Rarely do we see businesses, small or large, voluntarily abandon a tax credit. When those tax credits are used to help low-income and inner-city kids escape failing schools and find a pathway to success, it’s even more surprising.
Several days before President Donald Trump called on Congress during his State of the Union Address to pass legislation providing a million students with an opportunity scholarships, the Orlando Sentinel published a lengthy investigative <a href="https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/education/os-ne-voucher-schools-lgbtq-discriminate-20200123-s5ue4nvqybcgrbrxov5hcb46a4-htmlstory.html">article</a> detailing how corporations support these low-income families by way of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program. Pushing more of an ideological agenda than straight reporting, the Sentinel suggests that the use of these funds by many religious schools is meant to be “anti-gay.”
I went to one of the school (whose mascot, ironically, happens to share a name with the Sentinel) on the list. My parents sent me to Christian school because they believed no education was complete without a thorough understanding of the Bible. If you’ve never been to one of the schools on the list, let me tell you what you will find there.
First, you will see students from every corner of America represented: Black, white, Hispanic, rich, poor, middle income. As a fifth grader, when I started attending Evangelical Christian School in Fort Myers, Florida, it struck me as completely ordinary that my classmates looked pretty much the same as any room I ever entered in America. Selma, my friend of Indian-American descent, was just Selma. We played football together during recess and tried not to get in trouble during lunchtime.
My school was very disciplined, growing out of a religious conservative tradition that valued respect for elders and one another. We stood to answer questions when called upon. We did not talk during the lunch hour or in the hallways. We wore uniforms. Mrs. Dunn, the headmistress, was feared by all, but it was clear she cared for her students.
And there was chapel and prayer and Bible study. In fact, by the time I got to high school, we had an entire class period dedicated to Bible. It was insightful: We studied not only the Scriptures that formed the basis of our faith, but also learned to appreciate and respect the differences of our faith with that of others&#8217; faith.
Of course, we also studied math, science, literature, and the rest. Each class had a distinctive approach of not only mastering the subject at hand, but evaluating what our Christian worldview had to say about it. Before every baseball practice, Coach Kieffer would lead the team in a brief devotion drawn from the Bible and pray for us. I respected that man for his commitment to “the Man in the chair,” an empty chair meant to remind us that God is ever present, a help in time of need.
Florida’s tax scholarship program came about after I was out of school. Thanks to the Sentinel (the newspaper, not our mascot), I know that my alma mater receives scholarships through the Florida Tax Credit program to assist students to attend school. I believe there are families who have always wished to send their kids to a school that unashamedly teaches according to the Christian tradition but, for financial reasons, never could afford to do so.
But because of this newspaper article, fewer low-income families will have that choice. Wells Fargo, Wyndham Vacation Properties, Fifth Third Bank, and others <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/third-company-pulls-florida-voucher-donations-over-anti-gay-school-n1126686">pulled their funding</a>. (Fifth Third, perhaps realizing the error, <a href="https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/07/fifth-third-continue-funding-scholarships-anti-lbgtq-florida-schools/4691279002/">reversed that decision</a>). Activists are hard at work trying to convince Waste Management, and others, to do the same.
Rather than let inner-city kids or low-income families from the rural areas of Acadia and Belle Glade pursue private education that meets the needs of their children, they would cancel their scholarship to score “woke” points with the Left. It’s a shame.
In 2018-19, over 104,000 students received scholarships because of this program.  The typical <a href="https://www.stepupforstudents.org/research-and-reports/">student</a> receiving the scholarship lives at the poverty line (roughly $29,000), has only one parent in the home, and struggles academically. Sixty-eight percent of them are Africa-American or Hispanic.
Wells Fargo, Wyndham, and others are literally taking money away from poverty-stricken, minority children and the Left is praising them for doing so. Why? In their mind (and that of the Sentinel), it is less risky to a child’s future to live in poverty, with one parent in the home, and continue to struggle academically than attend a Christian school.
Such hostility toward religion should have no place in Florida, the news room, or a corner office. Businesses are welcome to forgo whatever tax credits they want. If they want to pay more in taxes, I suppose we cannot stop them. Still, they should understand that the price of appeasing the Sentinel and other ideologues is a low-income child’s future.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Human hand placed on the Bible, pray to God.

DYS: Pulling Scholarship Funds Punishes Low-Income Children

Bible

Christianity

Congress

Donald Trump

Florida

Homosexuality

Leftism

LGBT

Media Bias

Progressivism

Vice President Mike Pence told Fox Business on Friday that Republicans have big plans on several key issues that they are working on unveiling in 2020, ahead of the upcoming election, that will hopefully seal the deal on getting President Donald Trump re-elected.
When asked by Fox Business host Stuart Varney if tax cuts 2.0 were coming, Pence responded, &#8220;Oh, they’re absolutely coming.&#8221;
&#8220;I expect we’ll be talking about that before this election year is out,&#8221; Pence responded. &#8220;It’s one of the reasons why we’re going to focus so much energy on making sure that not only do we get President Donald Trump four more years in this White House, but we’re going to make sure that we reelect a Republican Senate and elect a Republican House of Representatives.&#8221;
&#8220;Stuart, you were there every step of the way,&#8221; Pence continued. &#8220;You saw the incredible progress we made when we had a Republican majority in the Senate and a Republican majority in the House.&#8221;
Pence highlighted four key issues that Republicans were going to focus on unveiling plans for ahead of the 2020 elections.
Pence said, &#8220;We’re going to lay out our vision on tax reform, on healthcare, on infrastructure, on prescription drugs, and we’re going to go out there and fight every day, as I said, to get this president four more years but also to make sure that we have Republican allies in the majority in the Congress to help us bring it about.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe title="Pence: It&#039;s remarkable to see the disarray in the Democrat party" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lNeVRfadmYM?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
TRANSCRIPT:
<blockquote>STUART VARNEY, VARNEY &amp; CO. HOST: And here is the president of the united &#8212; Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence. Almost got it wrong there, Mr. Vice President, but we’re glad you’re with us.
MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you, Stuart. Great to be with you.
VARNEY: What’s the move &#8212;
(CROSSTALK)
PENCE: It’s a great week for America and a great week for President Donald Trump.
VARNEY: Are you guys doing high fives in the White House? What’s the mood?
PENCE: Well, as I said, I mean, in that State of the Union address on Tuesday night, the president focused on the American people, the incredible progress that we’ve made. This is a blue collar boom, more than seven million jobs created. The jobs report that came out today, another 225,000 jobs. The wages are rising most rapidly for hardworking blue collar Americans. Add to that, we’ve rebuilt our military, standing tall in the world, standing &#8212;
VARNEY: It’s impressive.
PENCE: &#8212; standing with our allies, standing up to our enemies.
VARNEY: Yes.
PENCE: Strong conservatives through our courts, the president’s acquittal, and now &#8212; and now ending the week confirming that Americans are winning like never before, and it’s thanks to the leadership of President Donald Trump.
VARNEY: Now, I have to tell you, Mr. Vice President, that Speaker Pelosi says there’s no blue collar boom and that President Trump did nothing for the economy. Your response, please?
PENCE: Well, it really is remarkable the Democrats are actually out arguing against an economy that is expanding all across this country. You know, Stuart, I travel on a very regular basis and I have working Americans coming up to me every day talking about the fact that they got more money in their pockets, their kids are able to find jobs when they come out of school, and that’s all confirmed in the January jobs report again today.
I mean, I have to tell you, I mean, one of the numbers that is most exciting, and it’ll be exciting to your viewers, is the labor participation rate continues to rise. I mean, literally where we saw the economy under the last administration, an administration that tried to tax and regulate and bail us back to a growing economy, thanks to the president’s agenda of less taxes, less regulation, free and fair trade, unleashing American energy, now we see three &#8212; you know, three and half million Americans have come back into the workforce and even more in the report that came out today, and wages are rising across the board rapidly but most rapidly for hardworking blue collar Americans.
I mean, if Democrats want to argue against this economy, we’ll make that argument every day between now and November. And it’s just going to be one more reason why we get four more years from President Donald Trump in the White House.
VARNEY: Forgive me, sir, but I want to go back to the State of the Union message and Speaker Pelosi standing there ripping up the four pages of the president’s speech. Now, you were standing right there. You appeared very stoic. I didn’t see much change of expression on your face. What we’re you thinking when you saw the speaker rip up the speech?
PENCE: Stuart, I honestly didn’t see her do it. I was focused where the president was, and that was out on the ovations and the crowd and in the gallery. I was enjoying looking up at the inspiring Americans that he had introduced to the country.
But I must tell you, when I learned moments later that she had literally torn up the president’s State of the Union address on national television, I thought it was a new low &#8212; a new low for a Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.
And I’ll also tell you, you know, the contrast between President Trump’s State of the Union address that he made all about America, all about the American people and the progress that we have all made under his leadership and having Speaker Nancy Pelosi try to make it about her, I think it tells you all you need to know about this radical leftist Democratic Party which seems to never seize any opportunity &#8212;
VARNEY: I agree, yes.
PENCE: &#8212; to try and distract from the extraordinary progress that the American people have made under the leadership of President Donald Trump.
VARNEY: The aftermath of impeachment and the aftermath of ripping up the speech is President Trump getting personal and saying that Speaker Pelosi is a horrible person and appearing to question her faith and her prayer.
Do you want to get involved in that kind of personal tit for tat or do you want to stay out of it?
PENCE: Well look, the American people know what’s going on here. My wife was in New Hampshire last night, and she heard from a lot of great folks that turned out for a Keep America Great rally, how much they appreciate all this president has endured over the last three years.
I mean, when you think about the progress we’ve made, rebuilding our military, reviving our economy, strengthening our liberties with conservatives on our courts, America respected in the world again, it’s important to remember that every day since our inauguration day Democrats have been trying to overturn the results of the last election. It was two and a half years of the Russia collusion hoax until the Justice Department found no collusion, no obstruction, case closed.
And then it seemed like it was just a matter of weeks, Stuart, before all of a sudden over a phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine we were back on the impeachment express and the sham investigation followed by a partisan impeachment.
It was just a great moment this week when we saw the United States Senate vote to acquit the President of the United States of America. It’s over, and I don’t think any American would begrudge the president’s strong feelings about those who have spent so much energy in the last three years trying to stop him and this administration from turning this country around.
VARNEY: I want to turn to the virus, the Coronavirus.
PENCE: Right.
VARNEY: A ship doctor &#8212; cruise ship doctor in New Jersey this morning, two plane loads of American evacuees arrive &#8212; are supposed to arrive in California shortly. I just want your assessment of how we, America, has dealt so far with this virus?
PENCE: Well, President Trump took decisive and unprecedented action cancelling air flights, limiting access to this country from people coming from China now a week ago, and we continue to believe that the threat to the American public is low. That being said, we had meetings yesterday in the Oval Office with the CDC officials. The president spoke to President Xi last night.
Look, our hearts break for the people of China and the loss of life in the wake of this Coronavirus, and what the president made clear to President Xi is the United States is ready, willing, and able to work through the World Health Organization to provide assistance as they &#8212; as they get this Coronavirus under control.
But the American people can be confident President Trump is going to continue to put the health and safety of this country first, and the decisive action he’s taken to date we believe continues to keep us in a posture where the threat to the American people is low but we’re going to remain vigilant and remain aggressive to keep it that way.
VARNEY: Would you mind if I did a quick lighting round? OK, I’m going to do it.
Sorry about that, Mr. Vice President. First of all, Joe Biden?
PENCE: You know, candidly it is remarkable to see the disarray in the Democratic Party and that to see that what I think Bernie Sanders actually called it a mitigated disaster for their party &#8212;
(CROSSTALK)
VARNEY: OK.
PENCE: &#8212; in Iowa. Look, Iowa’s a great state. They’re great people, but obviously Joe Biden’s showing in the Iowa caucuses just tells you this is a party that more and more reflects the radical Democrats in the Congress of the United States, and we think that’s going to continue to propel and confuse their nominating process.
VARNEY: Mike Bloomberg.
PENCE: You know, honestly it’s hard for us to see the appeal of that candidacy. I mean, the American people know that we’ve got a president in the White House, an accomplished business leader who brought what he likes to call the American model to bear on reviving the American economy. I don’t think they’re going to be drawn to a business leader that’s interested in more taxes, more regulation, and taking us back to the failed policies of the past.
VARNEY: Tax cuts 2.0, are they coming?
PENCE: Oh, they’re absolutely coming. I expect we’ll be talking about that before this election year is out. It’s one of the reasons why we’re going to focus so much energy on making sure that not only do we get President Donald Trump four more years in this White House, but we’re going to make sure that we reelect a Republican Senate and elect a Republican House of Representatives.
Stuart, you were there every step of the way. You saw the incredible progress we made when we had a Republican majority in the Senate and a Republican majority in the House. We’re going to lay out our vision on tax reform, on healthcare, on infrastructure, on prescription drugs, and we’re going to go out there and fight every day, as I said, to get this president four more years but also to make sure that we have Republican allies in the majority in the Congress to help us bring it about.
VARNEY: I got to point out, Mr. Vice President, that Speaker Pelosi gave all the credit for the market and the economy to President Obama. Lighting response to that?
PENCE: It’s just &#8212; you know, honestly it is amazing to think that the last administration that tried to tax and spend and regulate us back to a growing economy resulting in less than two percent growth for eight years &#8212; the slowest economic recovery since the Great Recession &#8212; now can look at this booming American economy. More than seven million jobs created, wages rising, and think they had anything to do with it.
I mean, the American people know what the president said in the State of the Union was true that if he &#8212; if President Donald Trump had not been elected to the White House, if we hadn’t had allies in Congress willing to cut taxes, rollback regulation, unleash American energy, and fight for the kind of free and fair trade that you see in the USMCA, in the phase one China deal, this country would be in a very, very different place. We’d still be struggling economically as we were in the last administration, and the American people know better. They know this economy is booming. It’s a blue collar boom, and they know the credit goes to President Donald Trump.
VARNEY: Mr. Vice President Mike Pence, thank you very much for being with us, sir. Appreciate it.
PENCE: Thank you, Stuart. Good to be with you.
VARNEY: See you soon. Thank you very much.</blockquote>

