The election is over, now the consequences begin. Know a friend or family member who voted for Trump? Share this roundup summarizing experts with them. At least they should emotionally prepare themselves for what’s coming.
First up, this piece from Laura Sanders at The Wall Street Journal pointing out that Trump’s tax plan will give some tax cuts to average Americans and a whole lot of tax cuts to the richest Americans while ballooning the debt:
[W]hile most people would have lower tax bills, higher earners would save much more. According to the Tax Policy Center, nearly half the benefits from the Trump plan would go to the top 1% of households—those earning more than about $700,000. It could also increase taxes on many single parents and two-parent families with more than two children, although the Trump campaign said it would make sure this didn’t happen.
Deductions and credits: All three plans would make it harder for individuals to benefit from specific tax deductions, for several reasons. One is that each plan raises the amount of the “standard” deduction, which gives taxpayers less need to break out deductions for mortgage interest, charitable gifts, state taxes and the like on Schedule A.
Now, your federal tax bill may be smaller, but as you’ll see later in the roundup, your state, local and municipal taxes will likely go up, up and way….On the federal tax plan, though, to put it into perspective for the average, hard-working American struggling to make ends meet, Kurt Badenhausen at Forbes looks at how rich athletes would fare under Trump and Republican tax plans:
LeBron James, a vocal Clinton supporter, stands to save $2.3 million per year on his $31 million salary from the new three-year, $99.9 million contract he signed this summer with the Cleveland Cavaliers.[...] Forbes estimates that James made $54 million a year in endorsements off the court between June 2015 and June 2016 as part of our annual look at the world’s highest-paid athletes (James ranked third overall at $77 million due to a lower salary from the Cavs during the time period). His tax savings on these deals will save him $13.8 million annually. [...]
All told, if President-Elect Trump’s tax proposal is passed by a friendly and motivated Congress, LeBron James stands to save $15.16 million annually in federal income taxes, without considering the tax savings on investment income.
One can only imagine the rewards elites like celebrities, hedge fund managers and other one-percenters will reap from the Trump/Republican tax plan (not surprising, since these types of elites have been Trump’s friends). And speaking of taxes, all that talk of “draining the swamp” and heralding in an era of transparency was, well, predictably just “talk”. Lynnley Browning at Bloomberg reports:
By tradition, sitting presidents release their returns annually, but there’s no law requiring the president to do so. And there’s no indication that Trump -- fresh from an unorthodox campaign -- plans to embrace that tradition.
Next up, Medicaid. Your state receives federal funding for Medicaid. Trump and the Republicans plan on slashing that funding, which means your state will either cut the program in your state (resulting in more poor/sick people in your state which definitely affects you and your wallet) or your local taxes will go up because your state and its towns and cities will have to fill in the gap. From John Schoen at CNBC:
Both Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan have proposed giving states fixed payments called block grants instead of covering a share of the cost of delivering health care to low-income families.
"Trump's proposal to convert Medicaid funding into a block grant program would lead to much lower federal funding to states," according to a statement Thursday from Fitch Ratings, which tracks state finances for investors in municipal bonds. [...]
That impact on individual state budgets varies widely. Alaska and North Dakota spend just 5 percent of their overall revenues on Medicaid spending. New York, Massachusetts, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island spend 20 percent or more. [...]
No matter how much states spend on Medicaid, any cuts in federal reimbursements would force them to reduce spending on other programs or raise taxes, or both. The budget pressure could also trickle down to local governments in the form of smaller funding amounts to towns and cities, Fitch said.
Does your friend or family member think the insurance market is unaffordable and insurance companies are ripping us off? I agree! And up until now, seniors have been insulated from that to an extent through the life-saving Medicare program. Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan plan to privatize Medicare. Privatization means you get a voucher from the government to go into the insurance market you hate to try and buy insurance. Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine reports:
[I]n a Fox News interview with Bret Baier, Ryan said Medicare privatization is on.
“Your solution has always been to put things together, including entitlement reform,” asks Baier, using Republican code for privatizing Medicare. Ryan replies, “If you’re going to repeal and replace Obamacare, you have to address those issues as well. … Medicare has got some serious issues because of Obamacare. So those things are part of our plan to replace Obamacare.”
Ryan tells Baier, “Because of Obamacare, Medicare is going broke.” This is false. In fact, it’s the complete opposite of the truth. The Medicare trust fund has been extended 11 years as a result of the passage of Obamacare, whose cost reforms have helped bring health care inflation to historic lows. It is also untrue that repealing Obamacare requires changing traditional Medicare. But Ryan clearly believes he needs to make this claim in order to sell his plan, or probably even to convince fellow Republicans to support it.
