'Tax Reform Is Hard. Keeping Tax Reform Is Harder': Highlights from the House Tax Cuts Hearing
The House Ways and Means Committee held a three-hour hearing Wednesday on the effects of the Republican tax overhaul. We tuned in so you wouldn’t have to.
As you might have expected, the hearing was mostly an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to exercise their messaging on the benefits or dangers of the new law, and for the experts testifying to disagree whether the gains from the law would outweigh the costs. But there was also some consensus that it’s still very early to try to gauge the effects of the law that was signed into effect by President Trump less than five months ago.
“I would emphasize that, despite all the high-quality economic research that’s been done, never before has the best economy on the planet moved from a worldwide system of taxation to a territorial system of taxation. There is no precedent,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “And in that way we do not really know the magnitude and the pace at which a lot of these [effects] will occur.”
Some key quotes from the hearing:
Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA), ranking Democrat on the committee: “This was not tax reform. This was a tax cut for people at the top. The problem that Republicans hope Americans overlook is the law’s devastating impact on your health care. In search of revenue to pay for corporate cuts, the GOP upended the health care system, causing 13 million Americans to lose their coverage. For others, health insurance premiums will spike by at least 10 percent, which translates to about $2,000 a year of extra costs per year for a family of four. … These new health expenses will dwarf any tax cuts promised to American families. … The fiscal irresponsibility of their law is stunning. Over the next 10 years they add $2.3 trillion to the nation’s debt to finance tax cuts for people at the top – all borrowed money. … When the bill comes due, Republicans intend to cut funding for programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.”
David Farr, chairman and CEO of Emerson, and chairman of the National Association of Manufacturers: “We recently polled the NAM members, and the responses heard back from them on the tax reform are very significant and extremely positive: 86 percent report that they’ve already planned to increase investments, 77 percent report that they’ve already planned to increase hiring, 72 percent report that they’ve already planned to increase wages or benefits.”
Holtz-Eakin: “No, tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. If they did there would be no additional debt from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and there is. The question is, is it worth it? Will the growth and the incentives that come from it be worth the additional federal debt. My judgment on that was yes. Reasonable people can disagree. … When we went into this exercise, there was $10 trillion in debt in the federal baseline, before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. There was a dangerous rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio. It was my belief, and continues to be my belief, that those problems would not be addressed in a stagnant, slow-growth economy. Those are enormously important problems, and we needed to get growth going so we can also take them on.”
“Quite frankly, it’s not going to be possible to hold onto this beneficial tax reform if you don’t get the spending side under control. Tax reform is hard. Keeping tax reform is harder, and the growth consequences of not fixing the debt outlook are entirely negative and will overwhelm what you’ve done so far.”
Steven Rattner: "We would probably all agree that increases in our national debt of these kinds of orders of magnitude have a number of deleterious effects. First, they push interest rates up. … That not only increases the cost of borrowing for the federal government, it increases the cost of borrowing for private corporations whose debt is priced off of government paper. Secondly, it creates additional pressure on spending inside the budget to the extent anyone is actually trying to control the deficit. … And thirdly, and in my view perhaps most importantly, it’s a terrible intergenerational transfer. We are simply leaving for our children additional trillions of dollars of debt that at some point are going to have to be dealt with, or there are going to have to be very, very substantial cuts in benefits, including programs like Social Security and Medicare, in order to reckon with that.”
McDonald’s Slims Down in the U.S. for the First Time
For the first time in at least 45 years — and maybe the first time in its history — McDonald’s says that this year it will close more restaurants in the U.S. than it opens.
An Associated Press review of McDonald’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission found that the company hasn’t slimmed down the number of restaurants it operates in the U.S. since at least 1970. McDonald’s as we know it was founded in 1955 and grew quickly in its early years, making it likely that 2015 will be the first time it takes down more Golden Arches than it puts up in the U.S.