President Trump Hosts Keep America Great Rally

Mike Pence: Expect GOP To Unveil Plans On 4 Key Issues In 2020 Ahead Of Elections

Fox Business Channel

Mike Pence

Taxes

The New York Times editorial board, which claims to be “a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values,” appears to have deliberately mislead readers on the effects of President Donald Trump’s tax cuts.
Wednesday’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/opinion/trump-tax-cut.html?smtyp=cur&amp;smid=tw-nytopinion">editorial</a>, titled “There’s No Such Thing as a Free Tax Cut,” completely ignores the fact that tax revenue increased after the tax cuts were passed and blames the tax cuts when it should be blaming government spending.
Entrepreneur and best-selling author Carol Roth took the editorial board to task for its claims, writing on Twitter that the opinion article was “Incredibly misleading.”
“With the tax cuts, ‘revenue’ was up 4% &#8211; we collected more taxes w the cuts,” she <a href="https://twitter.com/caroljsroth/status/1220215170041024512?s=11">tweeted</a>. “The problem is increased spending- which is a huge problem that I have written on/talked about extensively- but should not be conflated w receipts.”
In a follow-up tweet, Roth explained that “while our population has grown 15% since 2001, Govt spending has grown 137%.”
The Times’ editorial board predictably leaves out any mention of how much revenue was brought in after the tax cuts, something one would expect to see in an article claiming the tax cuts weren’t helpful. Instead, the Times’ claims it was a “risible fantasy” for Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to claim that the tax cuts would bolster economic growth, when the Times believes the government lost money by lowering taxes.
This is the Leftist premise on tax cuts on the whole: All your money belongs to the government, so anything you are allowed to keep costs the government. Therefore, tax cuts are bad for the government.
The problem, as always, is that the government continues to spend more than it brings in. Despite Republicans’ constant complaining during the Obama administration, the annual federal budget deficit is now over $1 trillion even though until early 2019, the GOP controlled the White House, Senate, and the House of Representatives.
The Times goes on to claim the tax cuts “were designed to provide the largest benefits to wealthy households and big companies.” As with any tax cut, the people who pay the most in taxes (the wealthy and large corporations) are going to get the largest cut. The Times then harps on Trump for predicting economic growth would reach 6% a year. That may not have happened, but the U.S. Real GDP growth rate under Trump has consistently been over 2%, approaching 3% at the end of 2017.
The Times simply fails to provide evidence counter to its claims that tax hikes are better than tax cuts. It even bemoans the alleged exacerbation of “economic inequality” created by the tax cuts, which, again, are going to be higher for people who pay more in taxes.
The Times tries to claim the tax cuts were akin to Keynesian stimulus, even though that kind of stimulus actually costs the government money, while tax cuts allow citizens to keep more of their own money.
The Times may want their readers to believe the tax cuts hurt the economy and the country, but real Americans saw more money in their pockets throughout the year, allowing them to spend more and feel more secure about their own budget.

President Trump

New York Times Editorial Board Predictably Misleads Readers About Trump Tax Cuts

New York Times

This week, Elizabeth Warren unveiled a plan to &#8220;cancel&#8221; billions of dollars worth of student loans without involving Congress. She <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/796329598/cancelling-student-debt-is-easier-than-it-sounds">believes</a> a legal loophole may allow her to erase the debt with the stroke of her pen, no questions asked.
The most obvious problem with exploiting this loophole is that it probably <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-elizabeth-warren-cancel-student-loan-debt-on-day-one-not-quite/">doesn&#8217;t actually exist</a>. The next most obvious problem is that this would represent a seismic expansion of executive power, which would be ironic given all of the concern among Democrats that Trump wants to be a dictator.
But there are two even larger and more fundamental issues with any plan to cancel student loans. First,  there is no such thing as &#8220;canceling&#8221; student loans. What various Democratic candidates have proposed are plans to transfer, not cancel, the outstanding debt of millions of college graduates. They wish to remove the burden of the loans from the people who agreed to the loans and have received their degrees in exchange for it, and place that burden on the shoulders of people who did not agree to the loan and did not receive anything in exchange for it. Student debt will still be paid; we would just be taking the funds from someone else&#8217;s pocket.
Even under Warren&#8217;s magic wand proposal, the debt will still certainly land at someone&#8217;s doorstep and become their problem. If you think the federal government would ever in a million years choose, out of the kindness of its heart, to simply eat a $1.5 trillion dollar loss without recouping the funds elsewhere, I&#8217;ve got an invisible unicorn to sell you. The taxpayers will be footing the bill, one way or another. Of that much we can be sure.
The more feasible plans would supposedly see the loans transferred from college graduates to the dreaded &#8220;ultra rich.&#8221; I&#8217;ve got another unicorn to sell if you think the government is going to recover that full amount solely from billionaire CEOs. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that an initiative of this scope and size will inevitably involve tax hikes on everyone, no matter what they tell us now. But even putting that aside, rich people are still people, last I checked. We still have to deal, ethically, with the fact that we&#8217;d be requiring private citizens to pay back loans they didn&#8217;t take out, for a product they didn&#8217;t purchase. Defend that morally dubious model all you want, but don&#8217;t call it cancellation or forgiveness. Nothing at all is being forgiven. We are just forcing someone else to do the atoning.
<iframe title="Welfare For the Upper Class | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 407" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8Y92lXJOGuU?start=124&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The second major problem with this debt transfer strategy is that it bails out the people who need it, and probably deserve it, the least. There is over a trillion dollars of outstanding student debt in this country, which we are told is a crisis. But that means the over a trillion dollars of outstanding car loan debt is also a crisis. And the over a trillion dollars of outstanding credit card debt is its own crisis. And the $8 trillion or so of outstanding mortgage debt is the biggest crisis of all. The only difference between college debt on the one hand, and car, credit card, and house debt on the other, is that the former mainly belongs to the upper class, whereas the latter is shared by everyone, including the working class.
So if there is a magic wand to wave here, why not wave it in the direction of poorer people; people of lesser means and with a lower income potential? College graduates are suffering? Well, so are blue-collar workers. Absolving college graduates their debts would free up funds that could then be injected back into the economy? Well the exact same argument could be made for car, credit card, and house debt. What we are talking about here, either way, is a massive (additional) welfare program. Why in the world should we create something like that for upper-class college graduates who need it far less than everyone below them on the economic and social ladder?
It seems there are only two potential responses here. One is to throw open the floodgates and call for the  absolution of all debt — student, car, credit card, house, everything. But most reasonable people can see how absurd and unworkable this is. The government cannot, and clearly should not, unilaterally abolish all financial commitments made by all 330 million of its citizens.
The second response is to maintain that this student loan &#8220;cancellation&#8221; thing is a special, isolated, one-time event. But then you are back to having to explain why college graduates, of all people, should be the beneficiaries of this forgiveness bonanza. I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s any morally and economically intelligible argument to be made in favor of that.
Of course, there is always the third option, which is the one I support. We forgive nobody&#8217;s debt. Not mine. Not yours. Not anybody&#8217;s. Every adult is expected to settle their debts and live with their choices. And in the future, to stop the bleeding, we start encouraging better choices. Don&#8217;t buy a car you can&#8217;t afford, or a house you can&#8217;t afford, or a college degree you can&#8217;t afford and don&#8217;t need. Indeed, most of the people currently in college, and most who have graduated, don&#8217;t really need a college education. The &#8220;need&#8221; in the workforce is largely artificial. Employers require a degree, or prefer one, just because it&#8217;s an easy way to thin the herd of applicants. The degree is nothing more than a symbolic certificate supposedly attesting to someone&#8217;s general competence, intelligence, and reliability. Except that a degree doesn&#8217;t at all indicate that a person has any of those qualities. You can be an exceptionally dumb and lazy person and still graduate college. Just as you can be intelligent and hardworking and never go to college.
The only solution — the only real solution — is to recognize this fact. Fewer people should be going to college. Fewer employers should be requiring degrees. College has a specific purpose, and it&#8217;s not a purpose that necessarily applies to most people. Another name for this solution is &#8220;sanity.&#8221; We can restore some sanity. But if we are unwilling to do that, if we insist on insanity and unreason, then there is no solution, and nothing will get better, and everybody will lose. It&#8217;s up to us which we way go.

