OPINION - Shields and Brooks 5/4/2018

"Shields and Brooks on Trump’s legal troubles, House chaplain politics" PBS NewsHour 5/4/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join John Yang to discuss the week’s news, including the media blitz by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani over the payment to adult film actress Stephanie Clifford, a new low in the unemployment rate and the attempted firing of the House chaplain by Speaker Paul Ryan.

John Yang (NewsHour):  But first, a lot can happen in a week.  The President can again shake up his legal team, and then have one of those new lawyers contradict him, and a fired congressional chaplain can get his job back.

Mirabile dictu.

That’s for you, David.

(LAUGHTER)

John Yang:  Here to make sense of it all, the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

We should explain, David Brooks just back from Italy, so a little Latin.

David Brooks, New York Times:  Apparently, where you have been studying Sir Thomas Aquinas, apparently.

John Yang:  Exactly.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  I thought he had been to Latin America.

(LAUGHTER)

John Yang:  We have had this spectacle this week or the scene this week of the President getting a new lawyer, the star of his legal team, Rudy Giuliani, coming out and contradicting him.  Today, the President said, well, he will get his facts straight, he’s new on the job.

And then Giuliani issuing this clarification.

David, what do you make of all this?

David Brooks:  Well, when one person tells a lie, it’s what a tangled web we weave.

When you have got 60 or 70 people doing it, it’s like a universe of tangle.  And so we have got just a universe of when did he pay off, who did the payoff, did Trump know, when did he know?

Frankly, I find it all secondary.  The headline here is that the President of the United States allegedly paid hush money to a porn star.  I mean, what else do we need for the scandal?  That sort of covers it for me.

And so if people are willing to tolerate that in their President, then whether the campaign — whether the money counts as a campaign donation or not, which is one of the things being argued, to me, that is not secondly.  It’s tertiary or something else.  The main fact is, we have come to this point in our country where that seems normal.

John Yang:  So those little details don’t matter.

Mark, what do you think?

Mark Shields:  I welcome David back, but I have to disagree in this sense.

The “Access Hollywood” tape during the campaign showed that it wasn’t a big factor to at least Trump voters at that point.  But I think I will go back to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and President Kennedy dispatched former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to brief President Charles de Gaulle of France on what the United States had found, what the Soviets had placed in the way of missiles in Cuba.

And after the meeting, Dean Acheson asked General de Gaulle, do you want me to show you the secret photos that we have?  And he said, no, no, said General de Gaulle, the word of the President of the United States is all that I need.

Now, fast forward.  We have a man who is just incapable of telling the truth.  Less than a month ago, on Air Force One, asked by the press, do you know anything about this payment, the $130,000, no.  And now, of course, he does.

And it reached the point where The Wall Street Journal, the bible of American business, which has been sympathetic to President Trump generally, especially on his economic policy, said he’s compiling a record editorially that increases the likelihood that few will believe him.  “Mr. Trump should worry that Americans will stop believing anything he says.”

And the word of the President of the United States is not something to trifle with.  And he has trifled with it, and he has fractured it.

John Yang:  David, you were outside the Beltway, way outside the Beltway.

(LAUGHTER)

John Yang:  And I know that you think that perhaps we’re getting a little carried away with this focus on Stormy Daniels and payments and all this sort of thing.

What do you mean by that?

David Brooks:  Yes.

Well, you know, I do think the norms that he’s violated and the way he’s degraded public debate in the nation are a serious thing.  We have talked about that for three years.

And yet, when you think the important things that have happened this week, probably the China-U.S.  trade talks were a very big deal.  The North Korea-South Korea thing is promising all of a sudden.  The economy is going great.

And so apparently a lot of people have made the calculation, he has got always a bunch of scandals that those people in Washington care about, but when you think the big substantive things, things seem to be going fine.

And that’s the calculation a lot of people are making.  And there are times when I think we get a little overhyped up about whatever Rudy Giuliani said this morning and we do lose sight in Washington [DC] of things like the China trade talks.

And I hate to sound like the earnest middlebrow guy, but that’s the calculation people have made.  And I think the threat to our norms is serious and just poisonous to our country.  But other people have said, no, I just care about the substance.

And this week at least, the substance is pretty good on what the Trump administration has achieved.

