The Jeb Bush tax plan: It’s time ‘to let the big dog eat’

fat-dog-1-boxer

In explaining his new tax proposals, which feature massive tax cuts for the rich and for corporate America, Jeb Bush told voters in North Carolina Wednesday that it’s time “to let the big dog eat.”

I happened to be watching live when he said it, and I was stunned at how tone deaf the statement was. While the economy has its long-term issues, I don’t believe that a shortage of food for the big dogs is among them. To the contrary, “the big dogs” have seldom been so fat and sassy.

Corporate after-tax profits — let me stress that “after-tax” part — are at an all-time high. The share of the economy ending up in the paychecks of working Americans is at or near an all-time low for the almost 70 years in which we have data.  The share of our national income going to the richest 1 percent is now at levels not seen since before the Great Depression, which conversely means that the share going to the 99 percent is at its lowest point since before the Great Depression.

“We need to let the big dog eat”?

wealthgap288

To be both fair and accurate, Bush’s plan does cut taxes for almost everybody. He would double the standard exemption and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit for lower-income families, exempting an additional 15 million households from paying income tax. According to his website, “More than 42 million middle-class families will get a 33 percent cut in their income tax rate, and a family of four earning less than $40,000 will face no federal income tax whatsoever.” That’s all well and good, although I’m dubious about the willingness of congressional Republicans to go along with such a program.

However, the big dog’s share of the Jeb tax cuts undoubtedly go to the big dogs. The tax rate charged to the wealthiest of Americans would drop from 39.6 percent (now imposed on income above $413,201) to 28 percent. The capital gains tax on investment income would be slashed. The estate tax — currently charged on just two of every 1,000 estates — would be dropped altogether. The corporate income tax rate would drop from 35 percent to 20 percent, and the tax on overseas profits would be dropped altogether.  According to an analysis by The New York Times, changes in the income tax alone would give a taxpayer earning $10 million or more an average tax cut of $1.5 million.

And where is all this money going to come from? Will kibble for the big dogs just fall down out of the sky?

An analysis by Bush’s own team of economists acknowledges that if scored by traditional, straight-forward accounting methods, his plan would increase the deficit by $3.4 trillion in its first decade, on top of already anticipated deficits. However, a Bush spokesman dismissed that approach as “antiquated” and “irrelevant, except to partisan liberals who think that we can tax our way to prosperity.”  Instead, after accounting for all the growth that the plan is sure to generate, they estimate its true revenue impact at $1.2 trillion.

As we know, however, such trickle-down projections simply do not come true. They haven’t come true in Kansas, and they certainly didn’t come true when Jeb’s brother made very similar promises about his own tax cuts. ** It’s mumbo jumbo.

But let’s play the game for a moment. Let’s accept the lower but still substantial estimate of $1.2 trillion in reduced federal revenue. Where’s it going to come from? Jeb is already on record as proposing considerably higher military spending, so that’s off the table. In its analysis, the Bush economics team proposes instead to finance their tax cuts with unspecified “entitlement reform” — meaning significant cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.

In short, we’ll be financing tax cuts for the rich by cutting social programs, at a time in our history when the rich have never been doing better and a lot of Americans are still struggling. And why? Because “we need to let the big dog eat.”

————————

** Back in 2001, President George W. Bush promised that using “extremely conservative” growth assumptions, his proposed tax cuts would so invigorate the economy that the country would produce a budget surplus of $5.6 trillion over the next decade and be able to “retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years… the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time.”

But the promised growth did not occur, the surpluses vanished and instead huge deficits returned. Instead of the projected surplus of $5.6 trillion, we got deficits of $6.1 trillion, a swing of $11.7 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office.

 

 

Reader Comments 0

1075 comments
Citizen-of-the-World
Citizen-of-the-World

Late to the posting party, but didn't Jeb mean "the fat cat"?


(Someone may have beat me to this observation -- if so, my apologies!)

Peachs
Peachs

Too big to fail, too white to fail, too dumb for prime time!!


McGarnagle
McGarnagle

Damn Steelers. Tom Brady took them to the cleaners. And going up against Gronk in fantasy football and he got 3 TDs. Wait ... what blog is this

skydog12
skydog12

How does this campaigning work? You can pay yourself from your donations right? Is there a limit you can pay yourself?


No wonder none of the dudes have dropped out?

td1234
td1234

@skydog12 I do not think you can actually pay yourself. You can pay family working for the campaign and you can pay for all your expenses incurred while campaigning. 

skydog12
skydog12

@td1234 @skydog12


OK thanks. I`ll google. I wonder how much you can pay family? Can you rent the space shuttle and write it off?


