On TAP: Kuttner + Meyerson


With John McCain’s announcement this afternoon that he will support the grotesque tax bill now before the Senate, the odds that the bill will pass have improved significantly.

In its (and McCain’s) defense, the bill does address one glaring deficiency under which the United States suffers: insufficient inequality. Today, our country still lags behind Mexico, among our fellow OECD members, when it comes to economic inequality. With the passage of the GOP’s tax reform, which will supercharge the upward redistribution of income and wealth, it becomes conceivable that we could match or surpass Mexico. We would still lag the level of inequality that existed in France under Louis XIV—not called the Sun King because he was a pauper!—but that would only give the Republicans a new target to shoot at.

Why did McCain decide to give Trump a victory this time around? We can only conclude that increasing inequality runs deep in Republicans’ DNA; it’s as reflexive, and as thoughtful, as the bounce of a knee when hit by a hammer.

A larger hammer is now poised to descend on the 99 percent.


Among the many awful things about the tax bill now greased for passage is what it tells us about allegedly mainstream Republicans. Despite their supposed contempt for Trump, one by one they are falling in line—being bought off by last-minute revisions in the bill, most of which will make it even worse, like more tax breaks for billionaires.

Even senators humiliated by Trump—Corker of Tennessee, the well-named Flake of Arizona—who are not running for re-election and could easily vote no—appear to be supporting this bill, for their corporate pals. Even two supposed moderates, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, and bogus deficit hawks like Tom Johnson.

It reminds you of German conservatives and Hitler. They decided that despite his insanity, he could be used to further their own goals (and let’s hope the analogy ends there).

Still worse is the deliberate use of the tax bill to punish states and citizens that tend to value good government and to vote for Democrats—by killing the deduction for state and local taxes. This is in the House bill and may well stay in the final bill.

Worst of all is the churlish punishment of universities by removing the tax deductibility of graduate fellowships. Students, who are dead broke, will now have to pay tax on tuition waivers, which run as high as $50,000—a deliberate poke at the educated class for the sin of tending liberal.

This is all of a piece for an administration that prizes ignorance, but it is a new low for tax legislation. We now know that for all the infighting, the Republicans in Congress are as contemptuous of democracy as their one-time nemesis, Donald Trump.


Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has never shown herself to be a shrinking violet, but her silence as the Republican tax cut bill slithers its way through Congress is worth noting. Consider all the bill does for—or more precisely, against—both students and teachers:

It ends schoolteachers’ ability to deduct up to $250 for their expenses incurred buying equipment for their classrooms or students.

It ends graduates’ and former students’ ability to deduct up to $2,500 for their interest payments on student loans.

It requires graduate students to declare as taxable income the tuition fees that their universities routinely waive, essentially requiring them to pay taxes on incomes of approximately $50,000 when their actual incomes are roughly half that.

The bill, in all its majesty, requires students and teachers at DeVos’s beloved private and parochial schools, as well at her detested public schools, to pay these added taxes, burdening the teachers and students she presumably wants to encourage, as well as those she wants to banish, with taxes that in many cases may drive them from their profession.

Defense secretaries have been known to lobby Congress when defense appropriations are under consideration, and to keep certain critical defense industries in business. Some might think the future of American education is a factor in the nation’s defense as well, but apparently not the current education secretary, at least, not so much that she has bestirred herself to speak up for teachers and students. Far from championing her charges, she offers the Silence of DeVos.


The press coverage has played the tax bill as a steep climb for the Republicans, but we should also pay attention to a possible GOP secret weapon—wavering Democrats. Three Democrats facing re-election in states that Trump carried by large margins have yet to commit firmly against the bill. They would be Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana.

Ever since the first of the Reagan “supply side” tax cuts, Republicans have been able to enlist some conservative Democratic support, including for all of the Bush II tax cuts. Centrist Dems love finding votes that they can characterize as pro-business.

At least six Senate Republicans have expressed qualms about aspects of the tax measure, including its backdoor attempt to gut the Affordable Care Act, its early phase-out of cuts for individuals, and its increase in the national debt by an estimated $1.4 trillion according to the Congressional Joint Tax Committee.

But never underestimate the ability of Mitch McConnell to make special deals to win over this or that skeptical Republican. So far, no Republican senator has definitively shut the door on supporting some tax bill, not even deficit hawks like Wisconsin’s Tom Johnson or the much-overrated “moderates,” Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine.

