Peter Baker/NY Times:
Arthur Laffer’s Theory on Tax Cuts Comes to Life Once More
A white cloth napkin, now displayed in the National Museum of American History, helped change the course of modern economics. On it, the economist Arthur Laffer in 1974 sketched a curve meant to illustrate his theory that cutting taxes would spur enough economic growth to generate new tax revenue.
More than 40 years after those scribblings, President Trump is reviving the so-called Laffer curve as he announces the broad outlines of a tax overhaul on Wednesday. What the first President George Bush once called “voodoo economics” is back, as Mr. Trump’s advisers argue that deep cuts in corporate taxes will ultimately pay for themselves with an explosion of new business and job creation.
The exact contours of the plan remained murky and Mr. Trump will not produce a fully realized proposal on Wednesday. But what the president has called a tax reform plan is looking more like a tax cut plan, showering taxpayers with rate reductions without offsetting the full cost by closing loopholes or raising taxes elsewhere. In the short run, such a plan would add many billions of dollars to the national deficit. Mr. Trump contends that it will be worth it in the long run.
Ben Casselman/Five Thirty Eight:
The 3 Questions That Will Decide If Trump’s Tax Plan Works
- What counts as a business?
- What counts as income?
- What about the deficit?
Tim Jost/Health Affairs Blog:
The MacArthur Amendment Language, Race In The Federal Exchange, And Risk Adjustment Coefficients
The provision does not actually require states to offer a high-risk pool through which individuals who are effectively excluded from coverage by very high health status underwriting could get coverage. A reinsurance program (which would be available in all states that do not apply to use their stability funds in some other way) or high-risk sharing program might incentivize insurers not to risk underwrite, but they do not obviously do anything to help individuals whom insurers do charge higher premiums because of their health status. Moreover, the amendment later provides: “nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting insurers to limit access to health coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions,” but that is precisely what health status underwriting does. Health status underwriting could effectively make coverage completely unaffordable to people with preexisting conditions.
On Ivanka:
Peter Suderman/Reason:
The Trump administration has signalled that it is open to state waiver requests. Seema Verma, who was recently selected to head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which approves the waivers, negotiated a waiver to expanded Medicaid through Obamacare in Indiana, under then-governor Mike Pence. Last month, Verma sent a letter to states asking them to put in waiver requests. The House GOP agreement would probably make the waiver process easier for states—in particular by allowing the administration to waive Obamacare's essential health benefits and community rating rules.
But the administration would still be charged with granting or denying waivers. And a future administration that is less open to state flexibility might not be quite so inclined to play along with states. (This sort of legislation almost always leaves room for creative interpretation by the executive branch.) And it would do so in a bill that still awkwardly preserves many of the essential features of Obamacare at the federal level, from key insurance regulations to a more limited form of tax subsidy. At best, this would merely tweak the House GOP's original bill, with all its previous problems, to offer a bit of wiggle room to states that managed to obtain permission from the federal government.
Josh Barro/Business Insider:
If moderate Republicans flip on the health bill, they will regret it
If they vote for this new version, these members and many others will be subject to attack based on their own past statements — that they said the healthcare bill was unacceptable, and then they voted for it after it was made even more unacceptable.
That's not to say they can't change their minds. But I wouldn't assume they will.
Many of these "moderate" defections were unexpected the first time around, and came from members who aren't even that moderate — including Frelinghuysen, who chairs the House Appropriations Committee and is close to leadership.
RCP:
As it turns out, the first 100 days of the Donald Trump presidency have invigorated a decimated Democratic Party in ways its own standard bearers could not. The president’s low job approval rating has further complicated the calculus for congressional Democrats inclined to work with the White House to shape legislation. Instead, some members of the loyal opposition are already laying the early groundwork to challenge him in 2020.
The Democratic House and Senate campaign committees report a surge in recruitment and fundraising in response to the new administration, and outside groups are busy harnessing momentum from a newly re-activated liberal base.
“The resistance has fundamentally altered American politics,” said Anna Galland, executive director for MoveOn.org.
Alice Ollstein/TPM:
A SCOTUS Obamacare Ruling May Doom Trump’s Sanctuary Cities Crackdown
Stripping the cities and counties of this funding, however, is easier said than done. Doing so could violate the 10th Amendment, which protects states’ rights against federal intrusion, and a number of Supreme Court cases, including the 2012 case that struck down Obamacare’s mandatory Medicaid expansion, legal experts warn.
“It may be unconstitutional on several grounds,” said George Washington University Law School professor John Banzhaf III.
Monkey Cage Blog:
This is why Trump’s legislative agenda is stuck in neutral
Why have Trump and the Republican Congress delivered so little? There’s a relatively quick version of the answer: Trump is historically unpopular, lacks governing experience and surrounds himself with neophyte advisers. Across town and toting his own legislative agenda, Republican House Speaker Paul D. Ryan said the GOP “has to go from being an opposition party to being a governing party.”
And although all of that is true, legislative dysfunction is deeply rooted within today’s House. The two parties are at ideological extremes, and the ruling Republicans are more divided among themselves than at any point in the past century. The combination undermines their capacity to deliver on the president’s agenda and dampens the chances for a productive Congress.