logo
Republicans lay groundwork for ‘total tax cliff' at end of Trump's term

Republicans lay groundwork for ‘total tax cliff' at end of Trump's term

The Hilla day ago

Congressional Republicans are laying the groundwork for a tax cliff at the end of President Trump's term in office.
While the conference is pushing to make the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent, additional measures geared toward working-class Americans are being slated for expiration at the end of 2028.
'It means that's going to be an issue in the next presidential race,' House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.) said Tuesday.
The major expiring tax breaks in the House-passed version of Republicans' domestic agenda bill are boosts in the standard deduction, the deduction for seniors, and the child tax credit, along with the cancellation of taxes on tips, overtime pay, and car loan interest.
Budget hawks are saying this sets up a 'tax cliff' in the legislation similar to the one Republicans are now trying to surmount, since most of the 2017 Trump tax cuts expire at the end of this year.
'There's a total tax cliff in there. There's about $1.5 trillion worth of taxes that expire in four years, five years, which means what? In five years, they'll just keep them going. This is why we end up with the same problem,' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said last week.
'It is 100 percent a gimmick to have tax cuts that you're putting in place for four or five years,' he added.
The legislation is likely to undergo substantial changes in the Senate, including a change in the accounting baseline that will allow trillions of dollars worth of deficit additions coming from the extension of previous tax cuts to be ignored.
But senators are sounding open to maintaining the split between making the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) permanent and allowing the additional cuts for workers, families, retirees and consumers to expire.
'The general feeling of Senate Finance is the TCJA — we need to make that permanent. We need to make the business provisions — the expensing, the R&D provisions — we need to make those permanent. The other things, I think we should discuss it,' Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said last week.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) stressed the objective of overall permanence while saying the additional cuts could be subject to change.
'Our intent is to make the tax cuts permanent. Now, something like the child tax credit, with a huge transfer payment aspect to it, I'd have to say that's something I'd have to check on. Other tax cuts and reductions, depending on score and how the votes come down, that could change,' he said last week.
The expiring cuts are mostly ones that were proposed by President Trump while he was on the campaign trail.
They appealed to various constituencies and came fast and furious in the run-up to the election. Seven different targeted tax proposals were floated in September and October, according to a tally by news agency Reuters.
Trump proposed making auto loan interest fully deductible at a speech in October in Detroit, the capital of the U.S. auto industry.
He pitched getting rid of taxes on tips in June in Las Vegas, Nev., a battleground state with an enormous hospitality sector.
He proposed a tax credit for family caregivers at a rally at Madison Square Garden in New York, a state where more than 4 million people take care of loved ones.
Many in the policy establishment — both left-leaning and right-leaning — view Trump's additional cuts as ancillary, if not altogether undesirable.
'I would prefer those things would be completely off the list,' Daniel Bunn, president of the Tax Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, told The Hill in November. 'It's not good policy. It does not move in the same direction that the 2017 reforms work.'
William Gale, co-director of the more liberal Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, wrote in a commentary last year that canceling taxes on tips was a bad idea.
'The obvious problem is that the proposals are inconsistent with sound tax policy. The less obvious problem is that exempting tips would not even help the vast majority of low-income workers,' he wrote.
While senators sound open to keeping the division between permanent and temporary tax cuts, they're also wary about creating another tax cliff that is likely to factor into political debates in the future.
'They're doing that for only four years, and all of a sudden that stops? I'm not real high on tax policy that expires,' Johnson said of the no-tax-on-tips provision. 'If it's good enough to include, let's make it permanent. Let's have that discussion.'
The Senate has a lot more room to work with than the House since its budget baseline for the bill could allow about $5.5 trillion in expiring tax cuts to be left out of the accounting.
However, conservatives in both chambers have expressed concerns about the potential deficit impact of the GOP bill, which has rattled financial markets and spurred a sell-off in the bond market.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated last week that the House's version of the plan would add $2.4 trillion to the nation's deficits over roughly the next decade.
In a follow-up analysis requested by Democrats, Congress' official budget scorer estimated additional interest costs resulting from the plan would amount to $551 billion over a decade — a change that would 'increase the cumulative effect on the deficit to $3.0 trillion.'
While top Republicans have sought to discredit the CBO's scoring of the measure, there has been distress in both chambers, as well as the White House, over the overall cost and the fact that it is projected to grow the economy by just 0.03 percent.
The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that the bill would grow the economy from 1.83 percent to 1.86 percent over the long run, representing little change from the Federal Reserve's latest prediction of 1.8 percent made prior to the passage of the legislation in the House.
'The Democrat inspired and 'controlled' Congressional Budget Office (CBO) purposefully gave us an extremely low level of growth, 1.8 percent over 10 years — how ridiculous and unpatriotic is that!' Trump wrote on social media earlier this month.
One of JCT's models shows the legislation reducing U.S. capital stock by 0.9 percent over the budget window, leading to an overall decrease in economic output.
'The first and second half effects result in a decrease of 0.1 percent on average over the entire budget window,' JCT found.
Democrats have seized upon the expiring cuts that Trump proposed as evidence that the bill is skewed toward the wealthy — though lower income tax rates for lower earners will be made permanent as part of the bill.
'Why is this bill designed to take away some of the benefits that you claim people are going to have?' Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) asked Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent during a hearing Wednesday. 'The senior tax credit expires … No taxes on tips expires.'
Despite locking in lower tax rates for lower earners, forecasts project the House-passed tax bill will benefit higher earners more and will redistribute wealth from the bottom to the top of the income spectrum.
Half of the bill's passthrough deduction alone, which was worth more than $200 billion in 2022, went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers by adjusted gross income, according to the JCT.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Europe's Exporters Feel the Chill From Trump Tariffs
Europe's Exporters Feel the Chill From Trump Tariffs