Mark Shields:  The lowest unemployment rate since President Bill Clinton is certainly impressive and certain welcome.  And no American can be anything other than happy about it.

But the Presidency is historically and actually, above all else, a place of moral leadership.  And you lose that, and I don’t care how big the Dow Jones is, I don’t care what the corporate profits are.

And, you know, I’m not quite as sanguine about the economy as David is.  I think the tax cut is the equivalent economically of catnip.  We know that 86 million middle-class families will have taxes raised.  And we know that 83 percent of the tax cuts will go to the top 1 percent when it’s settled.

So, that’s really not unimportant, and it certainly affects the way that people live.  But I thought the piece with Jim Tankersley, we’re still seeing where wages are not rising.  And, you know, to me, I’m just worried that the Presidency itself will be a diminished and tarnished office, and we will have tough point…

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  … trust in that Presidency.

(CROSSTALK)

David Brooks:  It will be.  It will be.

And the effects will be long-lasting and they will be devastating for faith in politics and for the society.  But those of us who are critical of Donald Trump can’t hide from the facts that go against our story.

And so I was against the Trump tax cuts.  But the early evidence is that they’re working better than I thought.  And so, in the first quarter, among S&P companies, capital expenditures are up 39 percent.  That’s a seven-year high.  That’s far higher than a lot of us thought.

Stock buybacks, which is just giving people — to shareholders, that’s only 16 percent.  So the evidence from just the first quarter seems to be that what the Trump people told us would happen is happening, that companies are reinvesting the money.

A lot of things Trump said about North Korea are terrifying, and yet if it has an effect of unnerving the North Koreans, so they’re more flexible — and we don’t know if that’s the case, but there are some possible implications — well, then maybe some of those terrifying tweets had some effect.

And so it’s important to oppose what’s opposable and what is reprehensible and offensive.  And we have been doing that, as I say, for three years.  But it’s also important to see reality.  And the more serious opposition will, frankly, be on disastrous policies or not disastrous policies.

TRUMPONOMICS - What Wage Growth?

"Why hasn’t the GOP tax bill supercharged wage growth?" PBS NewsHour 5/4/2018

Answer:  Because 'trickle-down economics' is a GOP lie, and Trump always lies.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The U.S. jobless rate is the lowest it's been in 17 years and President Trump claimed credit in his address to the NRA, saying the GOP tax cuts are part of the reason.  But while companies have reported a very profitable first quarter, wage growth remains sluggish.  Has the tax law really translated into the hiring that was promised?  William Brangham talks with Jim Tankersley of The New York Times.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 12/22/2017

"Shields and Brooks on how politics of 2017 will affect 2018" PBS NewsHour 12/22/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the GOP tax bill signed into law, the things lawmakers didn’t accomplish before the end of the year and what it will mean for the 2018 midterm elections, plus David and Mark share whom they would give holiday gifts to this year.

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

Gentlemen, welcome.

Three days before Christmas, Congress has just gone home.  David, the President says this tax bill that they passed is a great gift for the American people.  He said today corporations are going wild over this.  They’re showering their employees with bonuses.

But the polls show people are still skeptical.  What are people to make of this?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes.

Well, I have not been a big fan of this tax bill for a whole number of reasons, one of which I think was revealed today.  When you look at all the intricacies of it, not all the big things, little changes that could have vast effects on American societies.

For example, we have got the health insurance system, the employer-based health system because of some minor change during World War II.  This has all sorts of minor things.  Because we had no hearings, because we had no expert review, and no time to actually look at what’s in the bill, it has dozens of that kind of minor changes that could have massive effects.

For example, we could all — it doesn’t make sense to work for a company anymore, when you can declare yourself a corporation and pay the corporate rate.  And so that could just have massive effects of the economy.

So it’s actually kind of hard to know what the effects of this tax bill will be, because I think most of them are unintended.

Judy Woodruff:  So, are people scratching their heads, Mark, or are they worried?  What do you see?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  People have concluded, at least strong initial judgment, Judy, that it is a bill that favors corporations and favors the very well-off.

And that is a conclusion.  As Peter Hart, the pollster says, when a negative judgment is formed, it’s very difficult to overcome that.  And that is the perception.

