It’s not clear if they can use reconciliation or not. It depends on how CBO rates the effects, doesn’t it? I think a lot of people are skeptical that the pay-fors will make it deficit neutral in year 11 without more sunsetting.
Republicans would have to be obscenely stupid to write a budget resolution that doesn’t allow protections for their tax plan. I’m not talking “can’t pass health care reform that they all campaigned for” type of stupid, I’m talking “can’t be trusted with sharpened pencils and butter knives” type of stupid.
Even if their tax plan ran into CBO scoring issues, they would just keep tweaking it until it fit in under the reconciliation instructions.
Sure, of course. But that’s different from what John Mace says NPR is reporting, which is that it fits now unless there are changes.
There’s a special process for budget bills that make it easier for amendments, even bad ones, to get a vote.
I will note that Rand Paul, the author of that, uh, controversial amendment, voted against the budget resolution for reasons of the deficit.
Only a small percentage of mortgages are over the $500,000 cap.
That’s right. It’s just an attack on a bunch of wealthy mostly-Democrats.
“The share of mortgages larger than $500,000 was greater than 10% in just 48 counties (1.5% of all U.S. counties). These forty-eight counties accounted for 67.4% of the national total of mortgages larger than $500,000. Fourteen of these counties were in California and accounted for nearly 43.8% of the national total.” The Rare Occurrence of Mortgages Over $500,000 | National Low Income Housing Coalition
See also: Charts of the Day: How Republicans Are Using the Tax Code to Screw Democratic Voters – Mother Jones
FHA conforming loan limits are about $424K, except in high cost areas where the limit could be up to 150% of that, or about $636K. Higher cost countiesmapped across the US here. I notice a concentration in certain areas.
Which is not to say this isn’t good policy. I think the mortgage interest deduction is awful policy. But it’s clear that the bill is crafted to make most of the hardship fall on blue states. If we’re going to gore that ox, we ought to be goring some red state oxen too.
But here’s the thing. Are those wealthy folks that are being hurt by this in “blue states” mostly Republicans or Democrats? If it hurts more Republicans in “blue states” than it hurts Democrats, it’s hard to say it’s targeted at Democrats. Pissing off Republicans in CA isn’t going to change CA policy. We’re pretty much a one-party state.
I’m having a hard time keeping up. Are we still wanting the wealthy to ‘pay their fair share’ or have we flipped over now to lamenting the hardships this will bring on the wealthy?
Earlier complaints seemed to be that this tax plan was too big of a give-away to the rich. Currently, they seem to be that it’s not enough of a give-away to the rich. 
Somehow I think your confusion over the points being made is insincere. But just in case you actually want an explanation:
(1) This reform is a huge giveaway to the rich, principally because of the repeal of the estate tax, the elimination of the AMT, and changes to how pass-throughs are taxed.
(2) It is also the case that, to the extent the bill is raising money it all, it is mostly raising it from people who live in cities in blue states–the vast majority of whom are Democrats.
Is it really so difficult to reconcile those two ideas?
If you took a representative sample of rich people living in San Francisco, what % do you think are Dems?
Regarding point #2: I haven’t seen any estimates of how much money the bill will raise, or how much of it will come from changes to the mortgage interest deduction changes, or how much they estimate will come from each state. Have you seen those figures somewhere?
The problem with tweaking it to make it more reasonable will be the same problem their “health care” plan ran into, though: The Freedom Caucus, aka the Tea Partiers and assorted other far-right absolutists.
The health care plan failed because more moderate Republicans were concerned the cuts were too extreme and wouldn’t vote for it, and the Freedom Caucus was adamant that the cuts weren’t extreme *enough, so they wouldn’t vote for it.
Any efforts to water down the cuts to get them filibuster-proof might end up making the bill dead on arrival if the same factions remain consistent in their stances. We can hope, anyway. It’s possible the extremists have learned their lesson from the healthcare debacle. Or the moderates will be more willing to accept the depths of depravity involved because the optics aren’t nearly as bad on this one.
A lot. But San Jose is bigger than SF, and it would not surprise me if more of the “rich” in SJ are Republicans.
IOW, SF is not representative of even the Bay Area, much less the rest of the state.
The criticism is that changing the mortgage interest deduction is costing people who live middle class lifestyles in high-cost areas, as a means to benefit the mega-rich not having to pay the estate tax anymore.
As I said earlier, this issue is shining a light on how income goes much further, or much less far, in different areas of the country. Let’s say a family lives in San Francisco, and has a middle class lifestyle while earning $150,000. If they moved to Ogden, Utah (I think that’s reasonably near where you are from?) they can sustain that same lifestyle for about $60,000. So to the extent that a family in Ogden gets the full benefit of mortgage interest deduction, and a family in San Francisco will not, raises an interesting question of taxation: when people talk about taxing the rich, can we define “rich” as being above a certain income threshold, or are we talking about a “the rich” as people who live lifestyle that is significantly beyond affording a house for 2.3 kids and two cars and maybe saving a little money for college funds or retirement?
Does that help you keep up?
That will be available when the CBO score comes out, but I haven’t seen when that is expected. Probably a couple weeks?
I get your point, but I disagree. There’s bound to be disagreements on tax changes within the Republican caucus, but it just isn’t the same issue in terms of conservative political dynamics. There’s a huge division in the Republican Party on whether health care is any of the government’s business, in spite of the political risk of taking away peoples’ Medicare or Medicaid.
In contrast, there isn’t a huge division on whether tax cuts are good. The disagreements on tax policy among Republicans is closer to a question of nuances, rather than fundamental principles.
Isn’t that where the money is, though? Cities in blue states, like NY, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.
Warren Buffett in his little cow-town made more in 2016 than about 200,000 Chicagoans who made that city’s median income.
So, this is a redistribution of wealth from the wealthy blue states to the poorer red states?
I have no ethical problem with that, but at least call it what it is.
+1. I don’t mind if the tax policy leans on blue states more, if that is where the money is. But the money is with people with $20 million estates, not with people paying off student loans. The contradiction is glaring and revealing, no?