Mark Meadows: Ousted Boehner, voted against the original HR 3762 in October 2015, leads House Freedom Caucus against Obamacare repeal in 2017

Clearly Mark Meadows is Trump's number one problem in the US House of Representatives.

In view of the fact that Meadows was in the extreme minority in October 2015 voting with only six other Republicans against Obamacare repeal in the form of HR 3762, it was hypocritical of him to accuse John Boehner of bypassing the majority in the House in the summer of 2015 and filing the motion for him to vacate the chair. Meadows bypassed the majority in October.

Meadows only flipped his position on HR 3762 when it was revamped and hardened by the Senate to make a political point to the voters back home.

In other words, Meadows only supported the bill when it allowed him to hide behind the skirts of the Senate version which both they and he knew was designed merely to be vetoed:

[T]he Senate's version would have implemented a two year phase-out of Medicaid expansion and exchange subsidies.

The House agreed to the Senate's changes, so the final version of the bill included the Senate's modifications.

There were concerns in Congress – particularly among lawmakers from states that have expanded Medicaid – that repealing the law would result in millions of people losing their health insurance coverage. But Politico reported that "senators were reminded that the president would veto the repeal bill anyway, meaning Republicans could vote on the measure without having to deal with the political risks of actually making major changes to existing law."

But there are still 206 Republican members in the US House in 2017 who voted for the original, honest HR 3762 in October 2015, and who should do so again in 2017, if only someone (not Mark Meadows, and not Paul Ryan) would lead them there:

The House version of H.R. 3762 included repealing the individual mandate, the employer mandate, the medical device excise tax, and the "Cadillac tax" on expensive employee health insurance premiums.

It also included a measure to eliminate federal Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood for one year. But it called for increasing funding for community health centers by $235 million/year for two years (a 6.5 percent increase over the currently scheduled funding).

Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to ensure that their bill could advance through the senate as long as it received a simple majority of at least 51 votes, instead of needing 60 votes. By using reconciliation, the measure was filibuster-proof, and advanced to a vote in the Senate.

House Freedom Caucus' Meadows was one of just 7 Republicans to vote against the 2015 Obamacare repeal

Meadow's leadership against the current repeal bill, which is in fact a crummier bill, obscures his isolation previously. 

The roll call vote is here. Buck, Dold, Hanna, Jones, Meadows, Salmon, and Walker voted No. The majority of the Freedom Caucus voted for the bill, including leaders like Justin Amash and Jim Jordan.

Unlike Meadows, Americans for Tax Reform here also supported the bill at the time, as did the broader Republican Caucus in the House (it passed 240-189). ATR acknowledged the difficulty of repealing Obamacare's policy provisions without 60 votes in the Senate, which remains the problem now in 2017.

Jim Jordan is right. Repass H.R. 3762 and send it to Trump.

From ATR:

H.R. 3762 repeals most of the heart of Obamacare. The individual and employer mandates and their attendant tax penalties are gone. The medical device tax is repealed. The “Cadillac plan” excise tax is prevented from coming into effect (more on that later).

On the spending side, H.R. 3762 repeals some unaccountable Obamacare slush funds, shutters IPAB (the Medicare rationing board that Sarah Palin called a “death panel”), and ends Obamacare auto-enrollment. Importantly, it also defunds Planned Parenthood for the fiscal year.

At a markup for the bill, liberal Congressmen went apoplectic at the effect H.R. 3762 would have on Obamacare. Top House Ways and Means Democrat Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) said that the bill ”effectively guts [Obamacare].” Congressman John Lewis (D-Ga.) said, “this bill really is pulling the legs from under [Obamacare]. It is a deliberate, systematic attempt, not just to repeal, but to destroy [Obamacare].” ...

When the Republicans took the Senate in the 2014 elections, there was a lot of talk about moving bills from Capitol Hill to the President’s desk to force showdowns with the White House. That hasn’t happened, largely because Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has bottled up the Senate in 60 vote purgatory.