And remember on the trail when Trump promised people he would “protect” Social Security? Actions speak louder than words, and as Zaid Jilani at The Intercept points out, Trump has made his choice by reportedly filling his transition team with advocates for dismantling Social Security:
They are Mike Korbey, former senior advisor to the principal deputy commissioner in George W. Bush’s SSA; former Reagan SSA commissioner Dorcas Hardy; former SSA Inspector General Patrick O’Carroll; and former SSA General Counsel David Black.
Korbey is a long-time right-wing activist who has argued incorrectly that Social Security is “broken and bankrupt.” He worked for an organization called United Seniors Association, a sort of conservative counterpart to the AARP, that pushed for George W. Bush’s Social Security privatization scheme — and was hired by Bush to help tout his failed push for changes. Dorcas Hardy, a Reagan administration SSA veteran, has also called for privatizing the program — in 1995, she took part in a press conference at the libertarian Cato Institute to advocate for that idea.
The SSA cannot unilaterally privatize the program. That takes legislation that Congress has to pass and the president has to sign. But if these are indeed the people the Trump administration is picking to helm the SSA, it’s a signal that he may be far more open to cutting benefits or privatizing the program than he let on.
Remember when Trump promised he would surround himself with the “best people” and people voted for him because they believed that once he office, he would rely on experts and get rid of the “establishment”? Not the case. As Paul Waldman reports, Trump’s cabinet will be filled with his friends and yes-men, with nary an objective expert in the bunch (but a whole lot of politicians who have spent their lives in the “swamp” Trump supporters thought would be “drained”):
Rick Scott, possible HHS secretary. Before the reptilian Florida governor was trying to force welfare recipients to pee into a cup, he gained experience in the health care field as the head of the hospital company Columbia/HCA. But he was also in charge when it committed what at the time was the largest health care fraud in U.S. history, so he could probably teach the founder of Trump University a thing or two.
The New York Times details the ethical issues plaguing Trump’s “best people”:
It was also surprising that Mr. Gingrich, of all messengers, came forth from the Trump inner sanctum on Wednesday to promise that the new administration would enforce “dramatically tougher ethics reforms.” As speaker, Mr. Gingrich had his own run-in with ethics standards in 1997 when the full House voted 395 to 28 to fine him $300,000 and reprimand him for using tax-exempt money to promote Republican goals and giving a committee untrue information.
On energy, Trump hands over our energy policy to the oil & gas industries. Zoë Carpenter reports at The Nation:
He’s tapped prominent climate skeptic Myron Ebell, who directs the Center for Energy and Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, to lead his transition team at the EPA, and Mike McKenna, an energy lobbyist who has worked for Koch Companies and Dow Chemical, to head the team at the Energy Department. The fossil-fuel industry is already salivating over the opportunities the new administration presents. TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, has made plans to meet with Trump’s team to pitch restarting the project. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who chairs the Senate Energy Committee, declared shortly after the election was called for Trump that she will be pushing to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to drilling.
Speaking of pipelines, you may know some friends and family who rail against the Dakota Access oil pipeline on social media but also supported Trump. The owner of that pipeline, Maria Gallucci reports, is “enthusiastic” about a Trump presidency — not surprising given the amount of money that’s changed hands already:
Trump has invested between $500,000 and $1 million in Energy Transfer Partners, according to his financial disclosure forms, the Guardian reported in October.
Warren, the firm's CEO, gave $103,000 to Trump's presidential campaign and gave an additional $68,000 to the Republican National Committee after the real estate mogul secured the GOP's presidential nomination, records show.
On foreign policy, many Trump supporters thought he would be “tough” on the issue, but it turns out the world’s worst dictators and authoritarians are getting the last laugh. From The Washington Post editorial board:
If Mr. Trump follows the course he set in the presidential campaign, there will be many more such statements — and a rush to repression in countries around the world. At least since President Wilson carried his Fourteen Points to the 1919 Versailles conference, the United States has been the world’s foremost promoter of human rights and democracy. Mr. Trump appears ready to walk away from that role.
During the campaign, Mr. Trump brushed off reports of brutality and repression by the likes of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Not surprisingly, all three regimes welcomed his electoral college victory.
And all that talk of a “presidential pivot”? Trump, the future leader of the free world, took to Twitter to complain about how American citizens exercising their First Amendment rights were being “very unfair” to him. From Margaret Hartmann:
In under 140 characters, the president-elect complained that he was being treated unfairly, and criticized two elements of the First Amendment. And that’s coming from a man who suggested the election would be anything but “very open,” questioned the current president’s citizenship, and called for a march on Washington immediately after his reelection in 2012.
On Thursday the nationwide anti-Trump protests that began immediately after his election continued for a third night. Thousands of people took to the streets, and the vast majority are not “professional” protesters. The demonstrations even include people who are not old enough to vote.
Elections have consequences. Well, there you go.