This Must be #FakeNews

The federal government just awarded Equifax a multi-million dollar, no-bid contract to verify taxpayer identities and prevent fraud.

Yes, that Equifax.

From Above the Law:

I was initially under the impression that my staff was sharing a copy of The Onion, until I realized this story was, in fact, true.

— Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), in a letter to the IRS, after learning last week the agency awarded the beleaguered Equifax a government contract worth $7.25 million under a no-bid contract. Under the terms of the agreement, Equifax will be tasked with verifying taxpayer identities and preventing fraud. 

QOTD:

While this quote didn't technically originate today, I just discovered it. Lord knows we need some levity right about now. Enjoy:

“The best stuff coming out of Nashville is all by women except for Chris Stapleton. He’s great. The guys just wanna sing about getting fucked up. They’re just doing hip-hop for people who are afraid of black people. I like the new Kendrick Lamar record, so I’ll just listen to that.”

Steve Earle, ladies and gentlemen.

Psst, hey buddy, how much for the Congressman?

Courtesy of the New York Times, the Congress Members who have received the most from the NRA:

Senate

1.		John McCain Ariz.	“Cindy & I are praying for the victims of the terrible #LasVegasShooting & their families.”	$7,740,521 FROM THE N.R.A.
2.		Richard Burr N.C.	“My heart is with the people of Las Vegas and their first responders today. This morning’s tragic violence has absolutely no place here in America.”	$5,902,968 FROM THE N.R.A.
3.		Roy Blunt Mo.	“Saddened by the tragic loss of life in #LasVegas. My thoughts are with all of the families affected by this horrific attack.”	$4,551,146 FROM THE N.R.A.
4.		Thom Tillis N.C.	“Susan and I send our deepest condolences and prayers to the families of the victims of this horrific and senseless tragedy in Las Vegas.”	$4,418,012 FROM THE N.R.A.
5.		Cory Gardner Co.	“My family and I are praying for the families of those injured and killed in Las Vegas last night.”	$3,879,064 FROM THE N.R.A.
6.		Marco Rubio Fla.	“I’m praying for all the victims, their families, and our first responders in the #LasVegas #MandalayBay shooting.”	$3,303,355 FROM THE N.R.A.
7.		Joni Ernst Iowa	“My prayers are with all of the victims in Las Vegas, and their loved ones affected by this senseless act of violence.”	$3,124,273 FROM THE N.R.A.
8.		Rob Portman Ohio	“Jane & I mourn the loss of innocent lives in this horrific attack in Las Vegas last night. We are praying for those taken from us, their families & all those injured in this attack.”	$3,061,941 FROM THE N.R.A.
9.		Todd Young Ind.	No statement released.	$2,896,732 FROM THE N.R.A.
10.		Bill Cassidy La.	“Following closely the horrendous act of violence in Las Vegas. Our prayers are with those who were injured, killed and their families.”	$2,861,047 FROM THE N.R.A.

House

1.		French Hill Ark.	“Martha and I are praying for the families and victims of this senseless act of evil. […] We must continue to work together to stop this kind of terror.”	$1,089,477 FROM THE N.R.A.
2.		Ken Buck Co.	“I'm praying for all of those impacted by the evil events in Las Vegas last night. Our country must stand together in support of the families of the victims and the community.”	$800,544 FROM THE N.R.A.
3.		David Young Iowa	“My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families and friends of the horrific and evil tragedy in Las Vegas.”	$707,662 FROM THE N.R.A.
4.		Mike Simpson Ind.	“Though no words can heal our hurt, and no explanation will ever feel sufficient, I pray that all involved may find comfort as we process this devastating tragedy.”	$385,731 FROM THE N.R.A.
5.		Greg Gianforte Mont.	No statement released.	$344,630 FROM THE N.R.A.
6.		Don Young Ark.	“Anne and I are praying for all those involved or impacted by this heinous act of violence.”	$245,720 FROM THE N.R.A.
7.		Lloyd Smucker Pa.	“Horrific act of violence in Las Vegas. Cindy and I pray for the victims, their families, and the first responders.”	$221,736 FROM THE N.R.A.
8.		Bruce Poliquin Maine	“My thoughts are with all those effected in the horrifying attacks in Las Vegas. The nation is with you.”	$201,398 FROM THE N.R.A.
9.		Pete Sessions Tex.	“My deepest sympathies are with all who were harmed by this horrific tragedy.”	$158,111 FROM THE N.R.A.
10.		Barbara Comstock Va.	“I am heartbroken by the mass murder that took place last night in Las Vegas and I am praying for the victims, families, and first responders.”	$137,232 FROM THE N.R.A.