The one area he cannot do that is on a privileged budget reconciliation bill like H.R. 3762.

Michigan legislators correctly send sales tax increase for roads to the voters

Mlive.com reports the story here.

As I've argued before, here, an increase in the sales tax for road repairs is far less regressive than the gasoline excises as they currently stand, so I support this if I only had various tax increases to choose from. Governor Snyder's plan to raise excise taxes even higher to pay for roads was a non-starter for this reason. Commuters to minimum wage jobs shouldn't have to bear the brunt of a consumption tax on fuel which is at least twice what it is on a roll of toilet paper.

Paying prevailing wages for road repairs under Davis-Bacon laws to union shops, however, guarantees that we pay the highest prices for roads. We shouldn't have to put up with that. Competitive bidding by non-union shops is called for.  

It is also regrettable that the excise tax isn't being eliminated altogether, because, as I've said, it's about twice as onerous as the current sales tax of 6%. That it is actually being expanded somewhat under the bill is moving in the wrong direction. Maybe we can work on eliminating that in future.

Opponents of the sales tax increase should consider whether now is the time to pick a fight with the unions to get better roads at a lower price, and should also lay out what could be cut from the current budget to otherwise accomplish the goal. But the roads have been allowed to get so bad for so long it is difficult to accept the idea that we can afford to wait any longer.

The current compromise may be the best deal for everyone involved.

Michigan's Sales Taxes On Fuel Aren't Spent On Roads!

Oi, just when you thought everything was so simply dissected, you find out it's not. It turns out that Michigan's sales tax on gasoline, distinct from its excise tax on gasoline, is by law earmarked for something other than roads, according to this story for mlive.com by Jonathan Oosting:

[A]ccording to Lance T. Binoniemi of the Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association, ... the state collects sales tax on fuel but does not earmark any of that revenue for roads.

"It's the biggest public policy problem we have," Binoniemi said today during a joint session of the Senate and House transportation committees. "The general public does not understand that the 6 percent tax does not go to funding roads and bridges. When you include that sales tax, we probably do have one of the highest (gas tax rates) in the nation." ...

Michigan is amongst a handful of states that levies a sales tax on motor fuel sales, but it does not dedicate any of that revenue to road funding. Most Michigan sales tax is constitutionally earmarked for schools and revenue sharing, while a small amount collected from fuel and automotive products is statutorily earmarked for public transportation. State law currently requires retailers to pre-pay sales tax on gasoline based on a projected per-gallon cost set quarterly (and soon, monthly) by the state Treasury. Those rates are based on the price after the federal excise tax but before the state excise tax.

Obviously one cannot simply substitute a general sales tax increase for a fuel tax increase and spend it all on roads when that increase as applied to fuel sales would sequester it and spend it on something else because the Michigan constitution requires it. Gov. Snyder doesn't really have much of a near term choice for increased road funding but to resort to an increase in the excise portion of the tax on fuel. Longer term the constitution would have to be amended, alas.

This is why one should not be amending the constitution for legislative purposes in the first place, an especially bad habit in Michigan where everyone wants to resort to that nuclear option for every pet project and crackpot idea. The result is chaos, confusion, unreason, inflexibility and disorder.

What's a legislature for if not to raise or reduce taxes and defend that at reelection time? Enshrining minutiae like what the 6% sales tax on fuel must be spent on in the constitution simply allows legislators to escape the political consequences of that allocation, which I'm guessing is why so much of Michigan politics seems to get shuffled off to the referendum process, otherwise known, at best, as direct democracy, at worst, as mob rule.

Pretty cowardly when you get down to it.

Gov. Snyder Is Nuts: Gas Taxes In Michigan Are Already 6th Highest In America

Michigan in January 2013 had the SIXTH highest overall gasoline taxes in the nation, and Gov. Snyder is talking about raising them higher still to fix the roads. He is quite clearly nuts.