Most people don’t have the option of declaring themselves corporations.  That comes to a level of affluence and influence not available to most American families.

And I think what David cited is a good example.

David Brooks:  Yes.  I would say one thing.  I don’t think it is going to be a political loser for the Republicans.

Judy Woodruff:  You don’t?

David Brooks:  Because 80 percent of the country does — or tax units, does get a break out of it of varying sizes.

Some people will get pretty significant breaks.  If you have a kid or a couple of kids, the child deductible tax credit, it doubles and it becomes refundable, so you actually get a check in the mail.  And a lot of people are going to be seeing that.  And a lot of people are going to be surprised to see that.

So I don’t think it will be the total loser that it looks now.  I think now the polling, people don’t know what’s in the tax bill.  They just don’t like Trump.  He’s associated with it.  They get the Republicans favor the rich.

But this bill is — you spend a trillion-and-a-half dollars, you can give a lot of money away.

Judy Woodruff:  So, Mark, you…

(CROSSTALK)

Judy Woodruff:  Go ahead.

Mark Shields:  In 1986, which was an employer tax reform bill, Ronald Reagan, passed the Senate 74-23, passed the House 296-132, bipartisan, overwhelmingly, and popular.

And President Reagan refused to sign anything that wasn’t deficit-neutral, and, Judy, historic.  And that year, 1986, the Republicans lost control of the Senate, lost nine Senate seats.  Democrats increased their majority in the House.

It is a — in 1981, after President Reagan signed his then historic first tax cut, the same thing.  The Republicans suffered.

David’s point is that they get a couple more bucks.  I get 20 bucks more or 30 bucks more in my check.  But I’m going to be regaled and inundated with stories of millionaires walking away, of special interests, of Wall Street getting it.  And it becomes very relative.  I’m starting to feel duped, because all of these wealthy people are getting windfalls.

David Brooks:  Yes.

I think the Republicans are going to do very bad in the midterm, but not because of the tax bill.

Mark Shields:  OK.

David Brooks:  And there are lot — in ’86, it was revenue-neutral.  In ’81, there was a recession.  Now times are economically good.

Mark Shields:  That’s right.

David Brooks:  So you can vote on a lot of things.  In general, when you run up big deficits and give away — back money to people, they like it.  And people like me say, hey, you should worry about the deficits or you should worry about the distribution effects.

That’s just never been, I think, my experience of how people respond to it.  They say, hey, I got some money back.

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.

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 Republican Regressive Tax Attack on America

"What the GOP tax plan could mean for average taxpayers" PBS NewsHour 12/4/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The House and Senate are getting to work on reconciling the differences between their tax plans.  How will the provisions proposed by Congress affect middle- and lower-income taxpayers?  Miles O’Brien gets analysis from Lisa Desjardins (NewsHour), Veronique de Rugy of George Mason University, and historian and political analyst Thomas Frank.

"Do tax cuts spur growth?  What we can learn from the Kansas budget crisis" PBS NewsHour 12/7/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Four years ago, businesses in Kansas went from paying over 6 percent taxes to paying nothing at all, as part of a Republican experiment to boost the limp state economy.  But when the massive drop in tax revenue destabilized the economy lawmakers started slashing the budget and social programs and underfunding schools.  Economics correspondent Paul Solman reports on what happened next.

OPINION - Shields and Gerson 12/1/2017

"Shields and Gerson on Michael Flynn’s Russia probe cooperation, GOP’s tax bill calculation" PBS NewsHour 12/1/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including Michael Flynn’s guilty plea in connection with the Russia probe, the Senate GOP’s push for its tax reform bill, and what’s next for lawmakers including Rep. John Conyers who have been accused of sexual misconduct.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  From courthouses to Congress, it has been a week crammed full of news, the Michael Flynn guilty plea today, momentum for the Republican tax plan, and increased calls for Congressman John Conyers to resign amid charges of sexual misconduct.

All that brings us to the analysis of Shields and Gerson.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson.  David Brooks is away.

Welcome to both of you.

So, Mark Shields, what a day here in Washington.  The special counsel, Robert Mueller, made news early today with this guilty plea from retired General Michael Flynn, the President’s former national security adviser.  What do you make of it?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Well, Judy, one former federal prosecutor said that Michael Flynn was looking at several score years, potentially, behind bars for the offenses that were listed against him.