It saddens me to see two members of the great state of Indiana on this list. I will not be voting for either one, but that is no shock to anyone who has read this blog.

"The Right Time"

I don't care to be lectured that yesterday or today are not the right times to talk about our nation's gun laws.

I similarly don't care to be lectured that it is "insensitive" to discuss global climate change in the wake of repeated tragic hurricanes.

When we see a building collapse, the first thing we do after mourning those killed therein is discuss how to improve building codes to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

When a (foreign) terrorist attack happens, the first thing we do is discuss ways to make our foreign policy more aggressive so that we can ensure that every last person with even the tiniest amount of sympathy for terror-related causes is killed (dead as a door nail).

When a bridge collapses, we again address building regulations.

When insurance rates skyrocket we have a spirited (if ill-informed) debate about why it happened and what we can do about it.

Why is it that the only time we can't talk about (1) the cause of a tragedy and (2) the appropriate response thereto is when an American decides to use a weapon of war for its sole designated purpose: killing human beings en mass?

Elections Count

As Barack Obama so famously said, "Elections have consequences." Indeed they do. If they didn't, then we would have no Affordable Care Act. If they didn't, we would have Justice Garland instead of Justice Gorsuch.

Elections matter.

Unfortunately, the rave these days is to make it harder, not easier, to vote. However, at least Indiana has a system where you can check to see if your registration is up to date.

Here is the link.

Please forward this to your friends and have them ensure that they are properly registered to vote. Politicians care about what their voters think about issues; they don't care nearly as much about what their constituents writ large think about issues. It makes sense: If I represented 1,000 people but only 5 of them voted, I would only need to make 3 of them happy enough to vote for me again.

Ongoing Dishonesty

I would take right-wing rants about President Obama a lot more seriously if they were grounded in facts. Take, for example, this Ed Rogers hactackular entitled "The Lazy, Dishonest Democratic Arguments Against Tax Reform." Given that he may as well be talking about me, I figure I should respond to him.

Now that President Trump and Republican leaders in Congress have announced their tax-reform plan, the usual dividing lines are being drawn. Democrats and their allies in the media are whining about tax cuts for the rich and, to some degree, how tax cuts would reduce the government’s income and increase the deficit. I’m yawning. By being so predictable, so lazy and so dishonest, Democrats are thinking they can stifle any real debate over the merits of tax reform that features economy-boosting tax cuts.

Well, I'm sorry our "facts" bother you Mr. Rogers. However, if you would like me to NOT argue that your tax "reform" plan is simply a tax cut for the rich, perhaps you should come up with a tax "reform" plan that is NOT simply a tax cut for the rich. Also, in what world do tax cuts not reduce the government's income and increase the deficit? Remember how W cut taxes, exploded the deficit, crashed the economy, then handed the reigns to Obama? Remember how Obama cut the deficit in half? Remember how you ranted about the "exploding deficit" when opposing all of (and I mean every last one of) Obama's proposals?

Next, I would like to see some evidence that your tax cuts actually boost the economy. Certainly, if growth had exploded after the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, we would be inundated with graphs, data, etc. The absence of same is striking, no?

They would rather revert to whining about tax cuts for the rich and accuse the GOP of wanting to coddle corporations. And by the way, in their heart of hearts, many Democrats do not want the economy to improve out of fear that a little prosperity for the middle class will hurt their chances at the ballot box in 2018 and 2020. This is the political reality in which tax reform must now be considered.

As noted above, if you don't want your tax plan to be characterized as "tax cuts for the rich" and "coddling corporations," perhaps designing a plan where the vast majority of the benefits don't flow to the rich and corporations would be a good start.

Second, I will thank Mr. Rogers to refrain from attacking my motives. That is the essence of a bad-faith argument. I could attack his, and simply state that he wants to keep the donor dollars flowing. I am, notably, refraining from that argument. Thank you in advance Mr. Hacktacular, for paying me the same courtesy.

Reasonable people can differ over how much growth and revenue tax cuts are likely to generate, but I don’t consider liberal activists, most elected Democrats or their allies in the media to be reasonable people when it comes to economic growth and taxes. 

So, reasonable people can differ over whether tax cuts boost the economy and by how much; however, anyone who disagrees with Mr. Rogers is not a reasonable person on this topic? Stated another way: anyone who disagrees with me doesn't know what he's talking about.