The excise tax on gasoline is already double the rate you would pay in sales tax on a box of Kleenex or a roll of toilet paper and is one of the most regressive taxes in the state and in the country. The excise tax on gasoline penalizes the working poor the most who depend on their cars to get to their crummy jobs, if they are lucky enough to have one. And Governor Snyder only wants to make it worse.

Here are the top six states for combined federal, state, and local gasoline taxes as of January 2013:

New York:   69.0 cents per gallon

California:   67.1 cents

Hawaii:        65.5 cents

Connecticut: 63.4 cents

Illinois:         57.5 cents

Michigan:     57.1 cents.

The federal portion EVERYWHERE is fixed at 18.4 cents per gallon, so that means Michigan already takes 38.7 cents out of your pocket every time you put a gallon of gas in your car.

Today's average price for gasoline in Michigan is $3.743, meaning the base price at the pump is $3.172, including all profits and costs before the taxes are applied. That means the federal tax of 18.4 cents represents a federal excise tax on gas of 5.8%, and that your Michigan excise tax on gasoline is a whopping 12.2%, more than twice the sales tax rate of 6%. The average sales tax nationwide is just 5.04%.

Michigan is one state which bears the full brunt of the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, resulting in road workers getting top dollar. Funny how we have some of the worst roads in the country in exchange for that. Maybe the governor should spend more time trying to figure that out before picking the taxpayers pockets again.

If the country needs anything, it is a tax cut on gasoline. The national average tax is 48.8 cents a gallon. Backing out the federal portion, that means the states on average are taking 9.3% on gasoline, a tax rate 85% higher than the average state sales tax rate.

A Rationale For Ending The Tax On Corporate Profits

John Steele Gordon provides a helpful survey of the history of American taxation, here, including the chronically avoided topic of how the tax on corporate profits (ruled constitutional as an excise tax "on the privilege of doing business as a corporation") was meant to be a temporary tax on the rich:

In the first decade of the 20th century, the stock of corporations was owned almost entirely by the rich. So taxing corporate profits was, in a very real sense, taxing the rich. Congress passed the legislation and in 1911 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the tax was constitutional. ...

Unfortunately, the [subsequent] personal income tax did not replace the corporate income tax that had originally been intended only as a stopgap. Nor did Congress integrate the two taxes so that income, whether corporate or personal, was only taxed once. The two taxes simply ignore each other as if corporations are owned by Martians, not people.

At the tax levels of the early 20th century, the harm was inconsequential. But when tax levels rose dramatically to fund the great wars that soon followed the personal income tax, the pressure to legally avoid taxes rose equally. As a result, the two separate, uncoordinated tax systems became a uniquely powerful engine of complexity as accountants and lawyers have played the two systems off each other and Congress has tried, unsuccessfully, to close or regulate the resulting “loopholes.” ...

The two income taxes have been the main reason that the tax code has exploded to a 4-million-word incomprehensible mess.

As ObamaCare Goes To The Supremes, Will It Stand Or Fall On Tax Grounds?

The individual mandate which is at the heart of ObamaCare insists that everyone buy health insurance in every state.

Once the mandate was challenged by opponents after passage, however, the Obama regime quickly began defending its penalties as a tax, which it was loathe to do in selling the law to the public for political reasons. While the law contains tax provisions, the penalty associated with not securing coverage is not a tax.

The tax argument raises important constitutional questions of fairness and substance. If the penalties really are taxes, aren't also the premiums, since the penalties take their place? And will everyone in every state pay the same premium tax for coverage? If some pay only the penalty, which is low compared to the premium, doesn't the law enjoin inequity?

Another question is whether anyone can avoid the tax. This in turn touches on the distinction between direct and indirect taxation. If the tax can be avoided, it is an example of indirect taxation which is permissible, but which must still be uniform. If it cannot be avoided, then the tax must be apportioned according to population so that everyone, rich and poor alike, everywhere pays the same tax, which would be easy for the rich, but not for the poor. But presumably under ObamaCare plans will vary from state to state as they do now, with premiums which vary according to coverage, so Americans will be forced to pay, and pay unequally.