Like I said, these guys are not going to be around long if the money is not good.

skydog12
skydog12

@td1234


Interesting.


Can candidates pay themselves a salary from these funds while campaigning?

Yes, in some cases. According to rules from the Federal Election Commission (PDF), candidates who meet certain criteria can receive a salary from their campaign committees. It won't be a raise from their last job, though, since the amount can't exceed either their earnings from the previous year or the minimum annual salary of the office they seek—whichever is less. (In the case of the presidency, the salary is $400,000.) They're paid on a pro-rata basis, so a candidate who drops out of the race after six months can pay himself only half of this annual salary. 

But many presidential candidates don't qualify. One reason is that the FEC bars incumbent officeholders in the presidency, Senate, and House of Representatives from drawing salaries as candidates in addition to their in-office salaries, so this applies to Ron Paul, Barack Obama, Dennis Kucinich, and others. The rationale behind the regulation is to make it easier for not-so-wealthy newcomers who don't already hold these public offices to quit their jobs and run for office full-time, thereby giving them more of a fair shot against incumbents.

td1234
td1234

@skydog12 That is interesting and I did not know it. Nice find. 


If I am reading the regulations correctly, Trump, Hillary, Carson, Jeb Carley, both Rick's, Huck and George are eligible to pay themselves up to $400,000 to campaign for the next year out of campaign funds. 


For Trump, Hillary, Jeb and Carley the rules are not intended for them to be able to survive while campaigning full time. 

skydog12
skydog12

@td1234 @skydog12


I think we both knew we were getting screwed, but we didn`t know how big. Looks like it`s a John Holmes. 


These lesser candidates don`t even have to go anywhere, except to the mailbox for your check. If you can pay your family too, those Duggers may break even the Super PAC

td1234
td1234

@skydog12 It is not tax payer money until a candidate decides to accept matching funds in a general election so the taxpayer is not getting hosed until then but it would be interesting if the public actually knew that some of these people are only out to collect a paycheck. 


I think it is wrong for Senators and House members to be able to campaign for President and still get their paychecks when they do not show up to vote. To me that is a bigger scandal. I think they should resign first if they want to run for another office. 

ByteMe
ByteMe

@skydog12 They won't drop out until their billionaire sugar-daddy tells them to.

JKLtwo
JKLtwo

@Kamchak Hillary 12.0 is sooo much more spontaneous than those old Hillaries....

breckenridge
breckenridge

Ben Carson has caught on with social conservatives.  So you know won't be getting the nomination.

gotalife
gotalife

walker positions change daily..

breckenridge
breckenridge

Hey TD will you be discussing your failed immigration policy this evening?

RantNRave
RantNRave

"Why do you love terrorists?"


Philo-Farnsworth


The bigger question is:


Why do you cons love people like Donald "The Chump" Trump ?


He is as dangerous as a terrorist !

LeninTime
LeninTime

 Union knows who isn't donating. Union tells members who isn't donating. Those who don't donate don't get better jobs, find their cubicles located next to the men's room, suffer keyed cars and flat tires in the parking lot, etc.

That's how unions roll. 

**

In other words they just pass on the tactics of the bosses. 

Brosephus
Brosephus

@LeninTime 

I wouldn't buy that fecal matter if I were you LT.  When it comes to my workplace, nobody would know your union status without you telling it.  It's not mandatory to join, and you still get to reap the benefits negotiated by the union without having to pay for those negotiations.  

I think that's what some conservatives call "mooching" or "freeloading".  It's perfectly okay though, when it involves unions.

RantNRave
RantNRave

"That's how unions roll.....Been there, done that."


Philo-Farnsworth


Don't blame it on the union..........sounds like nobody liked you.


You just had too many enemies.

RantNRave
RantNRave

"Walker is willing to take on union thuggery. Sounds like a man of the people."


Philo-Farnsworth


Sounds like a "bully" against the people.


Toughness is not being a bully.

Brosephus
Brosephus

LOL!!!  Seems that, if elected, Scott Walker wants to take on federal unions...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/10/scott-walker-unions-alec-political-activities

In an attempt to kickstart his flagging campaign, Walker, who made his name nationally by taking on Wisconsin’s public sector unions, has come up with a new union-bashing ruse. In a speech on Thursday at the alma mater of his hero Ronald Reagan, Eureka College in Illinois, he pledged to destroy the political activities of federal employee unions by blocking their political funding.

Vowing to “wreak havoc on Washington” – his new campaign mantra – Walker said that on his first day in the White House he would force the unions to disclose how much of their dues they were spending on political activities.