Man hand counting dollar cash

WALSH: There Is No Such Thing As Student Loan ‘Cancellation.’ Someone Still Has To Foot The Bill.

Student Loans

Christianity Today, long a periodical interested in the state of Christianity in America and beyond, chose as its first <a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/january-february/hidden-cost-of-tax-exemption.html?share=W8WCpAicWdgbfvWBIB1OuZu7JODENqc4">cover story</a> of the new year an article entitled, “The Hidden Cost of Tax Exemption.” Noted historian Paul Matzko makes a case for why American churches may be better off by refusing the “governmental largesse” of tax exemption.
In truth, however, rather than make churches more ideologically faithful, the loss of tax exemption for churches would invade upon church autonomy and curb religious liberty.
The article portrays America as populated by those who “view churches as basically parasitical.” Pastors live large off the largesse that comes from tax exemption, feeding on the benefits their churches drain from their host community without returning much, if any, noticeable benefit. Tax exemption is appealing, according to this cover story, because of a historical desire of churches to propagate racism, as well as to further discrimination against the LGBTQ community.
This of course comes, we read, through another temptation: Political power. Ever since President Lyndon Johnson, churches have been hellbent on unshackling themselves from the government’s control in order to maintain political dominance. In short, the article suggests that tax exemption has led to the American church abandoning the sanctifying effects of the Gospel for the enticing sins of greed, gluttony, racism, and bigotry.
Any hope that the article would temper its criticisms against the intangible good churches supply is quickly dashed because, we are told, the exemption “is not available in any way to the irreligious” and may instead be “a massive government subsidy for religion.” Ecclesiastical charitable acts could, after all, be covered by others because &#8220;the tax-exempt status of churches isn’t a requirement for people of faith to do good works.&#8221;
It is a dim, if not cynical, view of the American church. Whether churches in Sod, West Virginia caring for a community bedeviled by an opioid crisis or churches in Gas City, Indiana caring for struggling farmers feel they have access to “political power” or “cultural privilege,” either now or in the past, appears immaterial. Reading the article, one almost feels the need to cheer on churches to voluntarily relinquish tax exemption and assuage their moral culpability.
Tax exemption is no mere privilege bestowed by a beneficent government upon a lesser entity it controls. It is a recognition that churches — and all houses of worship — maintain an independent autonomy to pursue their duty to a higher authority than government. That is what the exemption recognizes.
As James Madison famously said in his &#8220;Memorial and Remonstrance&#8221; of 1785, &#8220;what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator.&#8221; Government may not interfere with that duty of man toward his Creator, but is instituted among men to protect the exercise of that duty of man toward his Creator.
That is why it is illegal for the city of Houston, Texas to use its power of eminent domain to seize property owned by <a href="https://firstliberty.org/cases/fifthward/">African-American churches in the Fifth Ward</a> in order to move in businesses that can then become taxable engines to fill the coffers of city hall. It is also why the city of Holly Springs, Mississippi cannot limit access to its town square to those who look like the rest of the community, rather than the growing black congregation, <a href="https://firstliberty.org/cases/opulent-life-church/">Opulent Life Church</a>.
Yet, according to this cover story: “It might not be such a bad thing to lose tax-exempt status. We should consider at the very least, the cost of maintaining this kind of cultural privilege. The true church of God, after all, is not reliant on its special status in the tax code. We can walk by faith and not by government largesse.”
It must hurt the average pastor in America to read this article. Do we really think that the pastors of those churches in the Fifth Ward and Holly Springs are not members of the “true church of God” because they are exempt from taxation? Do churches — and other houses of worship — really maintain their grip on “cultural privilege” because they crave the government’s “largesse” more than religious fidelity?
The “true church of God” is less a target to be taxed or a parasite to be crushed and more a quiet blessing upon a world in need of the peace they preach and acts of service they humbly perform. A local gathering of religious believers should be viewed as a human right of religious association and free exercise worthy of protection, rather than a potential stream of revenue.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

tax sign over coins and dollar bills

DYS: In Defense Of Church Tax Exemptions

Christianity Today

Religion

The New York Times accused FedEx on Sunday of essentially having lobbied President Donald Trump to sign tax cuts into law with the promise of businesses using the saved money to reinvest in and further grow their companies, and then failing to invest the billions of dollars that it reportedly saved as a result of the tax cuts.
&#8220;In the 2017 fiscal year, FedEx owed more than $1.5 billion in taxes. The next year, it owed nothing. What changed was the Trump administration’s tax cut – for which the company had lobbied hard,&#8221; The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/17/business/how-fedex-cut-its-tax-bill-to-0.html">reported</a> on Sunday. &#8220;The public face of its lobbying effort, which included a tax proposal of its own, was FedEx’s founder and chief executive, Frederick Smith, who repeatedly took to the airwaves to champion the power of tax cuts.&#8221;
&#8220;Four months later, President Trump signed into law the $1.5 trillion tax cut that became his signature legislative achievement. FedEx reaped big savings, bringing its effective tax rate from 34 percent in fiscal year 2017 to less than zero in fiscal year 2018, meaning that, overall, the government technically owed it money. But it did not increase investment in new equipment and other assets in the fiscal year that followed, as Mr. Smith said businesses like his would,&#8221; the Times added. &#8220;Nearly two years after the tax law passed, the windfall to corporations like FedEx is becoming clear. A New York Times analysis of data compiled by Capital IQ shows no statistically meaningful relationship between the size of the tax cut that companies and industries received and the investments they made.&#8221;
Late on Sunday, FedEx CEO Frederick Smith <a href="https://about.van.fedex.com/newsroom/statement-from-frederick-w-smith-chairman-and-ceo-of-fedex-corporation/">responded</a> to The New York Times&#8217; story by calling it factually incorrect, claiming that The New York Times is the company that does not pay federal income taxes, and challenging the publisher of The New York Times to a debate on tax policy.
&#8220;The New York Times published a distorted and factually incorrect story on the front page of the Sunday, November 17 edition concerning FedEx and our billions of dollars of tax payments and billions of dollars of investments in the U.S. economy,&#8221; Smith wrote. &#8220;Pertinent to this outrageous distortion of the truth is the fact that unlike FedEx, the New York Times paid zero federal income tax in 2017 on earnings of $111 million, and only $30 million in 2018 – 18% of their pretax book income.  Also in 2018 the New York Times cut their capital investments nearly in half to $57 million, which equates to a rounding error when compared to the $6 billion of capital that FedEx invested in the U.S. economy during that same year.&#8221;
&#8220;I hereby challenge A.G. Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times and the business section editor to a public debate in Washington, DC with me and the FedEx corporate vice president of tax,&#8221; Smith continued. &#8220;The focus of the debate should be federal tax policy and the relative societal benefits of business investments and the enormous intended benefits to the United States economy, especially lower and middle class wage earners.&#8221;
Smith concluded, &#8220;I look forward to promptly hearing from Mr. Sulzberger and scheduling this open event to bring further public awareness of the facts related to these important issues.&#8221;

FedEx

New York Times Accuses FedEx Of Not Paying Taxes. FedEx’s Response Is Priceless.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has released her tax plan that an analysis has found would result in a tax rate of over 100% for some billionaires and millionaires.
The Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabeth-warrens-tax-plan-would-bring-rates-over-100-for-some-11573819200">reports</a>:
<blockquote>Potential tax rates over 100% could result from the combination of tax increases the Massachusetts senator proposes for the very top tier of investors. She wants to return the top income-tax rate to 39.6% from 37%, impose a new 14.8% tax for Social Security, add an annual tax of up to 6% on accumulated wealth and require rich investors to pay capital-gains taxes at the same rates as other income even if they don’t sell their assets.
Consider a billionaire with a $1,000 investment who earns a 6% return, or $60, received as a capital gain, dividend or interest. If all of Ms. Warren’s taxes are implemented, he could owe 58.2% of that, or $35 in federal tax. Plus, his entire investment would incur a 6% wealth tax, i.e., at least $60. The result: taxes as high as $95 on income of $60 for a combined tax rate of 158%.</blockquote>
Warren&#8217;s economic plan was recently harshly criticized by former Obama administration adviser Steven Rattner, who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/msnbc-panel-shreds-warren-far-more-extreme-than-bernie-disastrous-for-economy">said</a>, “I would say it’d be disastrous for the American economy.”
“The fundamental different view she has of what capitalism is – she says she’s a capitalist, but she’s not a capitalist,” Rattner said, adding that Warren is essentially a socialist who “wants to fundamentally change the role of an American company, how an American company is governed, what it’s supposed to do, in ways that I think at least would be disastrous for the American economy.”
Rattner concluded, “I think you could make an argument that her plans and policies are far more extreme than Bernie Sanders’ in terms of its impact on the American economy and the fundamental way in which we do our business here.”
The Wall Street Journal noted that a tax rate of over 100% &#8220;would be typical, especially for billionaires,&#8221; and is what Warren is banking on to pay for her massive government programs which include &#8220;health care, child care, housing and education programs.&#8221;
&#8220;Ms. Warren has talked most about her plan, announced in January, to impose a 2% annual tax on wealth above $50 million and 3% above $1 billion, which she doubled to 6% this month to pay for Medicare for All,&#8221; The Journal added. &#8220;Economists generally think taxes on profits, capital gains and dividends discourage investment and hurt economic growth.&#8221;
Warren&#8217;s proposals are extreme and would likely devastate the American economy.
In September, Warren <a href="https://www.atr.org/elizabeth-warren-endorses-carbon-tax-and-climate-adjustment-fee">endorsed</a> a carbon tax without hesitation during a town hall event on CNN:
<blockquote>CNN’s Chris Cuomo: &#8220;Yes to a carbon tax?&#8221;
Warren: &#8220;Yes.&#8221;</blockquote>
Carbon taxes would be disastrous for the American economy as Heritage Foundation Labor Markets and Trade expert David Kreutzer noted in 2014 when analyzing a carbon tax bill that was proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and then-Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
&#8220;The tax started at $20 per metric ton and would rise by 5.6 percent per year, reaching $50 per metric ton by 2030 (the endpoint for the Heritage analysis),&#8221; Kreutzer <a href="https://www.heritage.org/testimony/impacts-carbon-taxes-the-us-economy">wrote</a>. &#8220;Using the Heritage Energy Model (HEM), a derivative of the Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), Heritage projected what the economic impacts would have been had the bill become law.&#8221;
The impacts of the propose carbon tax included:
<ul>
<li>
<blockquote>GDP loss of $146 billion in 2030</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>A family of four losing more than $1,000 of income per year</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>Over 400,000 lost jobs by 2016</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>Coal production dropping by 60 percent and coal employment dropping by more than 40 percent by 2030</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>Gasoline prices rising $0.20 by 2016 and $0.30 before 2030</blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>Electricity prices rising 20 percent by 2017 and more than 30 percent by 2030.</blockquote>
</li>
</ul>
In July, CNN business reporter Cristina Alesci <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/warren-warns-coming-economic-crash-cnn-warns-ryan-saavedra">reported</a> that Warren&#8217;s plans could actually trigger serious economic problems in the United States.
Warren is “proposing some solutions that actually might create another crisis,” Alesci said. “Warren is shaping this conversation in a way that is politically convenient for her. As far as her policy proposals, she is recommending lowering rents, offering affordable childcare, offering free tuition at colleges, all of that costs money, and the American public should be asking, ‘how do you pay for it?&#8217;”
“One way would be to increase taxes, another way is to increase government debt,” Alesci continued. “This is the issue that the American people should be actually focused on because many experts say if we don’t get control of our debt over the next 10 years, we could be facing a fiscal crisis.”