Giving up the idea of using tax legislation to kill Obamacare may yet rescue this bill. McConnell will lose some Republican senators—the path to a majority is narrow at best—but it would be a travesty indeed if a tax bill were to squeak through thanks to the support of faithless Democrats.


“Hey, turkey!”

How did “turkey” become a derogatory term? The turkey, after all, is not the most ungainly of God’s creatures, not if you contemplate anteaters or right-wing talk show hosts. 

The answer, as is the case for many such American slang usages, lies buried in those library stacks that host a collection of the back issues of Variety, the self-proclaimed bible of showbiz. Here’s the plot:

In the 1920s, Broadway was booming. It cost a great deal less to mount a show in those days, and there were far more theaters on or near the Great White Way than there are today. In 1928, the peak year before the Crash, nearly 300 shows opened on Broadway.

And a lot of them closed very quickly. However, the one way that producers could ensure their shows would last at least five or six weeks—long enough to make their money back and maybe a little more—was to open their shows around Thanksgiving. Then as now, the show-going public would swell during the holiday season, as tourists and locals viewed the weeks between Thanksgiving and New Year’s as the show-going time of the year.

Not surprisingly, this meant that Variety’s theater critics, who had to shlep to and review every last one of those shows, were subjected to an inordinate number of real lulus. When a producer had sunk his or someone’s money into what he realized was a stinker of a play or musical, the only way he could emerge financially unscathed was to open that show around Thanksgiving. 

Soon, Variety’s critics coined a name for such shows: turkeys. The rest, as they say, is history.


Better a child molester than a Democrat. So says our president. Furthermore, Trump declares, “He totally denies it.” Well, that should settle it. Just like Putin. Just like Trump himself, when it comes to sexually assaulting women, or any other convenient lie he cares to tell.

There is a poetic justice in the way Trump has recklessly inserted himself into the Alabama Senate election and the issue of Roy Moore’s abuses. For starters, it once again divides the Republican Party, most of whose senior figures from Mitch McConnell to Jeff Sessions have said that they believe Moore’s accusers.

Second, it usefully reminds the public that Trump is a pathological liar who identifies with and defends other strategic liars. And third, of course, it brings back into the spotlight Trump’s own history of sexual abuse.

The revolution against at-will abuse of women by powerful men has only begun. And something is deeply wrong with this overdue reckoning when the abuser-in-chief sits, unmolested, so to speak, in the Oval Office.

It would be true poetic justice if Trump finally initiated a national focus on his own sexual abuses, beginning his final downfall, by identifying with a serial child molester and liar. That would signal a true shift in sexual power, a true feminist revolution. 


Right-wingers occasionally ask people on the left if there are any immigrants who’ve done such terrible things that they should be deported. To which I think we lefties are obliged to reply: Of course there are. I can think of one immigrant who has devoted himself with a single-minded fury to eroding democratic processes, stoking white anxiety and rage at racial “others,” and promoting fake news lest Americans catch on to the imbalances of economic power and the growth of plutocracy. (Well, double-minded: This immigrant also intended to make a great deal of money by doing this. And did.)

I speak, of course, of Rupert Murdoch.

To those who wonder how three-quarters of Republicans still tell pollsters that they think Donald Trump is doing a swell job, how millions of Americans still want to lock Hillary up, how they tremble in fear and rage at the New Black Panther Party and think that Christmas will soon be scrapped—wonder no more. That’s the world as presented night and day on Fox News, that endless cascade of fact-free news. There are, to be sure, countless talk-radio hosts who offer similar funhouse-mirror visions of the world to their listeners, but not since the late Dr. Goebbels has one man with such a malignant worldview beamed his message to so many people as has Australia’s very own Rupert.

It’s not as if the government has no experience in trying to deport troublesome Aussies. From the 1930s through the 1950s, the feds spent considerable time and energy trying to send Harry Bridges, the founder and longtime head of the West Coast Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, back to his native Australia, even though by the mid-1940s, he was an American citizen (as Murdoch is now). Bridges’s alleged sin was that in matters of foreign policy, he hewed tight to the Communist line, which the Supreme Court ultimately ruled wasn’t a deportable offense. Greatly to his credit, Bridges also built a model union, which remains the one great example in American labor relations of how a union can embrace radical technological change while ensuring that the workers reap the rewards from the higher levels of productivity.