And for Robert Mueller to accept his plea of guilty for this one charge of lying to the FBI, which is a very serious charge, led him and all of his colleagues to conclude that this is big, that what he is delivering (he, Michael Flynn) to Robert Mueller and his office is significant, so significant that they would let his son off and apparently not proceed on the charges that Carrie mentioned in the earlier segment about his not registering work with Turkey and the other charges against him.

Judy Woodruff:  And, again, Michael Gerson, the White House is saying, that’s all well and good, but that’s just what Michael Flynn did and it had nothing to do with anybody in this White House.

Michael Gerson, Washington Post:  It’s not a particularly credible response at this point, I think.

I mean, it did feel like an historic day.  This — when the history of the Trump administration is written, I think Russia will be in the first paragraph.  And the reason is exactly what Mark was talking about, is that Mueller got something in order to give a considerable amount here.

We don’t really know what it is that he got.  It’s still, you know, undetermined.  But he got something that he felt that he could bring to a grand jury and that would forward a case towards people who are higher.

And there aren’t too many other people who are higher.  The group is small.  And many of them have the Trump family connection.  And so I think you can’t argue that this is just restricted to him.  He was turned in order to turn against others.  And I think that Mueller has a good idea of what that testimony will look like.

Judy Woodruff:  And, Mark, there is, though, this drumbeat out there from people who say, wait a minute, there is just too much focus on this Russia investigation, we don’t know where it’s heading, it’s taking up a lot of time and energy, and what does it add up to?

Mark Shields:  Well, I think what it adds up to, Judy, is that when — it’s been compared, Michael Flynn today, to John Dean at time of Watergate who — and Richard Nixon — he had been White House counsel.

And when John Dean came clean, it wasn’t Bob Haldeman, the Chief of Staff in the White House, or John Ehrlichman, who was Domestic Policy Adviser, the two people closest to President Nixon, they had in sight.

And I think — I don’t think there’s any question that unspoken is that the President’s in sight.  And the speculation all day today in Washington is, what will President Trump do?  Will he in fact, as the walls start to close in, or apparently seem to close in on him, will he fire Robert Mueller?

Lindsey Graham, in anticipation of that, the senator from South Carolina, urged him not to do it, warned him not to do it.  What will the Republicans do?

Paul Ryan has praised him, the speaker of the House, recently as stronger than any President since Ronald Reagan, and realizing that flattery gets you everywhere with this President.

I don’t know.  But that is, quite frankly, where it is.  It’s serious, it is real, it’s genuine.  And Bob Mueller is not playing games.  He’s not a partisan.  He was appointed by President George W. Bush at the FBI.  And, you know, he’s a guy who’s way above any kind of cheap party politics.

Judy Woodruff:  Michael, does it inexorably lead to the President?

Michael Gerson:  Well, it leads to a very basic question, is, why has everyone that touched this issue lied, lied to the FBI, lied to the American public?

You know, if they were just having normal contacts with a normal power — with another power, that’s what transitions do.  But when it came down to it — and this is advice for our viewers at home — you don’t lie to the FBI.  And that is a dangerous thing, because every lie is leverage for them.

They use it in order to get more information to make progress in their investigation.  And so they are attracting attention to the mystery at the center of this matter by their deceptions.  And that — it seems like we’re dealing with something very major.

Mark Shields:  Judy, if I could just pick up on Michael’s point, actually, which I think is a good one; what we do know is this, that after the election, during the interregnum, the transition, when Michael Flynn was out of government, but working in the transition, about to be named national security adviser, he, to really frustrate and overcome, veto American foreign policy legitimately and legally made by the sitting President of the United States, Barack Obama, to impose sanctions upon Russia for Russia’s meddling and sabotaging the American election, got in touch with Ambassador Kislyak, the former — then Ambassador to — from Russia, and urged him not to retaliate and not to overreact or whatever to these sanctions.

And we know that, the next day, Russia didn’t, and the day following that, Donald Trump praised Russia for its restraint in not retaliating.
-----
Judy Woodruff:  The other big story today, Michael Gerson, is what we talked to Lisa Desjardins about, is the — speaking of inexorable, this tax plan is — it moved through the House.  It was passed.  It’s now about to be passed by every good reporter’s reporting, it’s going to pass the Senate tonight.