Well, now that we have that cleared up . . . can I just disregard Mr. Rogers yet?

Under President Barack Obama, the national debt grew from $10.63 trillion to $19.95 trillion in just eight years. And according to a June 2016 report from the Congressional Research Service, his policies led to “the slowest recovery seen in the post-WWII period era. Real GDP ha[d] grown at an average pace of 2.0% per year during the [Obama-era] recovery, compared with an average rate of 4.3% during the previous 10 expansions.” Is there any reason to call such policies anything other than a failure?

This conveniently overlooks the effect of the Bush tax cuts, the Bush recession, and the Republican congress for 6 of 8 years. Further, I would note that the link Mr. Rogers provides contains precisely ZERO discussion of President Obama's policies. Intellectual honesty? Methinks not.

The Democrats and their allies in the media are quick to go to the old cliche that Republicans are only in favor of tax cuts for the rich. Well, the current tax policy is so warped that in America, so few taxpayers pay such a large share of our taxes that it is impossible to have meaningful, stimulative tax reform that does not cut taxes for the people that actually pay them.

Well, the old cliche about Republicans favoring tax cuts for the rich became a cliche because it is true. Further, his point about so few taxpayers paying such a large share of taxes conveniently overlooks the fact that so few citizens control such a large share of the national economic pie. Fix one and you fix the other, from what I can tell.

It’s time to try the opposite of what we endured under Obama. The consequences of perpetuating the status quo are much bigger than just the inside-the-swamp political dynamics of a tax bill’s passage or defeat. If we don’t quickly restore robust economic growth, the divisions that produced Trump will only get worse. We will move even further into unstable territory. Who knows what might come next?

I too would like something other than the intransigence we experienced during the Obama years. However, Mr. Rogers, just because your party threw an 8-year temper tantrum does not mean that your political opponents should now give you everything you want, particularly when you and yours wrecked countless historical political norms to block every initiative put forth by President Obama for eight years.

And as far as restoring economic growth, I agree! Let's do it! However, I will NOT line up with the same policies that have failed time and again to produce growth, and that includes your tried and failed supply side "voodoo economics."

Finally, with respect to further movement into unstable political territory, this was not done by the liberals. We did not nominate an unstable sexual predator to carry our party's banner. The Republican Party owns Trump, through and through. When his policies predictably create calamity, I don't want to hear about how "nobody could have seen this coming," because I see that coming, right now. It's bad enough that I have to live with the terrible consequences of terrible policy; please don't insult me by saying I never saw it coming, because I did (see "Iraq, circa 2002").

On Las Vegas

Pardon me as I rant here.

This happens too often, and I am not gullible enough to believe that anything will change because of it. This is the society that we have built, one with more mass shootings than any other society in the history of mankind.

This is the society that we have built, where a country music concert becomes a killing field.

This is the society that we have built, where a black man shooting up a crowd of people is a "thug," an Arabic man doing so is a "terrorist," and a white man doing so is "crazy."

This is the society that we have built, where my initial fear after the Las Vegas shootings was that they were done by someone named Yusef Mohhamed and that crackdowns on our civil liberties would surely follow. What happened to being a nation of laws? What happened to judging the action, not the actor?

This is the society we have built, where people piously offer their "prayers" after each mass shooting and then refuse to do, literally, anything else about the problem. That strikes me as the person who apologizes for wronging you and has precisely zero plans to do anything to avoid wronging you again in the future.

We have seen the problem, and the problem is us. We will all have to answer to our maker for this someday. I don't know how I will explain myself other than to look at my shoes in shame.

Happy Taco Tuesday. Hug your kids.

UPDATE: I wish I had good news. However, upon further review, I don't.

The five years since a gunman killed 26 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, have seen one of the most intense bursts of gun legislation in U.S. history—almost all of it intended to ensure that more guns can be carried into more places.

. . . . .

A mass shooting increases the number of enacted laws that loosen gun restrictions by 75 percent in states with Republican-controlled legislatures. We find no significant effect of mass shootings on laws enacted when there is a Democrat-controlled legislature.

This may explain why gun advocates insist that the immediate aftermath of a spectacular massacre is “too soon” for the gun discussion. They want the pain and grief and fear to ebb. They want ordinary citizens to look away. Then, when things are quiet, the gun advocates will go to work, to bring more guns to places where alcohol is served, where children are cared for, where students are taught, where God is worshipped. More killings bring more guns. More guns do more killing. It’s a cycle the nation has endured for a long time, and there is little reason to hope that the atrocity in Las Vegas will check or reverse it.