Murdoch can claim no such distinction. His claim to fame, rather, is engendering so much fear in his viewers, so much white rage, that American democracy must now fight for its very life. Preserving the republic, as Lincoln realized, sometimes requires extraordinary measures. Let’s start by shipping Murdoch back where he came from.


The Republicans plan to spend about $1.5 trillion over ten years to finance their tax cuts, mostly for corporations and the rich. How else might we use $1.5 trillion?

Here are three ways: First, provide debt forgiveness for most college loans after ten years of repayment, and less for people who are working in a variety of public and human service jobs. That builds a coalition of tens of millions of adults and their aging parents who co-signed loans, some of whom are having their Social Security checks garnished.

Second, make all public higher education free going forward so that we never again trash the life prospects of a whole generation.

Third, let’s get serious about a real public infrastructure program, aimed at a green transition. This would also provide a lot of good, made-in-America jobs, a lot more efficiently than waiting for corporate tax cuts to trickle down.

Which use of that money do you think most Americans would support? If Democrats hope to oust Trump and the Republican Congress, they need to be for a few big, clear ideas that would provide vivid and tangible help. Otherwise, it’s all boring detail and gobbledygook. 


With Al Franken added to the list of gropers and Bill Clinton’s sins being revisited, this overdue reckoning for millennia of male sexual predation rings hollow as long as the Groper in Chief reigns undisturbed. Imagine: one case after another being subjected to intense public scrutiny and shaming, while Donald Trump careens on, unmolested so to speak, despite 16 documented cases of sexual harassment, coercion or even rape.

This is the beginning of a revolution. But Trump’s impunity mocks it.

In 1998, I was the only liberal columnist to call for Bill Clinton’s resignation. I believed then—and now—that Democrats were making a colossal moral and tactical error by defending Clinton. Had he resigned, Al Gore would have likely won easily in 2000. More men would have thought twice about harassing or assaulting women.

If this revolution is to be real, justice cries out, not just for Weinstein, Cosby, Moore, et al, but for Donald Trump to be held accountable.

As for Franken, we will soon see if this sleazy episode was a one-off or a pattern. If it was a pattern, he needs to go. Two of the best feminist writers—Joan Walsh and Michelle Goldberg—make the case for allowing him to stay, or demanding that he go. 

The case of Franken is a close question. Trump’s sordid and serial history is not.


It’s Judgment Day in the House, which is scheduled to vote today on its version of the Republican tax reform, while the Senate vote may be upon us soon as well. If nothing else, the squalid deliberations leading up to the vote have shown the historic link of the GOP to corporate America is all but indissoluble, notwithstanding all the populist rhetoric coming from Republican ranks, and all the social-issue moderation oozing from the boardrooms of the Fortune 500.

To curry continual corporate favor, the GOP bills make the corporate tax cut permanent, while putting a ten-year expiration date on its tax cuts for individuals. They also allow corporations to retain their deductions for the state and local taxes they pay, while eliminating such deductions on mere humans.

So much for “corporations are people.” They’re better than people, the Republicans insist, and a damned sight more worthy.

The House vote will throw a spotlight on California’s 14 Republican members, most of whom have expressed no reluctance to support a bill that not only eliminates the state and local deductions that roughly a third of their constituents take, but also clearly singles out California for GOP perdition by refusing to allow deductions for earthquake or fire damage, while allowing them for damage from hurricanes and floods. To date, only one of the 14—the most electorally endangered, Darrell Issa—has said he’ll oppose the bill. It’s no surprise that all 14 voted for earlier efforts to repeal the ACA, despite the fact that it would have cost millions of Californians their insurance, or that all 14 oppose California’s new sanctuary state law, though many thousands of undocumented immigrants live, work, go to school, and pay taxes in their districts. Now, however, the California members are poised to inflict major tax increases on their middle- and upper-middle-class constituents, many of whom have been known to vote Republican. These members’ faith—in their legislative leaders, in empirically refuted pseudo-economic dogma, in corporate campaign contributions, and just maybe in corporate sinecures when their voters toss them out of office—remains unbroken and whole.