GOP in both House and Senate seem to agree that re-upping the 2017 Trump tax cuts won't cost anything even though it did the first time lol, $1.9 trillion over ten years according to the CBO

The Party now says ignore the evidence of your memory.

Reported here:

 ... At this point, senior House Republicans privately say they think House Republicans will accept the Senate’s push to use the “current policy baseline” accounting tactic to extend the 2017 tax cuts and claim it costs nothing. The biggest hurdle now is the vast discrepancy between the Senate’s targeted spending cut minimums and the House’s $1.5 trillion spending cut target. ...

Ha ha ha, the budget framework House Republicans were so proud of passing in late February will have to be completely reworked in the Republican Senate, reconciliation bill won't move until the end of July

... “Thune and others have said they don’t think it’s realistic we’ll move the finished product until the end of July,” a Republican senator said of Thune’s projected timeline for moving Trump’s agenda.

“Thune said he thought that the House’s timeline on this was totally unrealistic and that the House doesn’t have their ducks in a row, and their budget resolution has to be completely reworked, and this idea that we do it by April or May is just ridiculous,” the source said. ...

Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said last month that the House-passed budget needed “a major overhaul” before it could pass the Senate. ...

 

More. 

The major areas of disagreement include switching to the so-called current policy baseline to get the cost of the package to zero, a complete fantasy; choosing which tax cuts, most of which are ad hoc and targeted and not broad-based, to include in the package; cutting future deficits by $880 billion as the House says it wants without cutting Medicaid funding; and goosing defense spending by $175 billion.

 

Just minor details like that.

 

 

Republican Senator Mike Crapo is full of Orwellian crap, says extending the Trump tax cuts which increased deficits by $1.7 trillion won't keep increasing deficits

 

 If you're not changing the tax code, you're simply extending current policy—you are not increasing the deficit. The bottom line here is that it's a $4.3 trillion tax increase, not a $4.3 trillion deficit increase. 

-- Mike Crapo 

Most of the tax cuts passed by Republicans during President Donald Trump’s first term, in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), which raised deficits by $1.7tn, are set to expire at the end of 2025. ... Without new legislation, current law requires tax rates to return to their pre-TCJA levels. Maintaining the current policy would cost nearly $5tn in lost revenue over the next 10 years. 

-- Oren Cass

Passing economic legislation through the US Senate can by-pass the 60-vote rule if the legislation does not increase deficits beyond 10 years. 

The total public debt has ballooned by over $16 trillion under the Trump tax cuts.

Republican fantasies about using "current policy" to price the cost of extending the Trump tax cuts at $0 are illegal

House GOP explores alternative math on Trump tax cuts

 ... But the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires that Congress use "current law" to account for how much a tax cut will cost. ...

If you thought the GOP pretending that Ukraine started the war with Russia was nuts, behold Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho who wants to pretend that Trump's 2017 tax law wasn't passed under reconciliation rules

 

 Honest to God, these people are clowns.

Republicans consider major budget change to obscure deficit impact of extending Trump’s tax cuts

... Extending the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Trump signed into law in 2017, would cost $4.6 trillion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the official nonpartisan scorekeeper.

That’s under the “current law” metric that has traditionally been used, as the tax cuts are slated to expire at the end of this year. But Senate Republicans want to use a different scoring method called the “current policy” baseline, which would assume that extending tax cuts costs $0 because they’re already law.

The chair of the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, endorsed the “current policy” approach, telling reporters that it “recognizes that extending current law does not change the tax policy, does not reduce tax revenue.”

Congressional GOP aides say the idea could have a huge impact on what they’re able to pass in the budget bill. If they use the current accounting process, they have no chance of making the 2017 tax cuts permanent, because that would require paying for it. And this process would also be key to unlocking Trump’s other tax proposals, like slashing taxes on tips and overtime pay. ...

Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., said it would set a “terrible” precedent if Republicans adopt that budgeting approach.

He said it would be a backdoor way to nuke the filibuster and take an anything-goes approach to the reconciliation process, which Congress can use once per fiscal year to evade the 60-vote rule in the Senate for changes to spending and taxes. The process imposes significant constraints, like needing to pay for long-term laws that add to the U.S. debt.