A Detour on Taxes - Why I Don't Feel Represented

This debate on taxes is so frustrating for me (as evidenced by the volume of posts on the subject) because I do not feel represented. The debate does not purport to address any of my concerns, yet somehow risks making them more grave.

Inequality of Wealth
I don't really care that some people make more than I do. That's to be expected and applauded. Similarly, I make more than some others. That too is to be expected and applauded. However, like most things, when taken to an extreme, inequality is bad for our society. Taken to extremes, extreme wealth inequality generally leads to a police state (see Saudi Arabia) or a violent revolution (see the French Revolution). I don't much like the idea of either one.

We are at a time in American history where the inequality of wealth between a tiny sliver of the population and, almost literally, everyone else is at historical levels. The wealthiest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90%.

As the graph shows, we have not had wealth inequality like the present in nearly a century, and I think we all know how well that worked out. Note also that this graph stops four years ago, in 2013. Who thinks that this 40-year trend in wealth inequality has reversed in the past four years?

Given these facts, why is it that the entirety of the debate is on lowering the top bracket, lowering the corporate rate, and eliminating the inheritance tax? As discussed previously, the inheritance tax doesn't even kick in until one person has $5.5m to devise; it seems to me, based on the graph above, that someone who stands to inherit the first $5.5m is doing pretty well and does not need an extra helping hand from the government; there are plenty of other causes that could use the extra money, and a trust fund baby doesn't top my list.

"Pro-Growth" Tax Reform

Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, and Co. like to label their tax cuts for the wealthy as "pro-growth." Taking them at their word (a dubious assertion, given that there is precisely zero evidence that cutting taxes at the margins spurs long-term growth in any way . . . more on that below), I am still skeptical of their plans.

Since the Great Recession, 85% of this nation's economic growth has accrued to 1% of the population. If the vast majority of this growth is going to go to the very wealthy, the vast majority of the benefits of this tax plan are going to go to the very wealthy, and the middle class (i.e. $50,000 - $150,000/year/family) is going to pick up the tab, someone please explain why I would support this plan.

Further, these claims of "unleashing" the economy are highly dubious. The Reagan wannabes (looking at you VP Pence and Speaker Ryan) assure us that if they only get to cut taxes for the wealthy, those wealthy people will invest in the economy, thereby juicing the economy and leading to increased rewards for everyone. While we're at it, I've got a great piece of beach-front property in Nevada I'd like to sell you.

If cutting taxes worked so well to boost the economy, why doesn't Mike Pence talk about the economic boom we had following W's tax cuts in the early '00s? Why do they have to resort to the early 1980s to find an example that supposedly "worked"?  The simple answer to this is:

Thus, there is little evidence to support that the Bush tax cuts had a significant effect on growth. In addition, contrary to the argument that the tax cuts would pay for themselves being made at the time the tax cuts were enacted, the deficit ballooned as a result of the tax cuts.

Pressing Needs

This country has them. Lots of them.

Let's start with education.

Public education is chronically underfunded, notwithstanding some people's insistence that school teachers are some kind of "Lucky Ducky" getting over on taxpayers, with a cushy job, short hours, and long vacations. I can speak of my own teaching experience and point out that this characterization is wholly inaccurate. Most teachers I know work no fewer than 10-12 hours/day (in line with most professionals). Further, that they only have 185 "work" (contract) days per year probably understates the number of weekends they work and certainly overlooks the fact that they are laid off every summer. Incidentally, I would note that construction workers are able to collect unemployment when they get laid off in the winter; teachers are not able to collect it when they are laid off in the summer. Interpret that as you will. Nonetheless, public education is chronically underfunded.

Next, lets talk about higher education. The UNCF was spot on when they said that a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Well, we are now in a situation where plenty of capable young people are unable to get the education that will enable them to thrive economically later in their lives. This is classic "penny wise and pound foolish" behavior. How much possible economic growth are we foregoing? Further, how much social solidarity are we destroying by increasingly making college the purview of the born-wealthy few? Do we really want a society where the only people who can ever afford to become doctors and lawyers are those born into wealthy families? Also, what about the social solidarity, economic opportunities, and societal opportunities that are lost when we saddle our young people with mortgage-sized student loans? All of the anecdotal evidence in the world doesn't change the fact that college could be paid for with a summer job for my parents' generation; a summer job, school year job, and modest loan for my generation; and now requires a veritable mortgage, regardless of how much you work.

