Trump, in Private, Lays Out His Demands for a Border Security Deal

Plus, what's in AOC's Green New Deal

Democrats Unveil Their ‘Green New Deal.’ Here’s What It Does — and Doesn’t Do

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) released their much-anticipated proposal for a Green New Deal Thursday. Framed as a response to the challenges of global warming, the 14-page, non-binding resolution — which you can read here — calls for a “new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal era.”

The resolution reads like a “progressive manifesto,” says Vox’s Ella Nilsen, and touches on all aspects of the economy as it proposes a massive collective response to climate change, though its leaves the details to future bills that would define how the ambitious goals are to be achieved.

What it wants to do: In broad strokes, the resolution calls for a 10-year national effort to achieve a wide array of goals, including:

  • net-zero greenhouse emissions
  • millions of high-wage jobs
  • investment in 21st century infrastructure
  • an end to monopolies
  • clean manufacturing
  • sustainable farming
  • affordable housing
  • affordable health-care
  • affordable education.

The list is hardly exhaustive, and it’s safe to say that there are few economic, social and political institutions that would go untouched should a Green New Deal be put into motion.

How much it would cost: In a press release, Ocasio-Cortez said, “The level of investment required to make the Green New Deal successful is massive,” but the resolution says very little about specific costs.

How they would pay for it: Ocasio-Cortez explicitly rejects the idea of paying for the Green New Deal in any conventional sense, framing it instead as a collective investment for the country as whole. "We will finance the investments for the Green New Deal the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war — with public money appropriated by Congress," her press release says. "Further, government can take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects so the public gets a return on its investment."

The plan would rely in large part on deficit spending, says economist Noah Smith, noting that the authors cite a Forbes article on modern monetary theory, which provides a theoretical framework for the large-scale issuance of government debt in some circumstances.

Who’s backing the proposal: Cosponsors include Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Cory Booker (NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) and Kamala Harris (CA), as well as Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). More than 60 House Democrats are also on board, and many progressive groups have expressed their support. More broadly, the majority of voters in both parties have expressed support for a Green New Deal, although the results predate the release of this specific resolution.

Who isn’t: Republican lawmakers and pro-business groups were quick to reject the proposal — no surprise given its call for increased government spending and its obvious threat to the fossil fuels industry. The Job Creators Network, a conservative advocacy group backed by Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, released a statement that hit many of the basic talking points on the right: “This ‘Green New’ Deal is really a ‘Green RAW Deal’ that will devastate our economy, and will be especially harmful to small businesses, JOB CREATORS and hard-working Americans. The ‘Green Raw Deal’ simply takes the failed ideas of socialism and wraps them in a different color. Socialism takes, capitalism creates. America does not want to be like Venezuela and never will be so long as our political leaders stand up for our ideals. We call on all reasonable Members of Congress to reject this madness.”

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said that progressive proposals including the Green New Deal would “destroy entire chunks of the economy.”

But Republicans aren’t the only ones criticizing the sweeping proposal. Plenty of moderates have their doubts as well. Perhaps most prominently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Wednesday that she saw the Green New Deal as one “suggestion” among many that lawmakers would consider, and referred to the effort dismissively as “the green dream or whatever they call it,” although she changed her tone a bit on Thursday when she welcomed “the enthusiasm that is there” around the resolution.

Describing climate change as a “deadly serious” problem, Pelosi announced the members of a new special select panel on climate change Thursday. Ocasio-Cortez was notably not included.

The big picture: The proposal released Thursday is a broad declaration of intent, not a functional piece of legislation. The Washington Post’s Philip Bump said that the resolution is “a vision of what the economy should look like, predicated on the changes that global warming will necessitate. It’s framed as being about the environment. It’s much, much more than that.” Vox’s David Roberts described the proposal as the “opening bid” in a political effort that will likely take years to produce concrete results.

Trump, in Private, Lays Out His Demands for a Border Security Deal

The bipartisan congressional committee working on a border security deal is reportedly getting close to an agreement that would avoid another partial government shutdown at the end of next week. The big question still looming over the negotiations, though, is whether President Trump will sign off on the deal.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, met with the president on Thursday and told reporters afterward that Trump laid out “parameters” on what he could accept, The Washington Post’s Erica Werner reported. Shelby did not disclose those parameters, Werner and Damien Paletta report, and he did not say whether Trump would accept less than the $5.7 billion he’s insisted on getting for new wall construction on the southern border.

“If we can work within some of the parameters that we talked about today — that we’ll keep to ourselves — I think he would sign it,” Shelby said, according to the Post. “And I think he’s, from my perspective, been quite reasonable.”