Elizabeth Warren

Democrat Elizabeth Warren’s Tax Plan Would Hit Some With Rates Over 100%

There has been a discussion this week about how much of Bill Gates&#8217; money Bill Gates should be allowed to keep. Gates himself has said, I think reasonably, that he doesn&#8217;t mind paying taxes but he&#8217;d prefer if the majority of his own money stayed with him. Elizabeth Warren has generously <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/bill-gates-elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax.html">promised</a> not to appropriate all of it, though she would skim a healthy sum off the top. But Bernie Sanders asks us to at least entertain the notion of levying a near 100% tax on billionaires like Gates.
&#8220;Say Bill Gates was actually taxed $100 billion,&#8221; Sanders <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1192478435693780992">tweeted</a>. &#8220;We could end homelessness and provide safe drinking water to everyone in this country. Bill would still be a multibillionaire. Our message: The billionaire class cannot have it all when so many have so little.&#8221;
This may not have been a serious proposal (then again, none of Sanders&#8217; proposals are serious), but he certainly does believe that taking lots of money from rich people can solve nearly every societal problem. Here he says we could &#8220;end homelessness&#8221; and &#8220;provide safe drinking water to everyone&#8221; with a mere $100 billion confiscated from a dastardly billionaire. I&#8217;m not sure where he gets that figure, but it doesn&#8217;t matter. Let&#8217;s think about this.
<iframe title="Only 100 Billion Dollars Away From Utopia | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 367" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LMCSC1oDvCA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If $100 billion would enable the government to establish a utopia with 0% homelessness and clean water for everyone, why aren&#8217;t we living in that utopia already? After all, <a href="https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762">annual federal tax revenue</a> is approaching $4 trillion. Let&#8217;s call it $3 trillion, because what&#8217;s a trillion dollars between friends? So, the government already brings in $3 trillion. In the last decade, they&#8217;ve earned (well, taken by force) over $30 trillion in taxes. We should note that all of the physical money in the world <a href="https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-much-money-is-there-in-the-world.html">adds up</a> to about $36 trillion. Since the beginning of Obama&#8217;s first term, therefore, the U.S. government has raked in more money than exists on Earth.
Sanders swears that homelessness could be utterly and completely solved with just 1/30th of what the government makes in a year. Why isn&#8217;t it solved, then? Are you really telling me that the government has confiscated more money than exists on Earth — and that&#8217;s still not enough? If you were to build a giant tower out of $3 trillion, it would nearly <a href="https://www.ehd.org/science_technology_largenumbers.php">reach the Moon</a>. A pile of cash over 200,000 miles high isn&#8217;t sufficient? They need more? Can Bernie and his friends not find a way to peel a measly $100 billion out of that galactic stack of tax money to solve the homelessness problem?
Here, <a href="https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/commentary/these-wasteful-government-programs-need-go">let me help</a>. The Maritime Administration costs us almost $1 billion a year. The Appalachian Regional Commission runs $100 million or so. The Justice Department&#8217;s Community Oriented Policing Services sucks up another $300 million. I could <a href="https://www.cagw.org/reporting/pig-book">list</a> dozens of other programs, agencies, departments, and projects that are redundant, pointless, inefficient, ineffective, and yet cost us hundreds of millions of dollars a year. What do you say — should we end homelessness or keep the Appalachian Regional Commission going? Which is more important?
And we haven&#8217;t even scratched the surface. The major waste in our government comes in the form of entitlements and defense spending. We sink trillions into both. Do you think these two behemoths could spare $50 billion a piece? I mean, we&#8217;re ending homelessness here. And giving everyone clean water. I&#8217;m sure the twin beasts of defense and entitlements would love to chip in. If they don&#8217;t, take it anyway. These aren&#8217;t private citizens. A phrase like &#8220;they cannot have it all when so many have so little&#8221; actually applies and makes sense in reference to governmental entities.
What about foreign aid? We give about $50 billion a year to countries around the globe. According to Sanders&#8217; figures, we could put an end to homelessness and thirst, and save thousands of lives, if we just redirected that money from the pockets of foreign bureaucrats back into our own country. Cut off foreign aid to everyone for two years and homelessness goes away, according to Bernie Sanders. Why aren&#8217;t we doing that? Why hasn&#8217;t he suggested it?
Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and all the rest of the Democrats, insist that more money — more and more and more and more money — is needed to solve our problems. They look at the $4 trillion already available to them and scoff. That&#8217;s because these people have no interest in solving any problems. And they know that problems like homelessness can&#8217;t be solved with money anyway. Most homeless people are homeless because of drug addiction or mental disorder. Give them a bag of cash and they&#8217;ll be dead by morning. Give them a free house and they&#8217;ll be on the street again in a week. I&#8217;m not saying we shouldn&#8217;t help the homeless. I&#8217;m saying that we can only treat homelessness by addressing what causes it — and you need more than money to do that. Sanders knows this. So does Warren. They all do. But, for them, homeless people, sick people, poor people, college students in debt, etc., are just pawns to be used in pursuit of more control and more power.

Bernie Sanders

WALSH: The Government Rakes In Over $3 Trillion Dollars A Year In Tax Revenue. That’s More Than Enough, Bernie Sanders.

In Tacoma, Washington, a showdown is coming because the city is considering taxing gun sales.
The councilman proposing the measure to be brought up on Tuesday at the city council, Ryan Mello, stated, “I can’t ban assault rifles in the city of Tacoma. I can’t ban certain types of ammo in the city of Tacoma. I can’t require safe storage. There’s a lot I can’t do. The one thing I am not pre-empted from doing is reasonable taxation on firearms and ammunition,” as <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/proposed-tax-on-gun-sales-faces-opposition-in-tacoma-wash-11572255002?mod=djemwhatsnews">The Wall Street Journal</a> reported.
The legislation would require a $25 per gun sale to fund violence prevention programs.
The Journal noted, “Opponents of the proposal, which would also collect taxes on ammunition, have said it would force gun shops out of the industrial port city of 215,000. In Seattle, lawmakers projected $300,000 to $500,000 a year in gun taxes, but last year received only $77,642 because gun stores moved away.”
Dan Davies, the owner of Mary’s Pistols in Tacoma, told the Journal, “It’ll put us out of business; there’s no ifs, ands or buts about it. They’re punishing innocent people for the deeds of criminals.”
Lawrence Keane, senior vice president of government relations and public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, expressed the worries of gun rights advocates, asserting, “Are we concerned that politicians will try to seek their antigun agenda through taxation? Yes, that’s what this is about.”
Despite the fact that gun stores and gun parts makers have warned they will have to leave Tacoma if the tax is implemented, Mello enthused that the new tax would raise between $30,000 and $40,000 annually each year.
The Journal noted that Cook County in Illinois passed a gun tax in 2013, and Seattle followed in 2015. The Cook County government <a href="https://www.cookcountyil.gov/service/firearm-and-firearm-ammunition-tax">wrote in 2013</a>:
<blockquote>Effective April 1, 2013, as provided in Sections 74-665 thru 74-675, Firearm Tax Ordinance, a tax is imposed on the retail purchase of a firearm in the amount of $25.00 for each firearm purchased … It shall be the duty of every retail dealer to remit and report the tax due on sales of firearms purchased in Cook County on forms prescribed by the Department. After April 1, 2013, the first tax return and payment, if applicable, is due by May 20, 2013. Subsequent returns and payments are due on the 20th day of each month. Returns must be submitted even if no tax is due.</blockquote>
The city of Seattle <a href="http://clerk.seattle.gov/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?s3=&amp;s4=124833&amp;s5=&amp;s1=&amp;s2=&amp;S6=&amp;Sect4=AND&amp;l=0&amp;Sect2=THESON&amp;Sect3=PLURON&amp;Sect5=CBORY&amp;Sect6=HITOFF&amp;d=ORDF&amp;p=1&amp;u=%2F~public%2Fcbor1.htm&amp;r=1&amp;f=G">wrote in 2015</a>,
<blockquote>The City finds and declares that gun violence directly affects the City and its residents. Therefore, the City intends to exercise its taxing authority, as granted by the Washington State Constitution and as authorized by the Washington State Legislature, to raise general revenue for the City and to use that revenue to provide broad-based public benefits for residents of Seattle related to gun violence by funding programs that promote public safety, prevent gun violence and address in part the cost of gun violence in the City.</blockquote>
The city added, &#8220;The tax rate shall be $25 per firearm sold at retail, $.02 per round of ammunition that contains a single projectile that measures .22 caliber or less sold at retail, and $.05 per round of ammunition for all other ammunition sold at retail.&#8221;

