This reality, and the resulting assignment of an avalanche of 'Pinocchios,' comes as no surprise to our readers -- who've been kept abreast of Democrats' never-ending onslaught of falsehoods, misinformation, fear-mongering and distortions about the GOP's tax reform bill. Fact-checkers have been working overtime to correct the record in an exhausting game of anti-lie whack-a-mole, with the Washington Post's team dishing out 11 Pinocchios to three top Democrats on the ridiculous "private jet tax break" fairly tale alone. This nonsense is still floating around, promoted by the DNC chairman:
Actually, no; not seriously. A Senate Democrat promulgated the same lie, adding "you can't make this stuff up." Actually, you can; he just did. In case you missed it, here is the reality, as relayed by the office of the liberal Democrat who's pushed for this idea:
Did you hear the one about the “private jet deduction” in Senate Republicans’ tax bill? There’s less to it than that—and it’s backed by one of the most liberal Democrats in the Senate. The provision attempts to ensure an excise tax for commercial airline flights isn’t imposed on private flights operated through management companies...“This provision in no way cuts taxes for private jet owners,” said Jennifer Donohue, a spokeswoman for [Sen. Sherrod] Brown (D-OH). “It simply clarifies what the law already says—that service companies made up of mechanics and service workers don’t pay ticket taxes, because they don’t sell tickets.” Mr. Brown’s home-state colleague, Republican Rob Portman, wrote the amendment that got the provision into the Senate bill. “This bipartisan proposal clarifies the intent of the law and stops a specific IRS abuse when the agency chose to ignore the law,” said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Mr. Portman.
WaPo's fact-checkers slapped Sen. Kamala Harris with 'Three Pinocchios' for regurgitating this story, adding a fourth pinocchio for Perez and Merkley over their additional claim that the nonexistent "tax break" was being financed by slashing healthcare and education funding. We've already tackled some of the unhinged hyperbole coming from top Democrats and liberals about a bill that reforms the tax system and cuts taxes for the vast majority of Americans. It's an world-ending "armageddon" that will kill kill kill, they say (narrator: it's not, and it won't). Paul Ryan's office has put out a blog post rounding up some of the most risible examples of Democrats' rhetorical excesses (including references to neo-Nazi's and rape), and CATO's Michael Tanner delves deeper into the absurdity. He reminds us that the US federal government does not have a revenue or taxation problem. It has a spending problem:
Start with the debt. It is wonderful that Democrats, who previously considered the national debt somewhere below lawn mold on their list of priorities, have now been reborn as deficit hawks. And there is reason to be concerned that the tax bill will add to the debt. But to keep things in perspective: Under current law, the federal government is expected to collect $43 trillion in taxes over the next ten years, while spending $53 trillion. That will increase the national debt to $30 trillion by 2028. If this tax bill passes, the federal government will collect $42 trillion in taxes over the next ten years, while spending $53 trillion. That will increase the national debt to $31 trillion by 2028. Worse? Absolutely, like a drunk asking for one more drink. But it would be nice if everyone got this worked up about the first $30 trillion. In fact, even after this tax cut, the federal government will be collecting 17.6 percent of GDP in taxes, more than the post-war average of 17.4 percent. The problem is that we will be spending 22.2 percent of GDP, considerably more than the 20.3 percent that we’ve averaged since World War II. We don’t tax too little — we spend too much.
Correct, and it's going to get a lot worse. Meanwhile, the actual mechanics of enacting tax reform continue to grind forward, with the House voting earlier this week (after a bit of drama) to send their bill to a conference with a Senate. The upper chamber did the same yesterday. There are some substantive differences between the two pieces of legislation that need to be reconciled -- or "mixed," as the president says -- and Business Insider has a handy primer on the main discrepancies. Some are more significant than others, but none seems insurmountable, especially because Senate Republicans were the first ones to repeal Obamacare's individual mandate tax in their bill (which could have been seen as a 'poison pill' if the sequencing were reversed). I suspect that BI's useful summary is also correct that the finalized legislation that will bounce back to each body for final passage will more closely resemble the Senate's version than the House's, due to the vote margins and dynamics in each chamber. I'll leave you with the latest from Nancy Pelosi, who is apparently unaware that the human life on earth is already literally over due to tax reform and the expected recision of President Obama's "net neutrality" internet regulations:
Doesn't she realize that (a) there will be no more "states" in which reciprocity could be applied and (b) people will need guns to shoot zombies in the GOP's post-apocalyptic hellscape? Keep your talking points straight, Nance. By the way, here's an instance of a "good guy with a gun" stopping a crime, which gun opponents like to pretend doesn't really ever happen -- even though it does, including preventing and ending mass shootings: