It gives us seniors a bonus addition to standard deduction (meh).
It takes away qualified business income deduction for specified industries, like us tax preparers (and architects, health care, et al). That's a big downer for lots of small biz.
It raises the salt limit. I thought limiting state and local tax deducts to $10k was a good thing since it would heavily impact high tax blue states. That's a bigger subsidy to blue states.
It's loaded with too much spending, which is the biggest problem we have.
I submit the biggest problem we have is thirty million (or more) illegal aliens living within our borders, who collectively impose a net fiscal liability of $200-$300 billion dollars annually on our government and economy.
And that's just for starters. The cultural and political ravages may be even more devastating.
I wanted to add a separate comment of a more general nature. I've touched on this in the discussion about Musk's possible third-party effort, but it applies to legislation in general; and to reconciliation bills in specific, squared and cubed.
I spent nearly forty years in the National Capital Region, and I spent a good chunk of my time working for the Haze-Grey Navy as a contracting officer. I ran competitions when possible, and I negotiated many contracts--some in the hundreds of millions--with sole-source suppliers including Grumman, Hughes, Texas Instruments, Raytheon and General Dynamics. So...I'd humbly suggest I might know a thing or two about negotiations: one of the cornerstone principles of which is, "A successful negotiation is one in which all parties leave the table equally dissatisfied." Equally DISSATISFIED: let that sink in. No one walks away rubbing their hands unless the other side has massively screwed up.
Why is this relevant? Let's refresh our memories about the BBB. It passed the House--after some last-minute pushing and shoving--on a party-line vote of 215 to 214. That's ONE VOTE, folks. Absolutely zero slack. So, as I see it, that represents exactly the equilibrium implied above: everyone (on the winning side) got something, but no one got everything. Indeed everyone walked away feeling grumpy...but also pleased to have managed to pull together a winning bill.
Does this mean this is a perfect bill? Of course not, and anyone who claims otherwise is...well, let's just say...barkeep, I'll have what they're having.
Nor, of course, are we done: the Senate still has to weigh in, and--on the presumption that zero Democrats will get on board--that means the GOP has to hold all but three of its members: fifty votes for the bill, plus the Vice-President's tie-breaker vote. Is that gonna happen? Who knows. But it has to start somewhere, and this bill--this bloated, sloppy, budget-busting monstrosity of a bill...THIS IS IT.
Bitching and moaning, throwing shade, accusing the majority of engaging in bad behavior...why not? It's a free country. But at the end of the day--I'll say it again for emphasis--THIS. IS. IT. We fail here, and there will be no second chances. And the alternative is far worse, as I'd like to think the last four years have demonstrated.
So--to quote Barry Goldwater--"Let's grow up, conservatives!" Each journey starts with a single step: this will--I hope and pray--be that first step, as we undertake the Long March toward reclaiming the Republic.
I understand the argument, not least because it's one I've made myself many times over the past quarter century of my public commentary, first at Daily Pundit, and now at Substack. Although I have to admit it has palled on me somewhat as I grow older, and little ever improves, while the knife-edge we balance on grows ever more sharp. At some point I expect that edge to cut our nation in half - literally.
I fear you may be correct. I remember Newt Gingrich telling a story--I've never checked it, but it seems in character--about Joshua Chamberlain, then the President of Bowdoin College, hosting a visitor from the South in 1859.
Apparently they had a fine evening, a feast of wit and spirit as used to be said, in which a broad-ranging discussion was held, including the issues of the day.
The discussion was erudite and respectful, and afterward, Chamberlain is supposed to have mused that he had now lost faith in the possibility of a negotiated outcome to the impending crisis.
So you make an excellent point--and I get pretty frustrated too--but bear in mind, this is what it means to live in a democratic republic. To quote a great philosopher, "You can't always get what you want: but if you try sometimes...well, you might find you get what you need."
Heh. And that great philosopher ended up a tax refugee living in exile for more than three years until Margaret Thatcher rescued him with massive tax cuts. Of course, that resulted in Exile on Main Street, one of the greatest rock albums of all time, so it wasn’t all downside.
"Posts on X highlight some shady bits that deserve a closer look. Section 70302 allegedly limits courts’ contempt powers, which could undermine judicial oversight and violate separation of powers. Section 43201(c) reportedly bans states from passing AI election laws, potentially stomping on states’ rights. If true, these provisions show the GOP’s willingness to centralize power when it suits them, all while preaching “small government.” Hypocrisy, thy name is Congress. I think it says that in the Constitution somewhere."
Well, MY version of the Constitution explicitly assigns the power to shape the judiciary below the level of the Supreme Court to Congress; and even for the Supreme Court, it gives Congress power to regulate and even limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers assigned to the legislative branch, including the following: "...To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court..." I suppose one could argue that once constituted, Congress has no further say--what I think of as the "lobster-trap philosophy"--but pretty much all the Constitutional scholars I know agree that Congress has the power to regulate the courts below.
Article III, Section 2: "[Lengthy enumeration of SC's jurisdiction omitted] ... In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. *In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.* [emphasis added]"
As can be seen in the final part of this paragraph, Congress can ultimately say yea or nay to the SC's power to hear and adjudicate cases under their appellate jurisdiction--in practice, almost all of their workload and the part that involves Constitutional issues.
You can criticize what's in the bill all you like, but--at least based on your descriptions--the parts dealing with the Federal courts are squarely inside the lines. The fact that Congress rarely if ever exercises this power does not invalidate its existence.
It gives us seniors a bonus addition to standard deduction (meh).
It takes away qualified business income deduction for specified industries, like us tax preparers (and architects, health care, et al). That's a big downer for lots of small biz.
It raises the salt limit. I thought limiting state and local tax deducts to $10k was a good thing since it would heavily impact high tax blue states. That's a bigger subsidy to blue states.
It's loaded with too much spending, which is the biggest problem we have.
I submit the biggest problem we have is thirty million (or more) illegal aliens living within our borders, who collectively impose a net fiscal liability of $200-$300 billion dollars annually on our government and economy.
And that's just for starters. The cultural and political ravages may be even more devastating.
I wanted to add a separate comment of a more general nature. I've touched on this in the discussion about Musk's possible third-party effort, but it applies to legislation in general; and to reconciliation bills in specific, squared and cubed.
I spent nearly forty years in the National Capital Region, and I spent a good chunk of my time working for the Haze-Grey Navy as a contracting officer. I ran competitions when possible, and I negotiated many contracts--some in the hundreds of millions--with sole-source suppliers including Grumman, Hughes, Texas Instruments, Raytheon and General Dynamics. So...I'd humbly suggest I might know a thing or two about negotiations: one of the cornerstone principles of which is, "A successful negotiation is one in which all parties leave the table equally dissatisfied." Equally DISSATISFIED: let that sink in. No one walks away rubbing their hands unless the other side has massively screwed up.
Why is this relevant? Let's refresh our memories about the BBB. It passed the House--after some last-minute pushing and shoving--on a party-line vote of 215 to 214. That's ONE VOTE, folks. Absolutely zero slack. So, as I see it, that represents exactly the equilibrium implied above: everyone (on the winning side) got something, but no one got everything. Indeed everyone walked away feeling grumpy...but also pleased to have managed to pull together a winning bill.
Does this mean this is a perfect bill? Of course not, and anyone who claims otherwise is...well, let's just say...barkeep, I'll have what they're having.
Nor, of course, are we done: the Senate still has to weigh in, and--on the presumption that zero Democrats will get on board--that means the GOP has to hold all but three of its members: fifty votes for the bill, plus the Vice-President's tie-breaker vote. Is that gonna happen? Who knows. But it has to start somewhere, and this bill--this bloated, sloppy, budget-busting monstrosity of a bill...THIS IS IT.
Bitching and moaning, throwing shade, accusing the majority of engaging in bad behavior...why not? It's a free country. But at the end of the day--I'll say it again for emphasis--THIS. IS. IT. We fail here, and there will be no second chances. And the alternative is far worse, as I'd like to think the last four years have demonstrated.
So--to quote Barry Goldwater--"Let's grow up, conservatives!" Each journey starts with a single step: this will--I hope and pray--be that first step, as we undertake the Long March toward reclaiming the Republic.
I understand the argument, not least because it's one I've made myself many times over the past quarter century of my public commentary, first at Daily Pundit, and now at Substack. Although I have to admit it has palled on me somewhat as I grow older, and little ever improves, while the knife-edge we balance on grows ever more sharp. At some point I expect that edge to cut our nation in half - literally.
I fear you may be correct. I remember Newt Gingrich telling a story--I've never checked it, but it seems in character--about Joshua Chamberlain, then the President of Bowdoin College, hosting a visitor from the South in 1859.
Apparently they had a fine evening, a feast of wit and spirit as used to be said, in which a broad-ranging discussion was held, including the issues of the day.
The discussion was erudite and respectful, and afterward, Chamberlain is supposed to have mused that he had now lost faith in the possibility of a negotiated outcome to the impending crisis.
So you make an excellent point--and I get pretty frustrated too--but bear in mind, this is what it means to live in a democratic republic. To quote a great philosopher, "You can't always get what you want: but if you try sometimes...well, you might find you get what you need."
Heh. And that great philosopher ended up a tax refugee living in exile for more than three years until Margaret Thatcher rescued him with massive tax cuts. Of course, that resulted in Exile on Main Street, one of the greatest rock albums of all time, so it wasn’t all downside.
"Posts on X highlight some shady bits that deserve a closer look. Section 70302 allegedly limits courts’ contempt powers, which could undermine judicial oversight and violate separation of powers. Section 43201(c) reportedly bans states from passing AI election laws, potentially stomping on states’ rights. If true, these provisions show the GOP’s willingness to centralize power when it suits them, all while preaching “small government.” Hypocrisy, thy name is Congress. I think it says that in the Constitution somewhere."
Well, MY version of the Constitution explicitly assigns the power to shape the judiciary below the level of the Supreme Court to Congress; and even for the Supreme Court, it gives Congress power to regulate and even limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers assigned to the legislative branch, including the following: "...To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court..." I suppose one could argue that once constituted, Congress has no further say--what I think of as the "lobster-trap philosophy"--but pretty much all the Constitutional scholars I know agree that Congress has the power to regulate the courts below.
Article III, Section 2: "[Lengthy enumeration of SC's jurisdiction omitted] ... In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. *In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.* [emphasis added]"
As can be seen in the final part of this paragraph, Congress can ultimately say yea or nay to the SC's power to hear and adjudicate cases under their appellate jurisdiction--in practice, almost all of their workload and the part that involves Constitutional issues.
You can criticize what's in the bill all you like, but--at least based on your descriptions--the parts dealing with the Federal courts are squarely inside the lines. The fact that Congress rarely if ever exercises this power does not invalidate its existence.