Related: Why Chipotle Wants to Give Its Workers More Than a McJob
McDonald’s does shutter underperforming locations every year, but up until now the number of closings has been outweighed by new openings. The world’s biggest hamburger chain has been struggling to grow sales as consumers turn to chains like Chipotle and Five Guys Burgers and Fries, which market themselves as serving better food and ingredients.
McDonald’s is still growing globally, though. It has about 36,000 locations across the globe and plans to expand that total by about 300 this year. In addition, the chain is still indisputably the country’s largest hamburger chain, with more than twice as many restaurants as its main rival, Burger King.
McDonald’s spokeswoman Becca Hary told the AP that relative to the roughly 14,300 U.S. locations, the net reduction in U.S. stores would be “minimal,” though she declined to give an exact number.
More Money Coming Out of 401(k)s Than In
The amount of money withdrawn from 401(k) plans exceeded the amount contributed to the retirement funds for the first time in 2013, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
The shift reflects demographic changes as more Baby Boomer retire from the workforce and begin tapping their savings, and young millennial workers put smaller amounts in.
Consumers may benefit from the trend as fund managers begin cutting fees and changing services in order to entice young workers to sock away more. “It changes the dynamic of the business itself,” J.P. Morgan Chase analyst Ken Worthington told The Journal.
Related: Here Are 7 Ways People Screw Up Their 401(k)s
Company-sponsored 401(k) plans had $4.6 trillion in assets last year, according to the Investment Company Institute.
The average 401(k) balance at the end of the first quarter was $91,800, up 0.5 percent from the fourth quarter of 2014 and up 3.6 year-over-year, according to Fidelity. For employees in a plan for 10 years or more, the average balance was $251,600, up 12 percent year-over-year.
Workers can contribute up to $18,000 in pre-tax dollars to their 401(k) plans in 2015, but most workers—especially younger ones—save far less each year. There are lots of reasons millennials are lagging in retirement savings: large numbers of them are still unemployed or underemployed in jobs that don’t have retirement benefits, and they’re diverting all their extra cash to student loans. Plus, retirement may not be top-of-mind for 20-somethings, no matter how many times they hear about the benefits of compound interest.
Why a Woman Will be on the $10 Bill and Not the $20
The announcement that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing will add a woman to the portrait of Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill has stirred a lot of conversation as to why the Treasury was not redesigning the $20 bill instead.
It turns out there is a very simple explanation: The move is based on recommendations from the Advanced Counterfeit Deterrence (ACD) Steering Committee.
Related: The Best Bank in Every Region Across America
"Currency is redesigned to stay ahead of counterfeiting," the US Treasury says. "The ACD Steering Committee recommended a redesign of the $10 note next. The ACD will make its next recommendation based on current and potential security threats to currency notes."
The ACD bases those recommendations on the "current and potential security threats to currency notes," and it turns out that the $10 bill is at a greater threat of being counterfeit than the $20 bill.
Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew announced the change in a statement on YouTube: "I'm proud to announce today that the new $10 bill will be the first bill in more than a century to feature the portrait of a woman.”
Hamilton will share the note with a woman who Lew is expected to choose by the end of the year. The new bill will enter circulation after 2020.
This article originally appeared on Business Insider.
Read more from Business Insider:
Fitbit opens up 52%
Why people are angry about the $10 bill change
The 'Tesla of scooters' is finally available and it looks incredible
FCC Slaps AT&T with $100 Million Fine for Throttling Internet Users
The FCC on Wednesday slapped AT&T hard, proposing a $100 million fine — the largest the agency has ever handed down — for what it described as the phone and broadband giant’s misleading customers about its “unlimited” data plans.
At issue is the practice of “throttling,” or limiting download and upload speeds for some users on those data plans.
Related: John Oliver Just Won the Net Neutrality Battle
AT&T’s throttling policy had been in place since 2011, according to an FCC statement, and it led to a barrage of complaints to the agency. AT&T targeted users who surpassed a certain data threshold over the course of a month, and consumer complaints argued that AT&T’s limiting of download speeds was directly at odds with the nature of the marketed “unlimited” plans.