Wall Street Journal

time27 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Europe's Exporters Feel the Chill From Trump Tariffs

Europe's exports dropped sharply in April as demand was squeezed by President Trump's tariff increases, leading to a fall in factory output that suggests economic growth has slowed after a strong start to the year. European Union exports fell by close to 10% compared with a month earlier, a dramatic reversal from the increase in March as American importers stocked up ahead of Trump's tariff announcement.

With troops in Los Angeles, echoes of the Kent State massacre
With troops in Los Angeles, echoes of the Kent State massacre

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

With troops in Los Angeles, echoes of the Kent State massacre

Ohio National Guard members with gas masks and rifles advance toward Kent State University students during an anti-war protest on May 4, 1970. More than a dozen students were killed or injured when the guard opened fire. (.) This article was originally published by The Trace. Earlier in June, President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard troops and Marines to quell anti-deportation protests and secure federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles. The move, some historians say, harks back 55 years to May 4, 1970, when Ohio's Republican governor summoned the National Guard to deal with students demonstrating against the Vietnam War at Kent State University. Guard members were ordered to fire over the students' heads to disperse the crowd, but some couldn't hear because they were wearing gas masks. The troops fired at the students instead, killing four and wounding another nine. The shooting served as a cautionary tale about turning the military on civilians. 'Dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting,' Brian VanDeMark, author of the book 'Kent State: An American Tragedy,' wrote this week for The Conversation. We asked VanDeMark, a history professor at the United States Naval Academy, more about the parallels between 1970 and today. His interview has been edited for length and clarity. After the Kent State shooting, it became taboo for presidents or governors to even consider authorizing military use of force against civilians. Is the shadow of Kent State looming over Los Angeles? VanDeMark: For young people today, 55 years ago seems like a very long time. For the generation that came of age during the '60s and were in college during that period, Kent State is a defining event, shaping their views of politics and the military. There are risks inherent in deploying the military to deal with crowds and protesters. At Kent State, the county prosecutor warned the governor that something terrible could happen if he didn't shut down the campus after the guard's arrival. The university's administration did not want the guard brought to campus because they understood how provocative that would be to student protesters who were very anti-war and anti-military. It's like waving a red flag in front of a bull. The military is not trained or equipped to deal well with crowd control. It is taught to fight and kill, and to win wars. California Governor Gavin Newsom has said that deploying the guard to Los Angeles is inflammatory. What do you fear most about this new era of domestic military deployment? People's sense of history probably goes back five or 10 years rather than 40 or 50. That's regrettable. The people making these decisions — I can't unpack their motivation or perceptions — but I think their sense of history in terms of the dangers inherent in deploying U.S. troops to deal with street protests is itself a problem. There are parallels between Kent State and Los Angeles. There are protesters throwing bottles at police and setting fires. The Ohio governor called the Kent State protesters dissidents and un-American; President Trump has called the Los Angeles demonstrators insurrectionists, although he appears to have walked that back. What do you make of these similarities? The parallels are rather obvious. The general point I wish to make, without directing it at a particular individual, is that the choice of words used to describe a situation has consequences. Leaders have positions of responsibility and authority. They have a responsibility to try to keep the situation under control. Are officers today more apt to use rubber bullets and other so-called less-lethal rounds than in 1970? Even though these rounds do damage, they're less likely to kill. Could that save lives today? Most likely, yes. In 1970, the guard members at Kent State, all they had were tear gas canisters and assault rifles loaded with live ammunition. Lessons have been learned between 1970 and today, and I'm almost certain that the California National Guard is equipped with batons, plastic shields, and other tools that give them a range of options between doing nothing and killing someone. I've touched one of the bullets used at Kent State. It was five and a half inches long. You can imagine the catastrophic damage that can inflict on the human body. Those bullets will kill at 1,000 yards, so the likelihood that the military personnel in Los Angeles have live ammunition is very remote. Trump authorized the deployment of federal troops not only to Los Angeles but also to wherever protests are 'occurring or are likely to occur,' leading to speculation that the presence of troops will become permanent. Was that ever a consideration in the '60s and '70s, or are we in uncharted waters here? In the 1960s and early 1970s, presidents of both parties were very reluctant to deploy military forces against protests. Has that changed? Apparently it has. I personally believe that the military being used domestically against American citizens, or even people living here illegally, is not the answer. Generally speaking, force is not the answer. The application of force is inherently unpredictable. It's inherently uncontrollable. And very often the consequences of using it are terrible human suffering. Before the Kent State shooting, the assumption by most college-aged protesters was that there weren't physical consequences to engaging in protests. Kent State demonstrated otherwise. In Los Angeles, the governor, the mayor, and all responsible public officials have essentially said they will not tolerate violence or the destruction of property. I think that most of the protesters are peaceful. What concerns me is the small minority who are unaware of our history and don't understand the risks of being aggressive toward the authorities. In Los Angeles, we have not just the guard but also the Marines. Marines, as you mentioned, are trained to fight wars. What's the worst that could happen here? People could get killed. I don't know what's being done in terms of defining rules of engagement, but I assume that the Marines have explicitly been told not to load live ammunition in their weapons because that would risk violence and loss of life. I don't think that the guard or the Marines are particularly enthusiastic about having to apply coercive force against protesters. Their training in that regard is very limited, and their understanding of crowd psychology is probably very limited. The crowd psychology is inherently unpredictable and often nonlinear. If you don't have experience with crowds, you may end up making choices based on your lack of experience that are very regrettable. Some people are imploring the Marines and guard members to refuse the orders and stay home. You interviewed guard members who were at Kent State. Do you think the troops deployed to Los Angeles will come to regret it? Very often, and social science research has corroborated this, when authorities respond to protests and interact with protesters in a respectful fashion, that tends to have a calming effect on the protesters' behavior. But that's something learned through hard experience, and these Marines and guard members don't have that experience. The National Guard was deployed in Detroit in 1967; Washington, D.C. in 1968; Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992; and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd. Have the Marines ever been deployed? Or any other military branch? Yes. In 1992, in the wake of the Rodney King controversy, the California governor at the time, a Republican named Pete Wilson, asked President George H.W. Bush to deploy not only the guard but also the Marines to deal with street riots in Los Angeles. That's the last time it was done. And how did that go? I'm not an expert on this, but I assure you that the senior officers who commanded those Marines made it very clear that they were not to discharge their weapons without explicit permission from the officers themselves, and they were probably told not to load their weapons with live ammunition. In 1967, during the Detroit riots, the Michigan National Guard was called out to the streets of Detroit. When the ranking senior officer arrived, he ordered the soldiers to remove their bullets from their rifles. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Cynthia Lummis Proposes Artificial Intelligence Bill, Requiring AI Firms to Disclose Technicals
Cynthia Lummis Proposes Artificial Intelligence Bill, Requiring AI Firms to Disclose Technicals