When we discuss the issues with education, I think it is a fair question to ask whether giving a tax break to the wealthy, who (as illustrated above) are doing better than ever in America, is a good priority. I think it isn't. I'm not an elected official.

Readers of this blog also know my feelings about healthcare. It is unbelievably expensive and out of reach for more and more people. I understand that hospitals don't turn people away if they need emergency care. What is often left out of that discussion is what is done for people with chronic symptoms, not acute problems. Also, what are the financial consequences of that "willingness" of hospitals to provide emergency care to the acutely in need?

Bankruptcy.

Here is an interesting graphic:

Two things stand out on this chart for me. The first is the sharp drop in bankruptcies in 2005. I believe the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Law of 2005 is responsible for that. An abjectly terrible law, in my opinion, but not relevant to today's discussion. Notice also the change in roughly 2010. Certainly the downward graph reflects our tepid recovery from the Great Recession, but I also think that it reflects the effects of Obamacare.

I could go on and on, but I believe my point has been made. This talk of cutting taxes on the high-end of the socioeconomic scale is simply indefensible, for reasons both practical and moral. That is why I do not feel as though I am well represented in this debate.

On Puerto Rico

I have seen a lot about our government's response to the hurricane that struck Puerto Rico, replete with the unflattering comparisons to its response to the hurricanes that struck Texas and Florida. While I have no doubt that our president views Puerto Rico as less authentically "real" American than "his" voters in TX and FL, I do not think that the government's response to the hurricane is a manifestation of our president's racism.

I think it's a manifestation of his childishly short attention span.

When the first hurricane hit, he was all over it; tweeting, sending in resources, etc.

When the second hurricane hit, he was on it; maybe not to the same degree as before, but FL has a long history of responding to hurricanes and it likely did not seem like much of a fall off because of that.

By the time the third hurricane hit Puerto Rico, the president was on to other things, real (N. Korea) and contrived (NFL).

I agree that President Trump is terrible; I just find him to be terrible for different reasons than many others in this particular instance.

Taxes - Pt. 7

Now we get to the meat and potatoes:

REPEALS THE DEATH TAX AND ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX (AMT) 

 The framework repeals the unfair Death Tax and substantially simplifies the tax code by repealing the existing individual AMT, which requires taxpayers to do their taxes twice. 

I notice that they are quick to ensure that this gets thrown in. Recall that, presently, the "death tax" (i.e. estate tax) applies to one's estate at the rate of  40%. However, the first $5.5m or so is exempted. So, unless you have $5.5m to leave to someone, this tax will never touch you. It's interesting how they are so vague with so many other parts of this "reform" plan, but so explicit about ensuring that those poor downtrodden millionaire heirs and heiresses don't have to pay taxes on that money that they won via the sperm lottery.

Also, the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was put in place by Ronald Reagan to ensure that rich people (like Donald Trump) can't itemize their way to a $0.00 tax bill. Again, note how explicit this "reform" plan is about repealing that.

In a nutshell, this plank of their plan ensures that the extremely wealthy can take advantage of loopholes and never pay taxes; then, when they die, they can pass their wealth along to their children tax free.

Don't forget, if you spent all day nailing shingles to a roof, your wages for the first hour and a half of your ten hour day went to the federal government; this plan doesn't help you. Instead, it helps the guy who owns the shingle company and the lumber company avoid paying anywhere near the level of taxes you pay.

Food for thought.

Taxes - Pt. 6

Here is the next part of what the GOP tax "reform" purports to do:

DOUBLES THE STANDARD DEDUCTION AND ENHANCES THE CHILD TAX CREDIT 

 The framework roughly doubles the standard deduction so that typical middle-class families will keep more of their paycheck. It also significantly increases the Child Tax Credit. 

I certainly have no problem with doubling of my standard deduction or increasing the Child Tax Credit. I do, however, wonder whether this will be paid for in any way. Money isn't free, you know. If they double my standard deduction and increase the Child Tax Credit, that nominally lowers my tax bill. However, as I've stated before, I'd prefer not to save $100/year in taxes if that means that I will get his with an additional $5,000/year in tuition bills or have my children attend sub-par schools. Also, the next time Speedway Public Schools come calling with a referendum, understand why they need more money: they are getting less from the state, which is getting less from the feds.

As to this, I would say on its merits I have no problem with it. However, to repeat myself, tax cuts aren't free, and only a fool accepts them without inquiring as to what expenditure will be cut as a result. Despite what Hannity, Limbaugh, and FoxNews (FakeNews) claim, if you cut taxes, you have to either cut spending or incur debt. It's called "math."