AT&T, which is also pursuing government approval of its pending acquisition of DirecTV, says it will “vigorously dispute” the decision. In a statement, the company said that its practice is well documented and shared by many — if not all — service providers, and a legitimate method of managing their network’s resources. The FCC disagrees, claiming that AT&T violated transparency rules by falsely calling these plans unlimited.
"Broadband providers must be upfront and transparent about the services they provide,” said FCC Chair Tom Wheeler in a statement. “The FCC will not stand idly by while consumers are deceived by misleading marketing materials and insufficient disclosure."
Related: The Net Neutrality Debate Explained
AT&T has 30 days to respond before the FCC issues its final decision.
The Federal Trade Commission sued AT&T for $3.5 million in October last year, for the same alleged violation. That case is still ongoing.
The 2016 Presidential Debates Could Become a Slugfest
Few could doubt the impact of nationally televised presidential debates after Republican Mitt Romney set President Obama back on his heels in their first encounter in October 2012.
Romney was articulate and aggressive while Obama appeared frazzled and very much off his game. Romney’s commanding performance helped the former Massachusetts governor briefly energize his floundering campaign and regain its momentum.
Related: Clinton Plays the Gender Card as a Campaign Strategy -
Moreover, with home viewership topping 67 million, the debate -- moderated by Jim Lehrer, the former news anchor for the PBS News Hour – broke a 32-year gross viewership record dating back to the first debate between Democratic President Jimmy Carter and Republican challenger Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Yet amid dramatic changes in political campaign tactics and fundraising and the way Americans consume the news, these televised general election presidential debates actually are suffering from diminished reach.
A new study issued on Wednesday by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania seemed to compare presidential debates to TV entertainment. Their assessment: the more than two-decade old debate format is to blame for the low viewership among millennials, although baby boomer viewers have increased.
Related: Why Marco Rubio Might Just Beat Hillary Clinton
So what to do? In an era when large audiences pay far more attention to “Game of Thrones,” “House of Cards,” “Master Chef” and “So You Think You Can Dance” than to increasingly lengthy presidential campaign seasons, how can the political parties and the National Presidential Debate Commission jazz up the debates to attract and keep a wider audience?
The Annenberg panel, of course, stops well short of recommending the equivalent of no-holds barred political mudwrestling to heighten audience engagement and sustained interest. The goal, the group says, is to expand and enrich debate content and produce a better informed group of voters.
To that end, the advisory group appears anxious to get rid of the moderator or middle man as much as possible and allow the two candidates to set the agenda and duke it out. They want to get rid of the one or more prominent journalists who set the ground rules and determine the pace and course of the evening’s discussion.
Related: GOP Prunes the 2016 Primary Debates Down to Nine
If, for example, Hillary Clinton were to slam, say, Marco Rubio in a debate, Rubio shouldn’t have to wait patiently for his opportunity to reply but should be allowed to jump in with a rejoinder. Think of it as the resurrection of CNN’s Crossfire.
To add a smidgeon of Jeopardy to the proceedings, each candidate would have a total of 45 minutes to spend to make their case or defend it.
While the candidates would have plenty of opportunity to get their political messages across, they would also have to respond quickly to attacks. A well-scripted candidate wouldn’t necessarily do well in that setting, and the possibility of “oops” moments would be increased. Welcome to reality TV, Beltway style.
Related: The GOP Hunger Games: Who Will Make the Debate Cut?
Ah….but dead air is not an option, so a filibuster is off the table. No answer, rebuttal or question could exceed three minutes, according to the panel. When a candidate runs out of total time, he or she has exhausted the right to speak. Remaining time at the end of the moderator-posed topics can be used for a closing statement.
The recommendations are advisory only and it will be up to the presidential debate commission and the national parties to iron out the final ground rules next year.