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Cynthia Lummis Proposes Artificial Intelligence Bill, Requiring AI Firms to Disclose Technicals

Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) has introduced the Responsible Innovation and Safe Expertise (RISE) Act of 2025, a legislative proposal designed to clarify liability frameworks for artificial intelligence (AI) used by professionals. The bill could bring transparency from AI developers – stoping short of requiring models to be open source. In a press release, Lummis said the RISE Act would mean that professionals, such as physicians, attorneys, engineers, and financial advisors, remain legally responsible for the advice they provide, even when it is informed by AI systems. At the time, AI developers who create the systems can only shield themselves from civil liability when things go awry if they publicly release model cards. The proposed bill defines model cards as detailed technical documents that disclose an AI system's training data sources, intended use cases, performance metrics, known limitations, and potential failure modes. All this is intended to help help professionals assess whether the tool is appropriate for their work. "Wyoming values both innovation and accountability; the RISE Act creates predictable standards that encourage safer AI development while preserving professional autonomy,' Lummis said in a press release. 'This legislation doesn't create blanket immunity for AI," Lummis continued. However, the immunity granted under this Act has clear boundaries. The legislation excludes protection for developers in instances of recklessness, willful misconduct, fraud, knowing misrepresentation, or when actions fall outside the defined scope of professional usage. Additionally, developers face a duty of ongoing accountability under the RISE Act. AI documentation and specifications must be updated within 30 days of deploying new versions or discovering significant failure modes, reinforcing continuous transparency obligations. The RISE Act, as it's written now, stops short of mandating that AI models become fully open source. Developers can withhold proprietary information, but only if the redacted material isn't related to safety, and each omission is accompanied by a written justification explaining the trade secret exemption. In a prior interview with CoinDesk, Simon Kim, the CEO of Hashed, one of Korea's leading VC funds, spoke about the danger of centralized, closed-source AI that's effectively a black box. "OpenAI is not open, and it is controlled by very few people, so it's quite dangerous. Making this type of [closed source] foundational model is similar to making a 'god', but we don't know how it works," Kim said at the time.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store