Michael Gerson:  Right.

Judy Woodruff:  What does this say about the Republican Party and how it wants to change this economy?

Michael Gerson:  Well, there is some drama to this.

Last night, when the Joint Tax Committee report came out saying that this would add a trillion dollars to the debt, and Corker essentially said, I can’t support this thing, it looked like it might be a near-run thing.

But McConnell gave a lot of people what they wanted, like Senator Collins and others, in this process.  Ultimately, there weren’t even three true deficit hawks in the entire Republican Caucus.  There was one, which was Corker.

(LAUGHTER)

Michael Gerson:  All this talk about deficits really was undermined.

But the ultimate calculation here that Republicans have made broadly on the Hill is that if they do end up the year with nothing, that they will be politically punished.  And their argument is that something is better than nothing, even a flawed product like this one.

And I don’t know if that’s a correct argument, but that is generally believed on Capitol Hill among Republicans.

Judy Woodruff:  Are they taking a risk by doing this?

Mark Shields:  They’re taking a risk, Judy, that they’re losing any sense of integrity.

This is a tax bill that is written solely for the deserving rich.  And it also, at the same time, manages to soak the poor.  Just the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office indicates that, by 2027, by 2027, Americans earning the princely sum of between $40,000 and $50,000 will, collectively combined, pay $5.3 trillion — trillion — more in taxes.  Americans earning over $1 million, by the same study, will receive $5.7 trillion in tax cuts.

I mean, the Republican Party, for the longest time — and Michael is a card — was a card-carrying member of it — believed in small government, limited government, in balanced budgets.

And then they drank the Kool-Aid of supply side.  And no Republican on Capitol Hill since 1991 has voted, since George W. Bush — H.W. Bush was President, has voted to increase taxes.  That is the Holy Grail.  That’s the one unifying, galvanizing principle of Republicans.

It’s not civil rights, as it once in the time of Abraham Lincoln.  It’s not even small government.  And it’s not certainly balanced budgets.  It’s tax cuts.  And it’s tax cuts for those best off among us.

Judy Woodruff:  But to get back to your point, and to build on what Mark just said, Michael, this says that Republicans are not — either they don’t believe the deficits are going to grow or they don’t think it’s going to be the political liability or the liability to the economy.

Michael Gerson:  Yes.

And they don’t think that it’s a risk to be seen as the plutocratic party going into these elections.  That may well be a risk here.

I mean, one of the examples is that Senator Rubio and Senator Lee had a very good proposal here to allow the child tax credit to be deductible against withholding, not just income taxes, which would really help blue-collar, working-class families in America.

It was deeply controversial.  It’s still up in the air, what’s going to happen.  But that’s not where Republicans were.  They’re supposed to be now the populist party, the party of blue-collar workers.

And they were not, at least as of the moment, willing to do something like this.  And that, I think, is a test that Republicans are failing.  If they want to be seen as populists, in the mode that Trump wants the party to be seen, they need to act like it.

Judy Woodruff:  And it looks, Mark, as if there is no question that the House is going to go along with something.  There will be changes, but, in the end, there will be a tax bill.

Mark Shields:  I think there will.

And I don’t think Democrats ought to skate on this, Judy, because the Democrats have let the debate become about the deficit, which means this.  If the Republicans do lose the House in 2018, and if the calculations and calibrations are accurate, then, when the Democrats get back in, they are going to be beset with enormous deficits, and their responsibility is going to cut — do the cuts or raise — and raise taxes.

And let’s be very honest about this.  There is — part of this is the Grover Norquist ideal, the Republican strategist, conservative strategist, and that is, you have to shrink the government.  Kevin Brady, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has already said that the next move is on welfare, we have to cut welfare.

Welfare means one thing.  It means three things.  It means Medicaid, it means Medicare and it means disabilities, and Social Security.  And the Democrats — like the Republicans on health care never had a plan, the Democrats do not have a single organizing principle that they advanced instead of.  And I think that was the failure of Democratic leadership.

Judy Woodruff:  But it sounds, Michael, as if Republicans are prepared to make that argument.