Consider the income tax. If you take no ordinary income in the form of salary and wages, you are not liable to pay it. Wealthy individuals regularly take income in the form of capital gains, which is taxed under different rules with lower rates than ordinary income. The same avoidance obtains when taking income from municipal bonds and other tax-free bond investments. In important respects the federal income tax is thus indirect, and therefore does not need to be apportioned according to population.

Similarly with excise taxes. If you choose to drink wine over spirits the tax you pay per bottle will be substantially less for wine. You pay the tax on the wine, but you have avoided the tax on the bourbon. But if you drink neither at all, you avoid the excise taxation altogether. Hence the popularity of stills.

Some of these points get an interesting airing here as they apply to Obamacare:

The legal wrangling over whether a particular tax is direct or indirect, as Willis and Chung discuss, has been complicated and persistent for more than two centuries. In 1794, for example, Congress passed a tax on carriages, which opponents considered a direct tax and thus invalid because it was not apportioned by population. The Supreme Court found it was an indirect tax on the use of carriages, valid so long as it was uniform.

Obamacare imposes an annual penalty of $95 per adult, or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, in 2014. The annual penalties are the greater of $325 or two percent of income in 2015 and the greater of $695 or 2.5 percent of income in 2016 and subsequent years.

Willis and Chung argue these are not indirect, but instead direct taxes, unconstitutional because they are not apportioned by population. It could also be argued, though, this provision is a mixed bag. The fixed annual penalty portion, for example, could be viewed as indirect and uniform and thus constitutional, while the income percentage amounts could be deemed direct but not apportioned and thus unconstitutional.

The tax could therefore be unconstitutional for those who pay income percentages but constitutional for those who pay a fixed penalty. This may be a ridiculous and unprecedented view, but it does illustrate the complexity of this issue—leaving us with a tangled legal web indeed.

The ruling of the Supreme Court is expected next June after oral arguments in March 2012.

Fireworks are expected.

Explaining Property Taxes Then and Now

Critical listeners to recent remarks I made here on The Newsmaker Show with Kevin Doran will have wished that I had done a better job of explaining property taxes in the late 19th century and how their burden on property owners helped create the conditions which led to the tax reform which gave us the Income Tax in 1913.

So do I. Regrettably one can't say everything one needs to when trying to explain something else, especially like Herman Cain's 999 Plan.

If anyone gets the impression that I intended to say that the federal government routinely and directly taxed homeowners then, for example, in the same way homeowners are so taxed today on their property, that would be a mistake, but one which could easily be inferred. The federal government did do that sort of thing three times in the 19th century, but only for very brief periods and only to fund wars: in 1798, 1812 and 1861. Which is not to say there weren't other attempts, notable in the Pollock decision in 1895.

To a considerable extent, however, I have found that the terms "property tax," "excise," "tariff," "ad valorem" and the like get used interchangeably, and confusingly, in discussions about taxes both then and now. We would be better served if we were all more precise in these matters, but even supposed experts talk about this period with such imprecision sometimes that it is difficult to know exactly what people really do mean.

For example, "ad valorem" today gets used, as at usgovernmentrevenue.com, as a category under which to list excise taxes, tariffs, property taxes, etc., as opposed to income taxes, corporate taxes and social insurance taxes. In truth, however, its specific meaning has been more complicated than that.

From that characterization would not know that tax historians often distinguish personal property taxes in the first half of the 19th century as "in rem" from real property taxes in the second half as "ad valorem."

