "surprise" with a plan that has "heart."

"I hope we are going to surprise with a really good plan," Trump said at a campaign rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.  "You know I've been talking about a plan with heart.  I said add some money to it.  A plan with heart, but Obamacare is dead."

The House passed its version of health care reform last month, but while Republicans celebrated that bill with Trump at the White House, the President has since called it "mean."

A senior administration official said Senate leaders sounded "optimistic" about the fate of the health care bill in the Senate during their briefing for White House officials Wednesday night.

Can McConnell get the votes?

Senior GOP senators were still putting final touches on the draft legislation on Wednesday, and it is still likely to change before any vote as members express their preferences.

Much like in the House, where moderate and conservative lawmakers were deeply divided on health care policy leading up to a vote in May, Senate Republicans also have clashing ideological views and priorities.

Some of the key issues that lawmakers are most concerned about include Medicaid reform, regulatory waivers, the state stability fund and tax credits.  McConnell has a tough needle to thread: making significant concessions to conservatives risks losing moderate votes, and vice versa.

What will CBO say?

The legislation will also have to undergo parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that it meets the strict requirements on what can or can't be included in a bill under the budget reconciliation process.

One report that will inform Senate Republicans as they decide whether to support the bill will be a score from the Congressional Budget Office, expected to come out in the coming days.

The CBO analysis will shed light on how much money the bill would cost and how many people would be covered.  Senate Republicans hope to see better headlines from this CBO report than the one that the House GOP legislation received.  CBO said the House bill would result in 23 million fewer people insured in 2026 than under Obamacare.

What's in the bill and differences with the House

While the Senate bill is largely similar to the House passed-bill, there are some key differences.

Medicaid has been one of the central sticking points in the debate.  The bill would continue the enhanced Medicaid expansion funding from Obamacare until 2021 and then [still] phase it out over three years.  This is a concession to moderates, who weren't pleased that the House version would end the enhanced support for new enrollees in 2020.

However, conservatives also get some of what they want when it comes to overhauling the entire Medicaid program.  The Senate bill would keep the House plan to send a fixed amount of money to states each year based on enrollment or as a lump sum block grant.  But it would shrink the program even more over time by pegging the annual growth rate of those funds to standard inflation, rather than the more generous medical inflation, starting in 2025.  This would likely force states to cut enrollment, benefits or provider payments.

The Senate bill would also largely maintain Obamacare's premium subsidies structure, but tighten the eligibility criteria starting in 2020.  Fewer middle class folks would get help because only those earning up to 350% of the poverty level would qualify, rather than the 400% threshold contained in Obamacare.  But it would also open up the subsidies to enrollees below the poverty level so those living in states that didn't expand Medicaid could get some assistance.

Senators opted to keep Obamacare's subsidies to prevent the funds from being used for abortions.  The House bill called for creating tax credits based largely on age, but adding abortion restrictions to these credits could have run afoul of Senate rules governing the bill.  Still, the similarities to Obamacare will likely infuriate conservatives such as Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who decried the House version as "Obamacare Lite."

Also, as in the House bill, it would defund Planned Parenthood for one year.

The Senate also backs away from some last minute House concessions to conservatives that would have allowed states to opt out of several protections for those with pre-existing conditions, but insurers would not be allowed to charge higher premiums to those with pre-existing conditions.

The bill would also aim to shore up the existing Obamacare market by allocating funds for the cost-sharing subsidies until 2019.  This will placate insurers, who were distraught by Trump's refusal to commit to continue making these payments, leading many carriers to hike rates or drop out of the exchanges for 2018.