Michael Gerson:  Yes.  No, I agree with that.

They could even — there’s a possibility that the House might vote on the Senate bill and avoid conference here, which I don’t know if that’s going to happen or not, because some members of the House might not want it to happen.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

Michael Gerson:  But I think that they want to move in this direction as fast as they can.  And they’re going to tag the Democrats with that type of argument.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 11/24/2017

"Shields and Brooks on sexual misconduct plaguing politics, GOP tax plan pushback" PBS NewsHour 11/24/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including more allegations of sexual misconduct in the worlds of politics and the media, a New York Times report suggesting Michael Flynn may be cooperating in Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, and some surprising opposition to the Republican tax plan.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  But first, another week of sexual misconduct allegations plagued the political and media worlds.  And with Congress returning next week, we look ahead to Republican efforts on taxes and more.

And for all that, we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.

So, let’s start, Mark, with the sexual allegations cascading across new names this week.  It’s crossing party lines, Al Franken among the Democrats.  Congressman Joe Barton, not sexual harassment, but a personal relationship, pictures have emerged.

What are we — we know that politicians and people in the media aren’t perfect, never have been, but what are we learning now from all this?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  Well, I think we’re learning, Judy, the dimensions of it.

I mean, this isn’t the pass at the office Christmas party after two drinks, “Would you like a ride home, Sally?”  I mean, this is abusive stuff, and it’s male-directed, it’s male-dominated, it’s male power.

I’m embarrassed for my gender to read this stuff.  I’m appalled.  Quite frankly, I have not led a cloistered life, but men exposing themselves, just this is a form of human depravity and abuse that is unrecorded and unreported.  And I think it’s — I think we’re seeing a sea change in attitudes in this country.

The one encouraging aspect is, generationally, younger men find the harassment — they agree more with women about the prevalence of it and the unacceptability of it.  And for that, I’m cheered and encouraged.

But I have to say, it’s not a party thing.  Obviously, it’s not an ideological thing.  It’s a power thing, and it’s a male thing overwhelmingly.

Judy Woodruff:  David, do you think we may be seeing a turn, a change in people’s willingness to put up with this?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Yes, well, certainly the willingness of people to come out, the encouragement of people to come out, the instinctive siding with the people who come out, which I think is the right posture.

I think we are seeing a change.  And what interest me is, I was wondering, would we — Harvey Weinstein, that probably would have happened.  But if Donald Trump were not President, would it have had these massive ripple effects, so it becomes a big national change?

And I think the reaction to Trump is part of the deal here.  And we have talked about Trump maybe polluting our national culture, but it could be the reaction to Trump is also making us hypersensitive and making us want to correct the national culture.

And so you could be a — see a reaction to — the Trump wave, I think, has lowered norms and the standards, but a lot of people would say, no, we’re not happy with this, we’re going to raise norms and standards.

And so I hope this is part of that larger reestablishment of what is decency.

THE MUGGING OF TAXPAYERS - Republican Tax Plan

"The GOP tax plan: Who does it help and hurt?" PBS NewsHour 11/20/2017

'Tell a lie often enough and they will believe you.'  The Republican Tax Plan IS a giveaway for the rich.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  One of the biggest questions surrounding the Republican tax overhaul is who benefits from the changes.  Democrats have decried it as a giveaway to the rich, but GOP defenders insist it will cut most middle class taxes and boost jobs.  Lisa Desjardins reports; and Judy Woodruff talks to Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum and Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 11/17/2017

"Shields and Brooks on sexual misconduct in politics, Republican tax goals" PBS NewsHour 11/17/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the week’s news, including allegations of sexual misconduct against and very different responses by Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore and Sen. Al Franken, President Trump’s criticism of Franken despite his own history being accused by women, plus the GOP tax plans.

Hari Sreenivasan (NewsHour):  But first to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

It’s a bit like Groundhog’s Day here.  We’re going the cover some topics you probably have never thought of before, sexual harassment and taxes.  But there are developments, after more and more developments of both of these stories.  And we will get to some more stuff, too.

But this week, we saw new women coming out and alleging sexual misconduct by Roy Moore, some of them underage.  And then we had Al Franken’s behavior in 2006, including a disturbing photograph that nobody can deny.