Taxes - Pt. 5

Instead of regurgitating what others say about the newest tax "reform" on offer from Paul Ryan et al, why not address it directly?

Lowers Rates for Individuals and Families: The framework shrinks the current seven tax brackets into three – 12%, 25% and 35% – with the potential for an additional top rate for the highest-income taxpayers to ensure that the wealthy do not contribute a lower share of taxes paid than they do today.

 Well, there is not much to say about this. If my tax rate goes down to 12%, good. However, if the 35% rate kicks in at $5,000, then this is essentially a flat tax (and quite regressive at that). It is interesting to note that he doesn't commit on the "additional top rate." Is he going to support it or oppose it? How does he feel about that? At what income does this additional top rate kick in, and how much is that rate?

I'm also not entirely sure what to make of the last statement regarding the "share of taxes" paid by "the wealthy." Who are the wealthy? What does he mean by "share of taxes"?

Call me skeptical about this. I can only go on experience, and I can't help but think, based on that experience, that I will get a cut of about $200 while Jim Irsay will get a cut of approximately $2m.

On Taxes - Pt. IV (My Part)

I know I'm talking a lot about taxes today. I do want to make it clear that (1) I would certainly enjoy a break in my taxes; and (2) I remain willing and able to pay my share of taxes.

On Taxes - Pt. 3 (broken promises)

Remember the phrase, "If you like your plan, you can keep it"? As an Obama supporter, I came to dread hearing those words because I knew they weren't true. I wish he would never have uttered them, because broken promises hurt politically. 

Well, Mr. Trump, you have the floor:

"The rich will not be gaining at all with this plan," Trump declared again last week. 

OK. I'm not enough of a sucker to take Donald Trump (well-known serial liar) at his word. What about some others? Surely, a former Goldman Sachs executive would never lie to us!

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin vowed that "any reductions we have in upper-income taxes will be offset by less deductions so that there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class."

OK. They both said it. Can we trust them? And for what it's worth, I don't "believe in" trickle-down economics for one simple reason: cutting taxes on the extremely wealthy has been tried (repeatedly) in the past few decades and that money has not "trickled down," even after waiting for decades. 

My test for credulity as to "trickle-down" economics is the same as it is for that perpetual motion machine: I'll believe it when I see it.

As Jerry Maguire so memorably said, "Show me the money!"

As an incidental note, I wonder how Indiana's congressional delegation intends to vote on this and whether they intend to (ever) hold a town hall to defend such vote.

On Taxes - Pt. 2

As an initial matter, let's notes that the American Enterprise Institute is a conservative think tank. It does not support liberal ideas, nor does it seek to defame Republicans with "fake news" or some other such partisan trick.

James Pethokoukis lamented yesterday at aei.org that the GOP can't come up with any serious ideas. I encourage anyone to click through and read what he has to say. A few snippets:

Doing big things in Washington is never easy, as the Republicans are currently demonstrating. But doing them is much harder when the plans themselves are so flawed. And make no mistake: Both the GOP health and tax plans are troubled policy at best. That’s the main reason Republicans are struggling — it’s the policy, stupid.

Look out for that drive-by Liberal Media!

You would think Republicans would be on safer ground with tax cuts. But their plan should be a non-starter given that it apparently would reduce federal revenue by $500 billion a year. And the only specific “pay for” so far — eliminating the state and local tax deduction — would cover maybe a third of that amount.

So, wait . . . am I to understand that all of the piety from Paul Ryan and company about the national debt was insincere? For shame!

So whatever the benefits of some individual pieces of this tax plan, it is fiscally and intellectually incoherent in its totality. It also makes a joke of the GOP’s supposed deficit worries during the Obama years.

From the American Enterprise Institute's mouth to God's ear!

Both the GOP’s health care and tax efforts show, if not an intellectually fatigued party, then one unwilling to speak truth to its voters: Tax cuts almost never pay for themselves. Universal health insurance coverage is a proper societal goal. ObamaCare isn’t to blame for slow economic growth. The future U.S. tax burden is far more likely to rise than fall. Trying to maintain policy fictions — whether to appease Fox News, talk radio, or voters with misplaced expectations — gets you a week like this one, a week full of bad politics and bad policy. And with little sign that GOPers are ready to acknowledge these hard truths, this bad week is unlikely to be the last one.

This card-carrying liberal couldn't have spoken it better himself. Although, columns like this one make me question whether I'm really a liberal or whether I simply can't stand the rank and pervasive dishonesty of one side of the political debate and thus default to the other side.