The negotiators have reportedly been working toward a deal that would increase fencing along the U.S. border with Mexico but would not provide money for Trump’s wall. Lawmakers “traded offers behind the scenes, with Democrats saying money for border barriers was on the table and Republicans acknowledging they won’t get Trump the $5.7 billion he has sought for his wall,” the Post reported late Wednesday.

Committee members initially were hoping to finalize a deal by Friday, but they’re now reportedly looking to wrap up their talks by Monday in order to leave enough time for Congress to pass their compromise package before the February 15 shutdown deadline.

Pelosi Says There Won’t Be Another Shutdown: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday expressed confidence that the conference committee would reach an agreement and that the government would not be forced into another partial shutdown. “There will not be another shutdown,” she told Politico on Wednesday. “I have a club that I started, it’s called the ‘Too Hot to Handle Club.’ And this is a too-hot-to-handle issue.”

Mulvaney Says Trump Will Build the Wall by ‘Legal Executive Authority’: The White House, meanwhile, is still looking at ways it can bypass Congress to secure funding for a wall if lawmakers don’t deliver what Trump wants. In an interview Wednesday with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said the administration is looking for strategies that won’t get blocked by legal challenges. The president has repeatedly threatened to declare a national emergency at the border, but even some members of his own party have cautioned against that approach, and it would be sure to be contested in court.

“There’s a couple of different ways we could do it, and we’re looking at all of them,” Mulvaney said, adding that the approach would be to “find the money that we can spend with the lowest threat of litigation and then move from that pot of money to the next pot that maybe brings a little bit more threat of litigation and then go through the budget like that.”

Mulvaney said the administration had identified “substantially more than $5.7 billion” that it believes it can access legally. Pelosi on Thursday warned against such executive action, saying it "would not be a good idea to even try" circumventing Congress.

Number of the Day: $1 Billion

From The Washington Post’s Paul Sonne: “The cost of President Trump’s deployment of active-duty troops and National Guard forces to the U.S. border with Mexico could approach an estimated $1 billion by the end of the fiscal year should the missions continue apace until then, according to figures the Department of Defense has released and independent assessments.”

Revisiting the $10,00 Cap on SALT Deductions? Trump Says Maybe, Key Senator Says No

President Trump on Wednesday said he’d be open to discussing changes to the 2017 GOP tax law’s $10,000 limit on the deductibility of state and local taxes. “There are some people from New York who have been speaking to me about doing something about that, about changing things,” the president reportedly told a small group of regional reporters at the White House. “I’d be open to talking about it.”

Not so fast. The Senate Finance Committee “won’t be revisiting the SALT deduction reforms” under Chairman Chuck Grassley, a spokesperson for the senator said Thursday in an email. “It’s ironic that the same Democrats who criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for supposedly benefiting only the wealthy are now advocating for a change to the law that would primarily benefit the wealthy,” the spokesman, Michael J. Zona, said.

-->

RIP, Frank Robinson, one of Major League Baseball's all-time greats. Robinson is the only player to win the Most Valuable Player awards in both the American and National leagues, and he went on to become baseball's first African-American manager.



Send us your feedback by emailing yrosenberg@thefiscaltimes.com. Or connect with us on Twitter: @yuvalrosenberg, @mdrainey and @TheFiscalTimes. And please tell your friends they can sign up here to get their own copy of this newsletter.

-->

The Trump Tax Law Is Creating Lots of Jobs — for Tax Professionals

The GOP’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act may not be working as promised, but it’s certainly helped generate plenty of new jobs for tax lawyers and accountants, The Wall Street Journal’s Richard Rubin reports (paywall).

Deloitte Tax LLP grew by 10 percent this fiscal year and expects to again next year, according to Rubin, while KPMG LLP says it hired twice as many veteran tax pros as it did the prior year. “The joke I heard is that some people are calling it the ‘Tax Jobs’ and Cuts Act,” Rubin says.

  • “Tax-reform legislation and all the implementing guidance have been very good for tax practices,” David Noren, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery, tells Rubin. “It’s created just a whole lot of new complexity and it’s given us mountains of new guidance to figure out and to deal with.”
  • “What we’ve got is a system that is even more complex than the old system, and the consequence of that is it’s requiring a lot of time and effort on the part of our clients and us,” Pamela Olson, U.S. deputy tax leader at PwC, says.

As part of the industry hiring spree, Rubin writes, “Accounting firms, law firms and trade groups have been snapping up the Republican congressional staff members and Treasury Department officials who worked on the law and regulations.”

News

Views and Analysis