They are not parallel incidents, but the responses have been very different.

David Brooks, New York Times: Yes, I mean, I guess it’s inevitable, death, taxes, and harassment these days.

It seems to me the one failure that we’re seeing among a lot of people is how partisan the reaction would be, starting with the President.  Sexual harassment is not a Republican thing, or it’s not a Democratic thing.  It’s just a thing.  And it’s amazing how many people are reacting depending on which party the person is in, the guy is in, how their reaction is.

I personally, overall, still think this is a good thing.  Our standards are raising.  People who have done misconduct are being punished, an we’re cleaning out the swamp, as they — we’re supposed to say.

Alongside that, I think it’s important to make some distinctions among the different levels of sin here.  It seems to me what Harvey Weinstein did and what Roy Moore did has the highest level of vileness, and should be career-enders.

Then there are other levels of sin which probably should be career-enders, setting a predatory environment, whether it’s Bill Clinton or the guy — some of the journalists who have been involved.

And then I would put Al Franken so far in a different category, frankly.  What he did was callous and narcissistic and insensitive and just pathetic.  But if it’s one time, and if he can apologize, and then do real penance, my first instinct is that it shouldn’t be a career-ender for him.

Hari Sreenivasan:  But, Mark, oftentimes it’s not one time.  Oftentimes, we start to reveal a pattern of behavior that might be in the background, as more people feel empowered to speak up.

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  No, and that’s what we have found so far in these instances.  It’s not usually a single, solitary event.

But I think David makes a very persuasive point about what we have with Roy Moore, quite frankly, the reaction, in the opening news summary, when the governor, Kay Ivey, of Alabama says she has no reason not to believe the women, but she’s still going to vote for Roy Moore.

Now, there is a disconnect there.  And the only explanation can be just blind, unyielding, total partisanship, and I don’t care.

Let’s be very blunt about it.  There were feminists who rallied to Bill Clinton’s support during his long, complicated lying to the American people about a disproportionate power relationship that he had with a 21-year-old intern and adulterous behavior, who rallied to his support because Bill Clinton was pro-choice on abortion.

And there are those now who are ready to skewer Roy Moore — and I’m not going to deny that he needs skewering — for ideological reasons, and because he has proved he’s anti-woman by his political positions.

But if we’re just talking about behavior here, and not blind partisanship, I don’t think that Al Franken’s behavior rises to the level of eviction from the Senate or anything of the sort.

That is not — but for a party that has based an awful lot of its appeal on identity politics, that we are the women’s party, that we believe in women’s rights, that we respect women, and that Republicans don’t, this is a body blow.

And Al Franken has been a major fund-raiser for Democrats, and he has been an aggressive inquisitor on committees and — representing the Democrats.  So, I think it is serious.

I don’t know where it’s going to stop, and — but I think, in the final analysis, we have to come to grips.  It is power.  And it’s been men exercising power, generally speaking, with — almost overwhelmingly speaking, and the women in the position of supplicant, without the resources, without the means of protesting or just bringing to justice to these people.

David Brooks:  If I could add one thing on the — first on the Clinton thing, I think it’s — we just have to look back and say the people who ignored the testimony of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick helped set the stage for this.

And the Democrats who defended Clinton in those Clintons, they helped set the atmosphere for what we’re seeing and for the behavior that Harvey Weinstein and the rest can get away with.

The second thing to be said is, there is a word for what defenders of Roy Moore are doing, the people who said they were vote for him nonetheless, and — well, two words.  One word is idolatry, and the other word is heresy, because the people who are putting — who are going to sacrifice morality for politics are making an idol out of politics.

They’re saying politics is higher than morality.  And no honest person can possibly believe that.  And if you’re putting politics above personal morality, above the way we treat each other, above the nature of your own soul, you’re just — you’re making an idol out of it.

And that is the ultimate in heresy.  And to see — I saw a tweet from Franklin Graham, Billy Graham’s son, defending Moore, you know, sort of, oh, they’re all a bunch of hypocrites up there.