In the case of the former, as in 1798, slaves, for example, were taxed for war preparations with France as personal property. It didn't matter, however, how much one had invested to purchase the slave. Each one was simply taxed at 50 cents. Similarly a tax assessor would count the windows on your house, your horses, your cows, chickens etc. (unless you hid them well) and total them up by kind and assess the appropriate tax, which inhered in the thing, "in rem," not in the value, "ad valorem."

The latter is how the federal government in the 19th century was able to get around the onerous requirements of apportioning direct taxation of property equally according to state population. Instead of the arduous task of trying to tax the whole general sum of an individual's wealth in every state on an equal basis, the value of beer, wine and liquor, for example, produced anywhere could thereby be taxed everywhere the same, proportionally according to its value. In this way there was no need to divide the necessary revenue to be raised according to the population of the individual state, since the basis was the same everywhere beer was sold.

Such taxation is often called an excise, generally understood to fall on domestic produce. We still pay excises to this day, for example everytime we fill up the gas tank, 18 cents on the gallon to the feds. In truth excises are just a special kind of sales tax. A tariff is similar, but taxes foreign imports.

When it comes to the problems of farmers in the late 19th century, who eventually made league with Prohibitionists to install the Income Tax in 1913, theirs was a two-fold problem. Not only did the cost of financing state government fall heavily on them because of property taxation in the state in which they lived, federal excises on their produce represented a double "property tax" whammy. Think tobacco excises.

Viewed from this perspective, government at all levels, it seemed, got them coming and going.

To his credit, Herman Cain is trying to imagine a world in which government gets it for a change, instead of the taxpayer. His way of trying to make that happen is to play human desire to consume off of human desire to avoid paying taxes, by making what we consume each and every day the scene of a skirmish in the battle for limited government, which cannot exist without self-restraint.

Tariffs on Imports at 100 Percent Wouldn't Be Enough to Cover Federal Spending

Here are the import numbers (rounded) for the last three years for all goods and services, according to the latest revision from the US Census Bureau, here:

2008 = $2.5 trillion

2009 = $2.0 trillion

2010 = $2.3 trillion.

Federal revenues in 2008 equaled $2.5 trillion, coming mostly from income and social insurance taxes, as well as a more modest contribution from corporate and excise taxes.

To completely replace that income from tariffs would imply a 100 percent tariff, which is unimaginable.

Presumably at least some of our trade with the world is reciprocally fair, excluding it from such a punishing rate.

At some point along the tariff scale as you rise toward that extreme level, otherwise off-setting import revenues will fall as retaliatory tariffs are imposed by the global marketplace.

A 25 percent tariff on Chinese imports, as The Donald recommends, in 2010 could have generated only in our dreams something around $91 billion in revenues.

At a minimum, a vigorous reliance on tariffs for federal revenues today implies a much reduced size of the federal state.

America's Top Half of Income Earners Paid 36 Times More in Taxes in 2008

Individual income tax revenues in 2008 were $1.03 trillion on AGI of $8.43 trillion, for an effective overall tax rate on the individual American taxpayer of . . . 12.25 percent, to which add social insurance taxes and excise taxes.

The bottom 50 percent of Americans enjoyed a much lower rate, however, than the top 50 percent: 2.59 percent vs. 13.65 percent.

The top 50 percent in 2008 made 7X as much as the bottom 50 percent, and paid 36X as much in taxes.

And liberals say the rich don't pay their fair share.

(source)

Government Revenues in 2008 were $2.5 Trillion

Government revenues in 2008 came from the following taxes:

Individual income taxes -- $1.14 trillion; (IRS data is slightly different at $1.03 trillion)

Social insurance taxes -- $0.9 trillion; (earnings beyond $107,000 or so are not fully taxed for this)

Corporate income taxes -- $0.3 trillion; (think GE!)

Other -- $0.1 trillion; (think?)

Sales and excise taxes -- $0.06 trillion; (think gasoline)

Total -- $2.5 trillion. Not enough by a long shot, under Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

So whattayawannado? Raise taxes to pay for the new spending under these bums, or get rid of the bums?

(source)