We'll start with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), and then listen in as Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) chimes in.
Manchin denied that he had "changed his mind" on anything; rather, the Inflation Reduction Act he agreed to with Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer fights inflation, which is what he wanted. And, he said, the bill doesn't raise taxes.
...the corporate tax in America in 2017, before the Republican tax cut, was 35 percent. They cut it to 21 percent, 14 percent reduction. All the people that I know are paying 21 percent or more. All the even larger corporations, but some of the largest corporations of a billion dollars of value or more don't even want to pay the minimum of 15 percent.
He said he "never thought" people (I think he meant corporations) weren't paying at least 21%. Has he had his head in his state's coal dust for the last decade or more? I mean, I did a post on GE not paying any federal income taxes back in 2011, for heaven's sake. And West Virginia's almost heaven, so Manchin clearly should have known about this.
Dickerson explained the "Republican criticism" that closing loopholes increases taxes which hurts supply, and during inflation you need a lot of supply. Manchin, sounding almost like a Democrat, said
In the last two years, there have been massive record profits across the board by these largest corporations, massive record profits. And it's been the lowest capital expenditure in the last two years, so that didn't drive it...
Dickerson said Manchin's GOP colleagues think he and Schumer "did something underhanded" by saying 'no deal' and then making a deal. He quoted Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) who said this was "a declaration of political warfare." Manchin's reaction?
It's such a shame. John Cornyn is a good friend of mine. He's such a good man. And for the politics to be so toxic right now, first of all, I never thought this would come to fruition. I never spoke with anybody about it, any of my colleagues, because they were frustrated that nothing happened for so long on the other.
And, Dickerson pressed yet another GOP argument.
-- you made certain representations, they would say, to Republicans, then broke your trust... Susan Collins said: "It's a very unfortunate move that destroys the many bipartisan efforts that are under way," in other words, whether it's on election reform or same-sex marriage, that the well has been poisoned.
Manchin said he considers Collins a "very dear friend," but said he "never told anybody" he wasn't going to do something.
If I had a chance to fix the energy policy of the United States of America, and I didn't do it, shame on me. If I had the chance to reduce the amount of inflation that people in West Virginia and across the country are enduring right now, shame on me... we were able to provide these solutions. Let's not make them political, John."
Next up? Sen. Toomey, and Dickerson stayed with the Inflation Reduction Act, asking for Toomey's "principal critique."
Well, it's going to make inflation worse, actually. So, they've got a big corporate tax increase that's going to probably make this recession that we're in worse... this spending is unnecessary. It's going to exacerbate inflation. It is not going to reduce the deficit.
He's a big fan of his friend Joe Manchin, but said Manchin "got taken to the cleaners." He agreed to a bunch of bad policy, and in return he was promised "there's going to be some kind of pro-energy infrastructure bill sometime in the future."
Dickerson noted that The Committee for a Responsible Budget, a "fan" of Toomey's, said that this new bill "would be the first time in many years" that reconciliation was used for deficit reduction. Others have said the same thing, but Toomey disagrees.
... they use the same gimmick that Sen. Manchin said he was opposed to in the past. They claim the revenue over a 10-year window from their big tax increase, and their price controls. And then the expenditure that they acknowledge, they pretend is only going to be for three years. That's the Obamacare subsidies for wealthy Americans. That's an obvious political payoff. The last time they had to do this, they said it would only be for two years. It's about to expire. And they can't - - they can't have it expire before an election. So, they're extending it, but only for three years. They have no intention of ever ending the Obamacare subsidies. Over a 10- year window, that wipes out the purported deficit reduction.
Dickerson didn't question the comment about "wealthy Americans" getting the health insurance subsidies, or the fact that many very much not wealthy Americans would lose their insurance without the subsidies; I wish he had.
Toomey said the supporters of the bill aren't "taking into account how much our economy will slow down from this big corporate tax increase that will mostly hurt manufacturing and domestic investment..." And he explained how the GOP tax cut was supposed to work, how allowing businesses to make capital investments (new plants, new equipment, etc.) and deduct the cost in the same year caused a "huge surge in capital expenditure" and the Dems will "raise the cost of investing in a business."
Folks at the Brookings Institution who studied this would disagree with Cornyn, as would the IMF, but I'm sure he has experts that would say he's right.
They moved on to the PACT Act, which would provide health care to veterans who were exposed to dangerous toxins from burn pits. The Senate shot the bill down, even though they voted for it in June. Cornyn said they want an amendment to "change a provision that has nothing to do with veterans' health care," because the Dems added a provision that's "designed to change government accounting rules, so that they can have a $400 billion spending spree."
Toomey said that the Rs are "fully accepting" the deficit will grow due to the PACT Act - "we accept that as a price we have to pay for people who serve the country." He objects to
a budgetary gimmick, a sleight of hand in accounting rules, that will allow totally unrelated spending of $400 billion over the next 10 years.
There was more discussion, where Toomey accused Dickerson of being "totally incorrect" in his assessment of Toomey's amendment; Dickerson said "it actually caps annual expenditures for the toxic fund. And after 10 years, it goes away." However, Toomey argued,
What it caps is how the government accounts for these transfers, but there is no cap on the amount of money that goes over. There is no cap on the total program. Look, if -- honest Democrats evaluating this will tell you, if my amendment passes, not a dime change in spending on veterans' programs. What changes is how the government accounts for it.
Dickerson noted Cornyn may be consistent on the deficit, but many of his colleagues aren't, and asked "why is it important to be fastidious when it comes to veterans, but less so when it comes to, say, supporting chip manufacturers?"
Because, John, once again, you're completely mischaracterizing this... most Republicans think we shouldn't loosen up the budget rules so that Democrats can go on a spending spree on things that have nothing to do with veterans' health care.
To which Dickerson responded,
Of course, Democrats have to be in charge in the future when that spending happens, and they may very well not be.
See you around campus.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!