Blue Ridge Arsenal Gun Store

Showdown In Washington State: City Considers Taxing Gun Sales

Guns

Washington

On Wednesday’s episode of “The Andrew Klavan Show,” Klavan talks about Joe Biden’s weird debate answer about raising the capital gains tax. Video and partial transcript below: 
So the MSM narrative about this debate is “Biden&#8217;s Falling, Warren’s Rising.” So everybody turned on Warren, and everybody was mean to Warren. It&#8217;s her turn in the barrel, and the media judges are kind of trying to decide: Warren is the best, but who else is good? They&#8217;re saying maybe Joe Biden won, or maybe Amy Klobuchar [won] &#8230;
But I have a completely different take on what happened. I thought the whole thing was just embarrassing. Maybe I&#8217;m so against socialist ideas — maybe life is so prejudiced against socialist ideas — that I can&#8217;t see [how] people are going to fall for this &#8230; These people just look like they are sinking into the floor. Let me just show you this clip of Joe Biden&#8217;s tax plan as he talks about why he&#8217;s going to raise taxes on the rich.
<blockquote>BIDEN: What I&#8217;ve talked about is how you get things done. And the way to get things done is, take a look at the tax code right now. The idea [is that] we have to start rewarding work, not just wealth. I would eliminate the capital gains tax — I would raise the capital gains tax to the highest rate of 39.5%. I would double it because, guess what? Why in God&#8217;s name should someone who&#8217;s clipping coupons in the stock market make, in fact, pay a lower tax rate than someone who in fact, is, like I said, a schoolteacher and a firefighter? It&#8217;s ridiculous, and they pay a lower tax. </blockquote>
Huh? What the [expletive] did he just say? I mean, that&#8217;s their candidate? That&#8217;s their tied-for-the-leading-guy candidate? It’s absurd. He&#8217;s fixing his dentures all the time, it&#8217;s incredible. The guy makes no sense. 
<iframe title="Nuts! | The Andrew Klavan Show Ep. 784" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SrJItpxxT-g?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Basically, he says — I think what he said — was he wanted to double the capital gains tax. Remember, the capital gains tax is a double tax. This is money that you already made and already get taxed, and then you take that money and you invest it in somebody else&#8217;s business. What does that do? It creates jobs, it creates wealth, it creates new businesses. It does all that stuff. And so if it works — you risk your money — [and] if it works, you get a profit. And then they tax you again, they already tax[ed] that money. There shouldn&#8217;t be any capital gains tax. It&#8217;s ridiculous.
Whenever they tell you that corporations don&#8217;t get taxed, everybody in the corporation gets taxed, and then they get taxed again for capital gains. 
How does that help the economy? So what are you going to do? They&#8217;re going to tax your investments. You don&#8217;t have to do that, go out and buy a boat. And then he says, well, look at him, he&#8217;s got a yacht, he&#8217;s not contributing anything to society. Well, you would be contributing to society if they hadn&#8217;t taken your money away. So you&#8217;re going to protect it. You&#8217;re going to take it away from them, take it away from these things — the work that it is doing for the country — and use it for yourself so you won&#8217;t get taxed on it. It&#8217;s just dumb, it is absolutely dumb.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-andrew-klavan-show/id1045171376?mt=2">Listen to full episodes of “The Andrew Klavan Show” on iTunes</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show">Watch “The Andrew Klavan Show” on-demand!</a>

Joe Biden

KLAVAN: Joe Biden Stumbles Through His Nonsense Tax Plan

2020 Election

Democratic Party

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said “billionaires should not exist” as he released his latest tax proposal Tuesday, which would apply additional taxes on Americans based on their net worth.
CNBC <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/09/24/bernie-sanders-proposes-wealth-tax-after-plan-from-elizabeth-warren.html">reported</a> that Sanders’ plan was designed to be more aggressive than his 2020 primary opponent Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA). Sanders’ plan would create additional rates for married couples with a high net worth. Here are the rates, from CNBC:
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li>A 1% tax on net worth above $32 million</li>
<li>A 2% tax on net worth of $50 million to $250 million</li>
<li>A 3% tax on net worth of $250 million to $500 million</li>
<li>A 4% tax on net worth of $500 million to $1 billion</li>
<li>A 5% tax on net worth of $1 billion to $2.5 billion</li>
<li>A 6% tax on net worth of $2.5 billion to $5 billion</li>
<li>A 7% tax on net worth of $5 billion to $10 billion</li>
<li>An 8% tax on net worth above $10 billion</li>
<li>All of those brackets would be cut in half for single filers</li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
Warren’s plan, by comparison, would levy a 2% annual tax on net worth exceeding $50 million and a 3% tax on net worth over $1 billion, CNBC reported.
Sanders’ campaign expects the new taxes to raise $4.35 trillion in the next 10 years, which the candidate claimed would cover the cost of his “Medicare for All” plan, affordable housing plan, and universal childcare. He also expected the tax would cut billionaires’ wealth in half over the next 15 years.
Medicare for All alone would cost $32 trillion over the next 10 years, meaning Sanders wealth grab wouldn’t even come close to covering the cost of just one of his expensive proposals.
Even cutting billionaires’ wealth in half isn’t enough to cover Sanders’ government expansion. He has repeatedly admitted that taxes would have to go up on the middle class in order to cover the costs.
Still, Sanders, a self-described socialist who has a net worth of $2.5 million and owns three houses, <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1176481898685710337?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-23247570231664893107.ampproject.net%2F1909181902540%2Fframe.html">stated on Twitter</a> that “Billionaires should not exist.”
“There should be no billionaires,” Sanders wrote in another tweet. “We are going to tax their extreme wealth and invest in working people.”
Sanders’ attitudes toward the wealthy have shifted over time. In 2015, he decried the suggestion of giving “tax breaks to millionaires.” In 2016, he asked if Americans were “comfortable to see a huge increase in millionaires and billionaires but have more people living in poverty than ever?” He added that he was not. Sanders tweeted the same question in 2017 but did not include the part about him not being okay with the disconnect.
Sanders became a millionaire in 2016 thanks to book sales and has an estimated net worth of $2.5 million. Now in 2019, he appears to be more negative toward billionaires than millionaires.
Opponents to taxes levied only against those of a specific wealth suggest such a tax is unconstitutional because it is discriminatory. The American Bar Association, however, has <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/taxation/publications/abataxtimes_home/19aug/19aug-pp-johnson-a-wealth-tax-is-constitutional/">argued</a> it would not be unconstitutional. That certainly doesn’t mean such a tax could and would be challenged, potentially making its way to the Supreme Court.

Millionaire Bernie Sanders: ‘Billionaires Should Not Exist’

On &#8220;The Ben Shapiro Show&#8221; Thursday, Shapiro discusses Democratic front-runner Joe Biden&#8217;s performance at the CNN town hall on climate change Wednesday. Video and partial transcript below: 
So Joe Biden, last night, said the Green New Deal, as in AOC&#8217;s Green New Deal — you know, the Green New Deal that was supported by zero senators, including co-sponsors of the Green New Deal. [Well, Joe Biden] says that that doesn&#8217;t go too far. You know, AOC&#8217;s $93 trillion plan for the United States economy. Biden says that doesn&#8217;t go too far.
Now the reason he&#8217;s saying this, of course, is because he is trying to force Republicans into a position of saying that they don&#8217;t care at all about climate change. He&#8217;s trying to do with climate change what Democrats are doing with guns right now, which is: We disagree on the solutions to the problem, but [according to the Left], that means I&#8217;m denying the problem. So according to Joe Biden and the Left, if I say that your stupid solutions are not in fact solutions — that they&#8217;re just dummy garbage — then that&#8217;s because I&#8217;m a denier. That&#8217;s Joe Biden&#8217;s shtick here.
<blockquote>COOPER: You&#8217;re not saying that you support everything in the original Green New Deal. Do you think it goes too far? Is it unrealistic or is it too much?
BIDEN: No, it&#8217;s not. But here&#8217;s what it is. It doesn&#8217;t have a lot of specifics. But the reason — I don&#8217;t know, I&#8217;m not opposed to the Green New Deal. What I did was what I thought beyond, at least in more detail, what the Green New Deal is calling for. How to do the things we need to do, when they have to be done, how quickly we should move how much we should invest etc.</blockquote>
Okay, except that he doesn&#8217;t actually call for any specificity. He just wants to say that the Green New Deal is a good idea. Because when we get specific, here&#8217;s where all the attack ads for Trump start. Last night was a fantastic night for President Trump. Listen to Joe Biden say he&#8217;s going to shut down every coal plant in the country. Think that’s going to go well? And the thing is, he&#8217;s not going to invest in advanced carbon-capture technology for coal plants. He is not going to talk really about how to move those jobs. Instead, we&#8217;re just gonna have to shut down all the coal plants in the United States.
<img alt="IFrame" width="1" height="1" />
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DKi2HkvzcZI?start=2132" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
Now the United States is responsible on a global level for about 15 percent of all carbon emissions. So he&#8217;s now talking about wiping an entire sector off the face of the American economy. And that sector, by the way, is already in trouble largely because of technological advances. But he&#8217;s talking about forcibly killing that sector from above — to [save] what? Maybe 3 percent of total carbon emissions on planet earth? That would be a high, a real high-end, estimate. Here&#8217;s Joe Biden:
<blockquote>BIDEN: We set out the rules for what kind of plant and all coal burning plants. No one is going to build another coal burning [plant]. We&#8217;ve got to shut the ones down we have. But no one is going to build a new one. Guess what? They&#8217;re not efficient.</blockquote>
Ok, well he is right that the coal plants are not efficient, that you&#8217;d be better off building natural gas plants — and nuclear plants probably. One problem: The same Democrats who are talking about getting rid of coal plants are also avoiding the talk about how exactly they&#8217;re gonna build a new plant.
You&#8217;re not building a wind farm to replace those coal plants. It is just not happening. And then Biden says, &#8220;You know what? We&#8217;d like to reach a point where everyone drives electric cars. That&#8217;s my plan. Electric cars, electric cars.&#8221; There&#8217;s only one problem with that, which is that electric cars ain&#8217;t going to do the job. Here&#8217;s a study from <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/02/140225-electric-cars-alone-wont-cut-us-emissions-study-says/">National Geographic</a> circa 2014:
<blockquote>Electric cars can help limit reliance on imported oil and take a bite out of air pollution from urban traffic jams. But as sure-fire ammunition against climate change, a new study finds, they come up short… The team modeled 108 scenarios… The team reported that even in scenarios that yield the highest levels of EV deployment (high oil prices, low battery costs), plug-ins and hybrids would make up no more than 42 percent of all U.S. passenger vehicles in 2050 and would reduce overall emissions by a slim margin.</blockquote>
But good news: Joe Biden wants to force you to drive one of these newfangled smart cars.
<blockquote>COOPER: Will there be a point or would you&#8217;d like there to be a point — and if so, when — that everybody drives an electric car or has to drive an electric car?
BIDEN: Well, I think, look, that&#8217;s going to be based upon whether or not we can make it economically feasible. And it is economically feasible. Because guess what? Everybody knows where the world&#8217;s going. We have to take combustion engine vehicles off the road as rapidly as we can. But that also could create a significant number of jobs and opportunities for people.</blockquote>
No actually, it&#8217;s going to take away a significant number of jobs because it turns out that American-heavy industry and car companies are generally in the business of building light trucks. The manufacturing in the United States is disproportionately not in the electric vehicle industry. It also happens to be the case that, as we already referred to, only about 15 percent of household emissions in the United States come courtesy of your car. So that actually doesn&#8217;t solve the problem. So what does solve the problem, according to Joe Biden? A carbon tax.
Now the truth is that if you had a global carbon tax to artificially raise the price of carbon emissions, then that would be an effective way, presumably, of lowering carbon emissions. There is one small problem with that. Do you think that China and India are going to sign onto a global carbon tax? Do you think developing countries are going to be into this? You think this is a thing that&#8217;s going to happen?
There are a lot of people who advocate for this, including William Nordhaus who I talked about earlier, this global carbon tax. It does not work if it&#8217;s regional. If the United States taxes our own citizens on carbon, and destroys our economy in the process — and presumably hurts other economies in the process also, preventing their upward mobility, because the world economy is dependent on the United States economy — do you think that those economies are more or less likely to rely more on carbon-based fuels in order to spur their economy? A regional tax will not work. You need a global tax. Guess what? The thing that is not happening is any of this.
<a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ben-shapiro-show/id1047335260">Listen to full episodes of &#8220;The Ben Shapiro Show&#8221; on iTunes. </a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/show/ben-shapiro-show">Watch &#8220;The Ben Shapiro Show&#8221; on-demand!</a>

