Jeff Stein, Dec 1, 2017
In the early hours of Saturday December 2nd, Sen Bob Corker (R-Tenn) Voted against the Senate tax reform bill, making the vote total 51-49. The vote was very bipartisan as Corker was the only republican to join the democrats in voting against the bill. The senator's main issue with the plan is that these cuts will lead to an increase of around $1 trillion to the Federal Deficit. This prediction has also been confirmed by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation giving that the economic growth could supplement around $400 billion of the total 1.4 trillion cut.
Many Americans support tax cuts without realizing the damage that it does to the deficit. In order to decrease the deficit we must design a budget with income that leads to an annual surplus which can slowly decrease the deficit. The steps to decreasing the immense deficit will be unfavorable but must be acted upon soon to prevent the collapse of our great nation.
Questions:
1. What do you think about the idea of economic stimulation to decrease the budget that is proposed in this tax bill?
2. Could Corker have done more to stop this bill from being passed in the Senate?
1. I think that the Republicans are decreasing federal spending due to the fact that they are doing huge tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. However there is still a lot of evidence that this bill will further increase our debt.
ReplyDelete2. Given that the vote count was very close, I feel like Corker could have used his best ability to pursued two other Republicans not to support the bill.
In my opinion, Corker could not have done much more to stop thi bill from being passed. Obviously, given that the vote was neck and neck, Corker's vote was a crucial one. But, in terms of how Americans would react, there was not much that could have been done. People are entitled to their own opinions and pepople will be upset, regardless of the final outcome.
ReplyDeleteThe tax bill was just passed and Trump came out to express that he will not be cutting any spending. Corker despite going against the bill could have done more to influence the other Republicans to vote in opposition to the bill.
ReplyDelete1. What do you think about the idea of economic stimulation to decrease the budget that is proposed in this tax bill? I believe this will have an adverse affect on the economy and if, I only see benefits in the short term, but as rates rise people will climb farther into debt.
ReplyDelete2. Could Corker have done more to stop this bill from being passed in the Senate? Yes, we all know of those smokey back room deals where Corker could've influenced a stronger republican counterpart.
Most economists, regardless of their political leanings, believe the tax bill will have a stimulus effect in the near term with uncertain to negative effects in the longer term. Few, if any, believe that it is revenue neutral. I don't believe the Republicans think it is revenue neutral in the long haul, rather it is a backhanded method of going after entitlements later.
ReplyDeleteSince Corker announced he's not running in 2018, he has a lot of freedom to put his foot down. Many believe if he desired, he could have derailed the bill.
I think that this tax bill was able to be passed since people were attracted to the significant amount of immediate relief. I don't think adding to the deficit was an issue because the national debt has been constantly increasing, with no significant solution, so people are not as worried about this aspect. I do feel that Corker could have done more to prevent the passing of this bill, as he only needed to convince about two more Republicans to vote no in order to have a majority of nays.
ReplyDeleteI think Corker could have definitely done more to prevent the passing of this bill. Because he had such strong convictions and evidence to even go against his own party, I am surprised he did not convince more people to vote against the bill. Perhaps because he is not running in 2018, and does not have as much to lose as other Republican senators hoping to keep their seat, he was unable to rally others. However, he definitely could have convinced other Republicans, at least a few more, with the facts at hand to vote against the bill.
ReplyDelete