He would also put an end to the federal government practice of holding back a portion of union dues from workers’ paychecks for that purpose.

Just like the typical Republican candidate for this particular election.  He opens his mouth to spout what his campaign donors want him to say, not realizing how effin' stupid he looks. 

Federal unions cannot spend a penny of union dues for political purposes.  That is already existing law.  Federal unions also cannot withhold money from a worker's check for dues without their consent, and the unions cannot withhold money for political purposes without the worker signing up to donate for political purposes.

My union:  http://www.nteu.org/

NTEU's PAC:  https://www.nteu.org/tepac.aspx

Why is TEPAC necessary?

TEPAC is the political arm of NTEU and is extremely important to our legislative program. TEPAC allows NTEU to support members of Congress who work to protect and defend the rights of federal employee and retirees. TEPAC also helps to defeat members of Congress who are not supportive of NTEU’s causes. Read about TEPAC in the NTEU Bulletin.

Why doesn't NTEU use some of my dues money to make a political contribution?

Federal law prohibits NTEU from using union dues money for political contributions. TEPAC relies on voluntary contributions. 

If you don't want money going to political purposes, then you don't sign up to donate money to TEPAC.  It's just that simple.  How anyone can consider voting for people who can't click on a website or two to realize their plan is a complete and utter waste of time?  No wonder Republicans think government is broken...  They can't friggin' govern.

Philo_Farnsworth
Philo_Farnsworth

Join the real world, will ya?

Union knows who isn't donating. Union tells members who isn't donating. Those who don't donate don't get better jobs, find their cubicles located next to the men's room, suffer keyed cars and flat tires in the parking lot, etc.

That's how unions roll.

Been there, done that.

Brosephus
Brosephus

@Kamchak 

Yep.  Sad case, but I'm not surprised at all given his track record here.

Brosephus
Brosephus

@Philo_Farnsworth 

LOL!!!!  You and td both are vying to be the Cal Ripken Jr of Wrong at Bookman's.

I like your posts though as they make me laugh.

Philo_Farnsworth
Philo_Farnsworth

Walker is willing to take on union thuggery.

Sounds like a man of the people.

Brosephus
Brosephus

@Philo_Farnsworth 

He's taking on thin air.  The things that he claims that he will do are already in place.  Sounds like you were the sucker for the minute you were born.

Just too gullible for me...

skydog12
skydog12

@Brosephus @Philo_Farnsworth


Sounds like the Ga legislature. They agreed to let Uber stay in Ga ONLY if Uber had insurance equal to cabs, drivers had to have background checks, and DMV checks.


Uber already had these in place 6 months earlier, but the pols got to take credit for protecting the citizens. 

goat diddler
goat diddler

He's gonna have a busy first day... bombing Iran, decimating the unions...

The guy needs to learn to pace himself, stretch it out, enjoy it a little...don't be in such a rush..

Derp...

Kamchak
Kamchak

@Brosephus 

How anyone can consider voting for people who can't click on a website or two to realize their plan is a complete and utter waste of time?

It's bait for the gullible, and it looks like he already has at least one of our regulars on the hook.

ByteMe
ByteMe

@Kamchak He builds giant buildings with God's name on them.

Oh, wait........

goat diddler
goat diddler

It's amazing how much wingnuts have in common with terrurists...

Derp...

Philo_Farnsworth
Philo_Farnsworth

After that was declared, the Iranians chanted "death to America."

goat diddler
goat diddler

While the wingnuts chanted "death to Iran."

Derp...

goat diddler
goat diddler

"This has to be cheaper than what it cost the world today?"

Our hearty band of wingnuts are more than happy to pay THAT bill in blood and treasure.

Others blood, of course...

Derp...

Normd
Normd

I'll take in a refugee family...I need a new gardener, maid, and butler...yuk, yuk...

goat diddler
goat diddler

My experience with those who feel the need to constantly tell you what great financial managers they are, how much money they have, how far they ran tonight, how much their wife loves them, how successful they are, how many businesses they have, how many guns they have, how godly they are, how big their peni$ is, etc... are usually prone to exaggeration outwardly trying to compensate for lack of all of these things. And they're usually really short...

I just like to pat them on their little head and tell them "bless your heart"...

Derp...

skydog12
skydog12

@foo2u


Could be since those scientologist want rich folks and our cons, by their accounts, are old money.

skydog12
skydog12

@foo2u


Unless the cons are using reverse psychology? Nah, you have to know psychology before you can reverse it.

goat diddler
goat diddler

The wingnuts that live here are so slow and gullible I'm guessing they're all scientologists...

Derp...