SHAPIRO: Joe Biden Ignores Reality To Stop Climate Change

Anderson Cooper

Climate Change

Following Tuesday night&#8217;s Democratic primary debate hosted by CNN, far-left MSNBC host Chris Matthews questioned presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) about the costs of her &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; policy proposal.
Matthews repeatedly asked Warren how much the plan would cost taxpayers, though he never did receive an answer from the senator. Clearly frustrated with Warren&#8217;s refusal, Matthews later knocked the progressive lawmaker on-air. &#8220;Warren wouldn&#8217;t answer that question,&#8221; he <a href="https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1156401216164941827">complained</a>.
&#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; will cost taxpayers more money, Matthews told Warren. &#8220;You guys dodged that tonight. … How much will your taxes go up?&#8221;
Warren refused to answer, suggesting the real question is, &#8220;How much are your costs going to go up?&#8221;
&#8220;I know that argument, but you&#8217;re covering it,&#8221; pressed Matthews.
&#8220;&#8216;Medicare for All&#8217; is cheaper than our current system — that&#8217;s the Republicans&#8217; version,&#8221; Warren said.
&#8220;I know the argument,&#8221; answered Matthews, &#8220;that you put it all together and you reduce the cost of healthcare premiums, and you get more benefits, therefore you come out ahead, but will you pay more in taxes? Why don&#8217;t you want to answer that question?&#8221;
&#8220;It’s a question about where people are gonna come out economically,&#8221; contended Warren.
&#8220;That&#8217;s not my question,&#8221; Matthews said. &#8220;That&#8217;s not my question. That&#8217;s not my question. My question is how much will taxes go up.&#8221;
Warren, again, refused to answer. &#8220;The question is about costs,&#8221; she said, about how much you&#8217;re &#8220;digging in your pocket&#8221; to pay healthcare costs.
&#8220;Will your taxes go up?&#8221; the MSNBC host asked, again. &#8220;Will your taxes go up? &#8230; There is no answer to the question, will your taxes go up.&#8221;
Matthews then moved on with the interview.
Warren and presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) both support a radical universal &#8220;Medicare for All&#8221; program that would end private insurance and cost an estimated $32 trillion, $10 trillion more than the current national debt.
&#8220;Look at the business model of an insurance company,&#8221; Warren has argued, <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/27/elizabeth-warrens-shift-puts-health-insurers-in-2020-crossfire.html">according</a> to CNBC. &#8220;It’s to bring in as many dollars as they can in premiums and to pay out as few dollars as possible for your health care. That leaves families with rising premiums, rising co-pays, and fighting with insurance companies to try to get the health care that their doctors say that they and their children need. Medicare for All solves that problem.&#8221;
Not all Democrats are on board with the controversial plan, however. Former congressman John Delaney, for example, has called the proposal &#8220;political suicide.&#8221;
During Tuesday night&#8217;s debate, Delaney bluntly told Sen. Sanders that his &#8220;math is wrong.&#8221;
&#8220;It&#8217;s been well-documented that if all the bills were paid at a Medicare rate, which is specifically — I think it&#8217;s in section 1,200 of their bill — many hospitals in this country would close,&#8221; said the businessman and presidential hopeful.
&#8220;We don&#8217;t have to go around and be the party of subtraction … telling half the country who have private health insurance that their insurance is illegal,” Delaney suggested, adding, &#8220;The question is, why do we have to be extreme? I&#8217;m starting to think this isn&#8217;t about health care, this is about an anti-private sector strategy.&#8221;
As <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447515-sweeping-plans-from-2020-contenders-come-with-trillion-dollar-price-tags">reported</a> by The Hill, Warren’s proposal to erase student loan debt and eliminate tuition at public colleges could cost $1.25 trillion, while her environmental spending plan comes with a $2 trillion price tag.
WATCH (relevant comments begin at the 1:30-mark):
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RlHik6YAPns" width="790" height="444" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>

WATCH: Chris Matthews Battles Elizabeth Warren: ‘Answer That Question’

Chris Matthews

Health Care

Jake Tapper

Media

Medicare

MSNBC

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) seems to be embracing a new tactic in his speeches, now that he seems to be falling behind in the primary polls: radical honesty.
Speaking to a crowd in New Hampshire, which he won handily in the 2016 primary, Sanders admitted that, in order to pay for his expansive &#8220;Medicare-for-all&#8221; plan, he&#8217;s going to have to raise taxes, and not just on the &#8220;rich&#8221; and the &#8220;1%&#8221; &#8212; on everybody.
And, even then, it may not be enough.
Fox News reports that <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-says-hell-probably-raise-payroll-income-taxes-to-pay-for-medicare-for-all">Bernie Sanders&#8217; plan</a> to pay for universal health care would first involve an increase in payroll taxes alongside an increase in federal income taxes on &#8220;high-income earners&#8221; to fund the project, which some economists anticipate could <a href="https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost">cost as much as $32 trillion</a> to implement over the course of the next decade (assuming that there would be no steep cuts to service).
If that&#8217;s not enough, though, Sanders anticipates digging deeper into taxpayers&#8217; pockets, upping income taxes on &#8220;ordinary people.&#8221; But he ultimately excuses his money grab by claiming that taxpayers will, in turn, save thousands on health care costs.
&#8220;It would cost you and ordinary Americans a lot less than you are currently spending on average,&#8221; he told the crowd. &#8220;What it will probably end up looking like is a payroll tax on employers, an increase in income tax in a progressive way for ordinary people &#8212; with a significant deductible for low-income people who pay nothing for it.&#8221;
His campaign refused to put out a more detailed explanation of the plan, claiming that releasing information about &#8220;Medicare-for-all&#8221; would &#8220;engender enormous debate.&#8221;
It certainly would. As it stands, Sanders&#8217; plan would replace all existing health care &#8212; including private plans &#8212; with a single-payer system that features no deductibles or copayments and, theoretically, no change in service for most health care consumers (at least according to Sanders and other members of the Congressional &#8220;Medicare-for-all&#8221; caucus).
But such a project would cost trillions, and even with an expansive tax increase, Sanders&#8217; can only anticipate covering about one third to one half the cost of the program, according to the <a href="https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-will-medicare-all-cost">Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget</a>. Even if Sanders were able to raise $10 trillion without economic consequence, at least $17 trillion of the program&#8217;s cost would remain unfunded, leading to either further tax increases or major cuts in service.
But those numbers are just the cost to the federal government. It&#8217;s not clear how much Americans would continue to spend on health care, though CRFB anticipates that consumer health care spending wouldn&#8217;t actually decrease by any marked amount.
At least Bernie&#8217;s finally being honest, though. For years, Sanders and his progressive colleagues have touted the magical &#8220;Medicare for all&#8221; plan as a way to solve all the problems of the existing health care system &#8212; in a way that&#8217;s &#8220;free&#8221; to all Americans. But nothing is really ever free, especially for Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders Embraces Honesty, Admits He’s Definitely Going To Raise Your Taxes (But It Won’t Be Enough)

The citizens of Philadelphia have been rocked by a tax on sugary drinks like soda, although the hike was intended to improve their health.
As <a href="https://hotair.com/archives/2019/05/18/philadelphias-soda-tax-bombed-predicted/">outlined</a> by Hotair on Saturday, the &#8220;soda tax&#8221; has actually led to Philadelphia residents traveling outside the city to buy their soda (and likely other goods), decreased the city&#8217;s revenue, and led to layoffs in the local beverage industry and cut hours for employees at small markets. It did not, however, lead to an increase in healthier beverage purchases in the city.
When the soda tax was first announced, workers at Pepsi took a hit. &#8220;With sales slumping because of the new Philadelphia sweetened beverage tax, Pepsi said Wednesday that it will lay off 80 to 100 workers at three distribution plants that serve the city,&#8221; <a href="http://philly.com">philly.com</a> <a href="https://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/Pepsi-announces-80-100-layoffs-blames-soda-tax.html">reported</a> in March of 2017.
And last month, the local outlet <a href="https://www.philly.com/opinion/acme-soda-tax-hurting-businesses-20190418.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjZ6_kuaq4gIVjZyzCh23owhTEAAYAiAAEgJkwPD_BwE">reported</a> that the owner of Acme Markets, who has 16 stores in Philadelphia, had to cut employees&#8217; hours because of the tax: &#8220;The beverage tax fell on about 4,000 items. In Acme city stores, soda sales dropped as much as 80 percent. Sales of other items covered by the tax, such as juices, creamers and energy drinks, were down 30 percent, and the number of customers declined by 5 percent. Philly stores cut an average of 150 to 200 employee hours per week, resulting in lighter paychecks for employees.&#8221;
But the hit the employees took did not equate to a win for the &#8220;health&#8221; of its citizens. As noted by Hotair, Philadelphia residents were traveling outside the city to avoid the tax hike on their drinks.
A CNN report on a study from medical journal <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2733208?guestAccessKey=86610f39-a0eb-46d4-a30a-3ddef0036408&amp;utm_source=For_The_Media&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_campaign=ftm_links&amp;utm_content=tfl&amp;utm_term=051419">JAMA</a> focused in on the 51% drop in city soda purchases, but <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/15/health/philadelphia-soda-tax-sales-decrease/index.html?utm_content=2019-05-18T09:00:14&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_term=link&amp;utm_source=twCNN">admitted</a>: &#8220;While researchers found that sales of sugary beverages fell in Philadelphia after the tax, beverage sales in nearby towns and counties without the tax went up. That suggests people may have been traveling to get their soda at a reduced price.&#8221;
&#8220;People stopped buying their soda in the city (and almost undoubtedly a lot of other shopping list items) and decided to shop where prices were lower,&#8221; Hotair noted.
So was there at least an uptick in healthier beverage purchases because of the tax? Nope. &#8220;Philadelphia did not see an increase in sales of untaxed beverages such as bottled water,&#8221; CNN reported.
CNN did not discuss the revenue hit Philadelphia took, but Hotair did: &#8220;The tax on soda increased by 17%, but the sales fell by 51%. So, let&#8217;s look at this assuming one million ounces of soda was sold annually before the tax went into effect. If sales had remained the same, the city would have realized $62,400.00 in revenue instead of $54,300.00. But with the volume cut in half, they managed to slash their revenue to $31,200.00.&#8221;