“My advice is: If they adopt that policy, we should advise the American people to forget about their credit card debt,” Neal said. “You wouldn’t have to analyze revenue and expenditure.” ...

The budget framework passed this week by the GOP House is guaranteed to raise the national debt by $19 trillion in 10 years, which means we'll be $60 trillion in the hole by 2035. 

All the shenanigans and pretending and make believe used over the years to get us to the current point of $36 trillion in debt, trotted out yet one more time aren't going to stop us from a date with $60 trillion in debt.

 

WE ARE NOT A SERIOUS COUNTRY.

Gabrielle Giffords' Democrats Promoted Libertarian as True Conservative to Divide Vote on her Right

The following excerpts come from the website of the Libertarian Party candidate, Steve Stoltz, whom the Democrat Party (yes you read that right) promoted in its literature as the true conservative running against the Democrat incumbent Gabrielle Giffords, shot in Tucson on Saturday, to bleed off votes on the right from the Republican challenger Jesse Kelly:

As a Libertarian, I am socially liberal, compassionate and humanitarian, but I am also fiscally conservative and principled.

The United States should have sound money that is backed by gold not the “monopoly money” of a fiat currency that is essentially counterfeited by the printing presses of the Federal Reserve which causes massive inflation.

As a Libertarian I believe that everyone owns their own body and can do ANYTHING they want with it, so long as they do not infringe upon someone else’s life/health, liberty or property (the 4rth amendment of the constitution says that people have a right to be secure in their person).

Government has no authority over the nature of a person’s consensual sexual relationships - even if they desire to engage in promiscuity and immorality.

The government has no right to tell a person what food they can eat, has no right to restrict their access to vitamin and mineral supplements, has no right to prevent a person from taking experimental drugs or getting medical treatments they feel will cure them of disease.

It is ironic that laws limit access to drugs, while the FDA has permitted poisonous/toxic substance like aspartame to be introduced into beverages.

Drugs like marijuana should be legalized, with increasing amounts of regulation and taxation applied to the more addictive drugs.

Society should lift prohibitions, but should regulate drugs the way alcohol currently is.

Lifting some drug prohibition could have a positive impact on national security.

Marriage is a legal contract protecting the rights of two individuals who decide that they want to live together and share property.

The state’s sole role is to enforce the property rights of the union, without placing stipulations on the nature of the union, whether it is between heterosexuals or homosexuals.    

The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment says that every US citizen shall enjoy the equal protection of the law.

Since no group should be given special treatment relative to over another, the military’s current policy of “Don’t ask don’t tell” is un-Constitutional, and should simply be reduced to “Don’t ask”.

The military should not expel a member who has already proven they can do the job merely because that person has identified himself/herself as homosexual.

I believe the government must respect the 2nd amendment, and place absolutely no restrictions on gun rights.

Although I am totally opposed to violence, I find it amazing that those who would place restrictions over a private citizen’s access to guns also seem to place blind faith in the integrity of the police, merely because they are agents of government.

Social security ... The system should be restructured so that younger persons invest in a privately held account, the way the government originally sold it.

I do not believe that it is moral for a wealthy person to hoard their wealth without trying to use it to help people.

[I]t doesn’t make sense for the government to document illegal aliens.

I do not believe that illegal aliens who give birth in the United States should instantly be granted citizenship (i.e. “anchor babies”).

I don’t believe illegal aliens should enjoy special access to entitlements relative to US citizens.

[W]hile it might be unfair for the children of illegal aliens who don’t pay property tax to receive a free education in US school systems, they nonetheless fall under the same category as the children of US citizens who receive a free education because their parents rent and don’t pay property tax.

The illegal alien problem is a multi-faceted social problem that can’t be solved merely by erecting a fence.     

Female reproductive rights/abortion – I am pro-choice.    

The focus of the military should be primarily to defend the nation’s borders against invasion.

As a Libertarian, I believe that in order for anything to be regarded as a crime, there must be a victim.  Civil fines for traffic violations that do not result in an accident or property damage or personal injury, and merely raise money for the state represent victimless crimes.