It’s just appalling.  It’s just — it’s almost mind-boggling that people who — especially people who have been steeped in any faith could make this kind of fundamental error, which is warned against again and again in the Bible, and to be heretics.  They’re heretics.
-----
Hari Sreenivasan:  Let me ask you if you are surprised about something else that’s happened this week, which is the progress of the Republican tax plan.  Do you think that it — what do you think happens in the Senate?

Mark Shields:  I would say, first of all, I think that Paul Ryan, whom I have criticized, certainly did perform as speaker.  He got it through.  He rallied his Republicans, mostly, to it.

There’s just a couple things about it.  I have been going to Republican Conventions since 1976.  I have heard the party time and again solemnly pledge in its compact and covenant with the American people that we will support and fight for a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

I hope that never appears again, because they have proved that they don’t care about that.  All this tax cut is about, this tax thing, is cutting the corporate rate from 35 percent to 20 percent.  That’s all it is.

Everything else is window dressing.  And there are other factors to it that are important, that touch people’s lives.

And, usually, when there’s a tax cut, there is some behavior is required.  For a charitable deduction, you have to give — make a donation to a charity.  For a child care credit, you have to have a child, and there has to be some — there is nothing required of these corporations.

There is not a nickel they have to spend in investment.  There’s not a nickel they have to spend in retraining.  There’s not a nickel they have to spend in anything for their own workers.

And the idea that they’re going to pass this on and increase wages goes back to John Galbraith’s theory of economics, which is, if you stuff enough oats into the horse, that, eventually, a little will pass through to the road, and the sparrow will be fed.  And I just find it absolutely mind-boggling.

And the only other aspect to it that I found fascinating is the Republican Party that has stood for states’ right, and the states that have actually taxed themselves to improve their education and to improve their health care are going to be punished.

Hari Sreenivasan:  Yes.

Mark Shields:  That’s been in the tax code since 1913 that it was inducted.  They’re going to remove it.

Hari Sreenivasan:  So, David, that analogy of trickle-down economics, I have not heard before.

David Brooks:  Still following the biology of that thing.

(LAUGHTER)

David Brooks:  No, I wish it was only a corporate tax cut, because I think there’s a lot of good economic evidence that, if you give corporations tax cuts, they have more cash on hand, they do invest, and that there’s a fair bit of data on this.  And so I wish it were that.

And I think there are other good things in the bill.  Capping the mortgage interest deduction is a good thing.  I think maybe adjusting the state and local taxes is a good thing, because 90 percent of the benefit goes to people making over $100,000 a year.

The problem with it is, first, it explodes the deficit.  Second, it is a raw piece of political exploitation, taking the tax code and benefiting our people, at the expense of blue states.  And we shouldn’t turn the tax code into a spoils system.

And, third, it’s taxes the universities and the nonprofits in a way that I think is unconscionable.  So, I’m against it.  But there are some good things in it.  If they fell back to a corporate tax cut, which had sympathy in the Obama administration, it would be a little happier story.

TAX PLAN - The Republican Grift

Wiktionary:

• Noun
• grift (plural grifts)
• A confidence game or swindle.

"Who really benefits from GOP’s tax overhaul is battle point as House passes its bill" PBS NewsHour 11/16/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  It's a big step for Republicans' tax overhaul plans, the House voted 227 to 205 to pass its version of the bill.  While a new analysis suggests that the plans would increase taxes for middle and lower-income Americans, Republicans deny that idea.  Lisa Desjardins reports and Judy Woodruff gets perspectives from Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas).

TAX PLAN - Senate vs House

"GOP gears up for intense tax battle as Senate debuts plan" PBS NewsHour 11/9/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Republicans pushed ahead on their plan for a tax overhaul, with two major developments.  The House Ways and Means Committee passed its sweeping tax bill, while the Senate released their own version.  Lisa Desjardins sits down with Judy Woodruff to discuss how the two bills compare, which GOP senators aren't yet convinced and how Democrats are reacting.

"Outgoing IRS chief 'deeply concerned' about cuts to already strained agency" PBS NewsHour 11/9/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  IRS Commissioner John Koskinen has been a lightning rod for Republican lawmakers who have called for his impeachment and criticized the agency he's been running since 2013.  As one of the last Obama administration holdovers, he'll complete his term this Sunday.  Koskinen sits down with Judy Woodruff to discuss the strains on the IRS and President Trump's controversial tax returns.