BACKFIRE: Philadelphia Implemented Soda Tax, But It Didn’t Go As Planned

Pennsylvania

On Tuesday, Senators Rick Scott (R-FL) and Mike Braun (R-IN) introduced three <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/21/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Rick+scott%22%5D%7D&amp;r=2&amp;s=7">amendments</a> to the United States Constitution that would term-limit congressmen, give the president line-item veto power, and require a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress to raise taxes.
The term limits portion of the &#8220;Make Washington Work plan,&#8221; or <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/21/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Rick+scott%22%5D%7D&amp;r=2&amp;s=7">S.J. Res. 21</a>, states in part:
<blockquote>
No person who has served 6 terms as a Representative shall be eligible for election to the House of Representatives. For purposes of this section, the election of a person to fill a vacancy in the House of Representatives shall be included as 1 term in determining the number of terms that such person has served as a Representative if the person fills the vacancy for more than 1 year&#8230;
No person who has served 2 terms as a Senator shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate. For purposes of this section, the election or appointment of a person to fill a vacancy in the Senate shall be included as 1 term in determining the number of terms that such person has served as a Senator if the person fills the vacancy for more than 3 years.
</blockquote>
According to the text, the proposed amendment would not count as term-limited any elected service prior to ratification.
The taxes and fees portion of the plan <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/21/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Rick+scott%22%5D%7D&amp;r=2&amp;s=7">states</a> in part:
<blockquote>
Legislation imposing or authorizing a new tax or fee may only be agreed to by a House of Congress if such legislation contains no other subject and is agreed to upon an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the Members of such House of Congress, duly chosen and sworn&#8230;
Legislation raising any tax or fee, including any increase in a rate of tax or fee imposed on a percentage basis, any increase in an amount of a tax or fee imposed on a flat or fixed basis, or any decrease in or elimination of an exemption, waiver, credit, or deduction with respect to a tax or fee, may only be agreed to by a House of Congress if such legislation contains no other subject and is agreed to upon an affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the Members of such House of Congress, duly chosen and sworn.
</blockquote>
As for the line-item veto portion, the text <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/21/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Rick+scott%22%5D%7D&amp;r=2&amp;s=7">states</a> that under Article I, section 7 of the United States Constitution, the president &#8220;may reduce or disapprove any appropriation in any bill or joint resolution that is presented to&#8221; him.
In the 1998 case Clinton v. City of New York, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-7/clause-1%E2%80%933/the-line-item-veto">struck down</a> as unconstitutional the &#8220;Line Item Veto Act&#8221; that was passed by Congress two years earlier. However, as this would be itself a constitutional amendment and not a bill from Congress, this situation would be quite different.
On Thursday, The Daily Wire spoke with Sen. Scott about the proposed amendments:
<blockquote>
DW: What was your thought process on these proposed amendments?
SCOTT: We have term limits in Florida &#8211; eight years for the House and eight years for the Senate, and then two four-year terms for the statewide offices.
When I started the job as governor, we had a $4 billion budget deficit that year; the state had increased its debt every year for 20 years by over a billion dollars. In eight years, I paid off a third of the state debt, I think like two and a half billion dollars; I cut over ten billion dollars in taxes. We went from being in possible credit default and being downgraded to the highest credit rating in the country.
The things that I&#8217;m proposing, we already have in our state, which are working. I got a constitutional amendment on the ballot and passed my last year requiring a super-majority to raise taxes and fees; I believe I cut like 97 taxes and fees while I was governor; I had a line-item veto and I vetoed, I believe it was, about $2.5 billion.
[Sen. Scott added that when he was governor of Florida, he would go &#8220;line by line&#8221; through the budget, and veto what he considered irresponsible spending.]
DW: This is obviously the mirror for what you&#8217;re now proposing in the Senate. Can you walk through each of the amendments, and explain why you think we need them on the federal level?
SCOTT: On the requirement of the super-majority to raise taxes, if you think about it, what happens is, the easiest thing in a downturn is for people to say, &#8220;Well, let&#8217;s raise taxes.&#8221; I grew up in a very poor family; I lived in public housing growing up; I never met my dad; my mom had a very tough time. So, $25 or $50 here or there was devastating to them &#8211; and people act like it&#8217;s just a little bit of money. There&#8217;s conversation up here now about raising the gas tax. That is so regressive, and it impacts the poorest families so much. So, I think we ought to have to think long and hard about raising taxes.
As our economy grows, our tax revenues are growing. We don&#8217;t have a revenue problem in this country, but we have a spending problem. So let&#8217;s make it very difficult for people to raise our taxes and raise our fees.
As for term limits, our country was not set up for people to be career politicians. We brought people up for a period of their lives, they came and served, and they went home. That&#8217;s what we should have. We did in Florida, and we should be doing it up here.
The line-item veto, somebody&#8217;s got to be responsible ultimately for the budget, and the only person that can do at the state level is the governor. The only person that can do it at the federal level is the president. They were elected, you know, statewide as the governor, and countrywide as the president. Give them the ability to say, &#8220;You know what? That&#8217;s not a good return on investment.&#8221;
DW: Would Congress have the power to overrule any of those line-item vetoes?
SCOTT: The way it&#8217;s set up in Florida, they can do it with a two-thirds majority, so that would be the logical thing, is you give a line-item veto to the president, and then if it&#8217;s a two-thirds majority, [Congress would] be able to override.
DW: Let&#8217;s talk about the potential success of this. What are you doing, or what are you going to do, in order to make this successful?
SCOTT: Here&#8217;s what I&#8217;ve seen in my years as governor. You&#8217;ve got to get your ideas out there, you&#8217;ve got to drum up support, and then you take advantage [the] times where things are more interesting to people, and that&#8217;s what we did. I mean, I believed in the super-majority my entire time as governor, but my last year in office was a time that I thought I could get it done, and so I did it.
I look at my job up here as just chipping away every day and moving the ball down the court, and there will be a day, I don&#8217;t know whether it&#8217;s in six months or six years, that we can get these things accomplished.
</blockquote>
The Daily Wire would like to thank Sen. Scott for speaking with us about his proposed amendments.

Sen. Rick Scott Speaks With The Daily Wire About His Proposed Amendments On ‘Term Limits,’ Tax Hikes, And The ‘Line-Item Veto’

Republican Party

Rick Scott

On Wednesday&#8217;s episode of &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show,&#8221; the host breaks down The New York Times&#8217; release of President Donald Trump&#8217;s tax information from over a decade ago. Knowles argues that while the media treated it like an exclusive, nothing new was revealed in the documents. Transcript and video below.
What are the conclusions of the documents? The conclusions are that for a little under a decade, Donald Trump paid a low tax rate. When you take into account losses, deductions and all these sorts of things he didn&#8217;t have a tax liability. The charitable view of that is that Donald Trump took major business losses. We know there was a huge downturn in New York real estate at that time. We know that the tax code was favorable toward real estate developers, toward people who were building things, so that seems pretty fair. The uncharitable read of that document is that Donald Trump cheated on his taxes, that he paid a rate that was too low. But this one is kind of hard to believe because Donald Trump is under audit currently, I believe, and he certainly was under audit two years ago. This is a very wealthy guy with a lot of business interests who has been audited. If he really underpaid on taxes one would expect that that would already be discovered by now.
Another takeaway is that Donald Trump had less money than he said he did for many years. Duh. Yeah of course, where have you been? This has always been the knock on Trump is that he brags about having more money than he does. Is that news?
The New York Times thinks this is a big story. They&#8217;ve been lobbying this attack on him for much more than three years. Then, you&#8217;ve got to wonder what do the Democrats get out of this? First of all, nobody cares about Donald Trump&#8217;s taxes, nobody cares about any politician&#8217;s taxes. This is just an attack that has come up over the past few decades for opposition research firms to launch more assaults on other candidates. Nobody cares. Public opinion shows this. People care about immigration, they care about jobs, they care about the economy. They do not care about the tax returns of some politician from 10 years ago. We got too much on our minds, this does not really matter.
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PfqBsAPwmRQ?start=908" width="560"></iframe></div>
Now, what else do Democrats get from this? They now get to highlight how Donald Trump fought his way back from a billion dollars of debt. A billion dollars of losses. Is that bad?
Democrats get now to push the narrative that Trump has tried to push for 30 years. People like that. It exposes a lot of the elitism of the mainstream media. When this came out one of the trends that was going on Twitter said Donald Trump shouldn&#8217;t have hosted The Apprentice, he should have hosted The Biggest Loser. They&#8217;re making fun of Trump because he took some big risks in business and had some big losses and then made a lot of his money back. First of all, does anyone actually believe Donald Trump is not a wealthy man right now? I know some people try to say that and say he&#8217;s not as rich as he says he is. Okay fine. Certainly, we all can agree that Donald Trump is a very wealthy man right now and has been for at least the last 15 years.
The New York Times, they say, &#8220;Ha ha, he wasn&#8217;t a billionaire for ten years. Oh, Jeeves pour me a little more port, please. We&#8217;re making fun of how Donald from Queens &#8212; you know he has that outer burrow accent; he wasn&#8217;t even a billionaire for the early 90s. This is how we&#8217;re going to win votes from those plebeians in New York City.&#8221; They&#8217;re portraying themselves as rich uncle penny bags over here. They&#8217;re portraying themselves as the guy on the Monopoly box. That&#8217;s not a good way to connect to the American people. Totally botched hit. Whoever leaked it really does seem to have backfired here.
I&#8217;d like to think that it was Republicans who leaked this document because it&#8217;s a great troll and you know at this moment in time Republicans are really good at trolling the media and Democrats. If it wasn&#8217;t the Republicans, who leaked this if it wasn&#8217;t Trump himself if it wasn&#8217;t like kind of a media dirty hit &#8212; if this actually was leaked from the government, this is a major crime. To leak someone&#8217;s private tax return information is a very serious crime. Certainly, an investigation should take place and whoever is responsible for it should be held to account, unless it was Trump himself. Whoever actually committed a crime of stealing this information should be held to account. This is really bad.
We attack Wikileaks for hacking into the government and releasing information that should not be released and rightly so. How is this that much different? You have somebody going into our federal government stealing information, leaking it to the media and publishing it to damage not only a politician, not only a candidate, but the President of the United States. That&#8217;s a big deal. That&#8217;s a very big deal.
<a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-michael-knowles-show/id1266577963?mt=2">Listen to &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show&#8221; on iTunes.</a>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/show/michael-knowles-show">Subscribe to watch &#8220;The Michael Knowles Show&#8221; on-demand.</a>

KNOWLES: The NYT’s Trump Tax Document Release Revealed Nothing

Conservatism

Michael Knowles

New York

New York City

Trump Administration

Democrats are falling over themselves to tell the American people they want to raise their taxes.
The latest example comes from former Vice President Joe Biden, who <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaWym5mHKAk&amp;feature=youtu.be">said during a campaign stop</a> in <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/joe-biden-test-waters-voters-south-carolina/story?id=62814047">South Carolina</a> that part of the way he would pay for all his policy proposals would be to &#8220;repeal those Trump tax cuts.&#8221;
Biden actually said this would be the &#8220;first thing&#8221; he&#8217;d do, to great applause from an audience that would see their taxes go up if the former vice president really were to repeal the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), a right-leaning advocacy group run by Grover Norquist, <a href="https://www.atr.org/biden-first-thing-i-d-do-repeal-those-trump-tax-cuts?amp">wrote</a> that repealing the TCJA would &#8220;impose a large tax increase on the American people.&#8221;
&#8220;Thanks to the tax cuts, a typical family of four earning the median family income of $73,000 saw a tax cut of over $2,000 &#8211; a 58% reduction in federal taxes. A single parent with one child with annual income of $41,000 saw a tax cut of $1,304 &#8211; a 73% reduction in federal taxes,&#8221; ATR wrote.
ATR also pointed out that The New York Times admitted the TCJA resulted in a tax cut for &#8220;most people.&#8221;
&#8220;To a large degree, the gap between perception and reality on the tax cuts appears to flow from a sustained &#8212; and misleading &#8212; effort by liberal opponents of the law to brand it as a broad middle-class tax increase,&#8221; the Times wrote, without admitting to its own role in spreading the false propaganda.
ATR noted that when Walter Mondale promised to raise taxes on the American people if he were elected, he lost the election in a landslide, &#8220;winning only his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia.&#8221;
Biden isn&#8217;t the only Democrat running for president saying they would raise taxes on the middle class. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) said recently that she would repeal the TCJA for everyone and replace it with her own plan, which may or may not result in higher taxes on the middle class, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/46926/kamala-harris-wants-repeal-trump-tax-cuts-everyone-ashe-schow">depending on who you ask</a>.
Ryan Ellis, a tax expert who used to work for ATR, told The Daily Wire that a family of four making $90,000 would see a $2,600 tax hike from repealing the TCJA, but only a $1,500 corresponding tax reduction from Harris&#8217; plan.
Kyle Pomerleau, chief economist and a vice president of the Tax Foundation, told the Wire middle-class tax payers would see their after-tax income boosted more under Harris&#8217; plan than the TCJA, but due to other incentives in Harris&#8217; plan, economic output would be significantly reduced.
It&#8217;s incredible to watch Democrats run on raising your taxes. It&#8217;s even more incredible to listen to crowds cheer this. Do they not realize that means their taxes would go up?
Imagine hating President Donald Trump so much that you&#8217;re willing to give the government more of your money to get him out of office. And yet, whoever ends up with the Democrat nomination, even if they lose to Trump, will win more states than Mondale.

Joe Biden’s Plan To Help Ordinary Americans: ‘The First Thing I’d Do Is Repeal Those Trump Tax Cuts’

Kamala Harris

It&#8217;s not at all surprising that a Democrat would call for higher taxes and spending while campaigning.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), who is running for president, said recently she wants to repeal the entire 2017 tax law that cut taxes for the majority of Americans and replace it with a tax cut that doesn&#8217;t look like it will help many people. Also, she uses some fuzzy math to explain how repealing the Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) will pay for her education plan even though she has her own tax plan that would replace them.
While campaigning in Detroit, Michigan, Harris said she&#8217;d &#8220;get rid of the whole thing,&#8221; referring to Trump&#8217;s tax cuts, which gave most Americans a bigger paycheck after they went into effect. Harris&#8217; campaign spokesman, Ian Sams, told Bloomberg that Harris would replace Trump&#8217;s tax cuts with her own plan, which would help fewer people. Harris&#8217; plan, called the Livable Incomes For Families Today (LIFT) Act, would ostensibly help low income and middle-class earners by providing them tax credits of up to $6,000 a year. From Bloomberg:
<blockquote>
The credit would apply to households earning less than $100,000 annually. Single filers earning under $50,000 a year would get $3,000. The credit could be accessed monthly or in one lump sum at the end of the year. It would begin to phase out for single taxpayers without children earning at least $30,000, single taxpayers with children earning at least $80,000, and married taxpayers earning at least $60,000.
</blockquote>
Perhaps this sounds good to people who don&#8217;t live in large cities, but as someone who built their career in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area I struggle to see how this would have helped me.
Ryan Ellis, an expert in tax policy who worked for Grover Norquist for a decade, told me that Harris&#8217; plan, combined with the tax hikes that would hit middle- and lower-income Americans from repealing the Trump tax cuts, would end up raising taxes on net for many families.
&#8220;For example, a family of four with two small kids making $90,000 per year would see a TCJA tax increase of $2600,&#8221; Ellis said. &#8220;But they would only get an offsetting LIFT credit of $1500. Interact the two, and it&#8217;s a tax hike of $1100 on this four-figure family.&#8221;
Kyle Pomerleau, chief economist and vice president of economic analysis at the Tax Foundation, differed in his assessment of whether individual families would see a tax hike, but said Harris&#8217; plan would end up hurting the economy by discouraging labor force participation.
&#8220;The TCJA did reduce taxes for the middle class. We estimated that the law boosted after-tax income by about 1.6 percent for middle-income taxpayers,&#8221; Pomerleau told The Daily Wire in an email. &#8220;In contrast, we estimate that LIFT would boost this same groups after-tax income by 5.6 percent. Thus the swap would mean the middle class would be a net beneficiary.&#8221;
Pomerleau warned, however, that the tax hikes from repealing the TCJA would result in problems for the economy.
&#8220;We estimated that the TCJA would boost economic output, wages, and jobs. For example, we think GDP would be about 1.7 percent larger in the long-run due to the TCJA,&#8221; Pomerleau wrote. &#8220;In contrast, the LIFT credit, due to discouraging labor force participation, would reduce output by about 0.8 percent. Overall, the swap would mean lower economic output.&#8221;
Harris has another problem with the plan she discussed before the American Federation of Teachers: Math. Harris told the teachers she had a $315 billion plan that would raise the wages of public school teachers.
Sahil Kapur, one of the authors of the Bloomberg article mentioned above, said on Twitter there was a &#8220;math imbalance in Harri&#8217;s trio of proposals.&#8221;
&#8220;She says she&#8217;ll repeal the GOP tax law (+$1.9T) and enact the LIFT Act (-$2.8T) plus her teacher pay plan (-$315B),&#8221; he tweeted. &#8220;That&#8217;s still $1.2 trillion in the red.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
There&#8217;s a math imbalance in Harris&#8217;s trio of proposals here. She says she&#8217;ll repeal the GOP tax law (+$1.9T) and enact the LIFT Act (-$2.8T) plus her teacher pay plan (-$315B).
That&#8217;s still $1.2 trillion in the red.<a href="https://t.co/xsC5R7IKKd">https://t.co/xsC5R7IKKd</a>
&#8212; Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) <a href="https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1125763675762167808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 7, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
He followed up that tweet with information from Harris&#8217; blueprint for her education plan, which said it would strengthen &#8220;the estate tax&#8221; and crack &#8220;down on loopholes that let the very wealthiest, with estates worth multiple millions or billions of dollars, avoid paying their fair share.&#8221;
A quick reminder of what the estate tax is: Someone with an estate, who has paid their taxes, dies. In order to collect their inheritance, an heir must pay additional taxes on what is left to them. It&#8217;s essentially a double tax scheme.

Kamala Harris Wants To Repeal Trump Tax Cuts For EVERYONE. Her Replacement Plan Would Likely Hurt Middle Class, Economy.

Illinois&#8217; new governor, Democrat J.B. Pritzker, has only been in office a few months, but he&#8217;s already following the proud Illinois gubernatorial tradition of being investigated by the federal government. This time, though, it&#8217;s not a public corruption investigation &#8212; it&#8217;s a probe into whether Pritzker and his wife deliberately removed toilets from their Chicago mansion to avoid paying around $300,000 in property taxes.
<a href="https://wgntv.com/2019/04/24/report-feds-investigating-claims-pritzkers-removed-mansions-toilets-to-get-tax-break/">WGN News reports</a> that the Feds are looking into claims, which surfaced during the Illinois gubernatorial campaign last year, that Pritzker&#8217;s wife, MK, directed contractors to remove all of the toilets from a mansion the pair were remodeling in Chicago&#8217;s tony Gold Coast neighborhood so that the mansion could be declared &#8220;uninhabitable.&#8221; The move allegedly reduced the value of the home by $5 million and the Pritzkers&#8217; tax burden by $331,000.
&#8220;The report also found that [Pritzker aide Christine] Lovely and the governor&#8217;s brother-in-law, Thomas J. Muenster, made &#8216;false representations&#8217; on tax appeal documents,&#8221; <a href="https://www.wbez.org/shows/wbez-news/source-feds-probe-illinois-gov-jb-pritzker-first-lady-for-property-tax-appeals-on-gold-coast-mansion/afb5e34e-e7f5-4113-a110-ac8ec98bca63">WBEZ adds</a>. The pair reportedly declared to the county that that the home had no working bathrooms for the two years prior to the toilet removal project, which allowed the Pritzkers to reclaim around $132,000 in taxes they&#8217;d already paid to Cook County.
The Cook County IG that issued the report called the incident a &#8220;scheme to defraud taxpayers,&#8221; and suggested that the Pritzkers could be guilty not just of lying to tax assessors, but of perjury and mail fraud.
When the reports surfaced in the form of an <a href="https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/toilet-watchdog-pritzkers-property-tax-break-scheme-defraud-blanchard/">inspector general&#8217;s report</a> released in October, Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune with a net worth of approximately $3.2 billion, cut Cook County a check for the missing money, with a note that said the &#8220;gift&#8221; was &#8220;in no way an admission of any wrongdoing.&#8221;
The Pritzkers also said at the time that they did have at least one working toilet in the home.
Simply repaying the county $331,000 doesn&#8217;t absolve Prtizker or his wife of attempting to commit tax fraud, and, shortly after the IG report surfaced in October, the federal government began an official inquiry into what, precisely, the Pritzkers were trying to do.
Pritzker wrote off the tax fraud claims during the campaign as &#8220;politically motivated.&#8221; Through a spokesperson, Pritzker told media that he does not believe he or his wife engaged in any wrongdoing.
&#8220;Neither the Governor nor the First Lady have been contacted by law enforcement regarding the property tax appeal,&#8221; the spokesperson, a high-powered attorney whose firm worked with Pritzker during the campaign, told WBEZ. &#8220;We are confident that any further review of the matter will show that the appropriate rules were followed.&#8221;
Pritzker himself told media that he has &#8220;no concerns at all&#8221; about the probe and that he knows as much about the federal government&#8217;s investigation as reporters do: &#8220;what I know is what you all know from the reporting that was done this week.&#8221;
The news of an Illinois governor under federal investigation may not be very novel &#8212; many of the state&#8217;s former governors often live out their &#8220;retirement&#8221; behind bars &#8212; but this one comes at a particularly fraught time for Illinois and for the governor, who is trying to convince Illinois residents that a significant tax hike is needed in order to address the state&#8217;s overwhelming financial issues.
Pritzker is proposing changing the state&#8217;s &#8220;flat&#8221; income tax to a graduated income tax in order to ensure that the state&#8217;s rich pay their &#8220;fair share.&#8221; His Republican opposition have already pointed out &#8212; quite cleverly &#8212; that even given the opportunity, it appears Pritzker &#8212; one of the state&#8217;s wealthiest businessman &#8212; may have resorted to breaking the law in order to avoid paying his own fair share to the citizens of Cook County.

Menu