Showing posts with label Internal Revenue Code. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internal Revenue Code. Show all posts

Friday, December 22, 2017

Trump Signs Tax Overhaul, Stopgap Spending Bills In First Major Legislative Victory

Update: as previewed moments ago, President Trump on Friday morning signed into law legislation funding the government through Jan. 19 and more importantly, the $1.4 trillion Tax Cut and Jobs Act, i.e. the Tax Reform bill, overhauling the U.S. tax code. Trump is now set to depart for Florida.


The bill’s signing ends the president’s first year in office on a high note. As the Hill adds, the president has had some other successes as well, in areas such as rolling back regulations and getting a new Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch, confirmed. But Republicans were unable to repeal and replace ObamaCare, and the headlines over the past year have also at times been dominated by the Russia election meddling investigations and palace intrigue stories about disagreements among Trump"s staff.


Trump publicly made efforts to try to get Democrats to vote for the measure as well — particularly senators facing 2018 reelection bids in states the president carried in 2016. But while the president gave speeches on the tax plan in states with vulnerable Democratic senators such as Missouri, North Dakota, Indiana and Pennsylvania, no Democrat in either chamber of Congress ultimately backed the package.








Democrats have focused on the fact that some taxpayers would get tax increases and have argued that the largest benefits will go to wealthy people like the president. They think attacking Republicans on the plan will help them in the midterms since polls show the measure is unpopular with the public.


 


But Republicans are brushing off the polls, arguing that public opinion will change in February when people start to see higher take-home pay. They argue that the bill will be a winner because it will boost job creation, wages and the economy.



The irony will be if the tax bill - slammed by Democrats - actually ends up being popular and succeeds in reducing prevailing tax rates. Such an outcome would result in an even greater lock on Congress by the GOP after the 2018 midterm elections, forcing the Democrats to truly scramble what Russian collusion scandal they will trot out next. 


* * *


After days of speculation over whether Trump would sign his new tax reform bill this year or wait until January to avoid certain spending cuts (something we covered here), Trump has just announced that the tax bill, along with the missile defense bill, will be signed in the Oval Office later today before he heads off to Mar-A-Lago for Christmas. 








"Will be signing the biggest ever Tax Cut and Reform Bill in 30 minutes in Oval Office. Will also be signing a much needed 4 billion dollar missile defense bill."




Oddly, at least for Trump, the bill signing will be conducted in private rather than as part of a massive media event.



And just like that, the White House just delivered a $1,000 Christmas bonus to AT&T employees around the country...something that we"re almost certain will result in another Trump tweet at some point today.









Tuesday, December 19, 2017

House Democrats Asked To Vote Against Stopgap Spending Bill

Update: In what could be a serious problem for Ryan and the rest of the GOP leadership, Democratic leaders in the House have asked their members to vote against the Republican continuing resolution bill as it stands.


 



 


* * *


House Republicans have decided to attach provisions reauthorizing a popular child health-insurance program and allocating an unprecedented $81 billion in disaster-aid spending to a continuing resolution that would keep the federal government funded until Jan. 19, Politico reported Tuesday, citing anonymous Congressional aids.


House Speaker Paul Ryan disclosed the new strategy in a GOP conference meeting Wednesday morning.


 



 


Funding for the federal government is set to run out on Friday at midnight, and Republican leaders have been preoccupied with tax reform and unable to focus on averting a shutdown and the myriad other legislative priorities that demand action before Congress enters recess.



By combining all the measures into one bill, Ryan will likely attract the support of Democrats in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, California and other states affected by this year’s natural disasters, who probably wouldn’t risk being seen opposing badly needed funding for their home states.


However, as the Hill explained earlier, even with CHIP and disaster aid attached to the House bill, averting a shutdown is far from assured. Indeed, Ryan is standing by a measure in the bill that would authorize spending for the Pentagon through September. That provision is incredibily unpopular with Democrats, whose votes Senate Republicans will need to overcome a filibuster.


Eight Democratic votes are needed in the senate to overcome a fillibuster. However, when it comes to locking in a year’s worth of defense spending, Ryan is facing a dilemma. Eliminating the provision could alienate conservative Republicans who might band together to oppose the bill. But cutting the defense-spending provision would likely attract Democratic votes.


Forty-four Democrats signed onto a letter vowing to oppose a combination CR–defense omnibus bill because of concerns about prioritizing defense spending over domestic programs.


Another issue likely to become a problem in the senate is reauthorizing the Obamacare subsidies that Trump cancelled back in October - a decision that has prompted participating insurers to warn of more premium hikes.


Susan Collins, a moderate Republican who was one of the last senators to throw her support behind tax reform, could be an obstacle for the spending bill. Once the CR reaches the senate, Republicans might try to attach the ObamaCare fixes that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised Collins in exchange for her vote on tax reform. However, conservatives like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz could try and block the bill from passing if these measures are added. Indeed, observers will be watching to see if McConnell breaks his promise to Collins, who could continue to create serious headaches for the leadership given their thin majority.
 









Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Government Shutdown Looms Amid Clash Over "Dreamers" Fate

In an announcement that will provide some measure of relief for T-bill traders and others who are skeptical about Republican lawmakers" ability to compromise with their Democratic colleagues, the Republican House leadership said Tuesday they would bring a stopgap bill to extend funding at its current levels - and preserve funding for a popular child health-care program - until Dec. 22. Otherwise, the current continuing resolution would expire on Friday, tilting the federal government into its first shutdown since 2013.


The compromise leaves much to be desired, however, and a workable, long-term spending compromise will unlikely be reached, which is making markets nervous. As we reported yesterday, the T-bill market has once again been under pressure, with the Dec 14 Bill the traders" focus for now:



Lawamakers" unwillingness to compromise on this bill, however, is due to one policy demand that Democrats have staked their political future on, but Republicans see as tantamount to amnesty: Enshrining DACA, or DREAM Act, protections into law.


The deal look ready to go in Setember when Trump annoounced he"d struck a deal with "Chuck and Nancy" to pass a continuing resolution in exchange for a series of Democratic compromises on imigration enforcement while Trump would fight to push Congress to authorize the DACA privileges. Trump had canceled an executive order granting those protections earlier this year.


However, a few weeks later, Trump went back on his word, proposing that the final legislation include funding for his border wall - something Democrats had never agreed to. Meanwhile, some Republicans have taken a hard line on the DACA protections, saying there"s "no way" they"d be included in a spending bill before the end of the year. More from Bloomberg:


John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican leader, said Monday that talks with Senate Democrats over combining new border security measures and deportation protections are at an impasse. Cornyn said he sees little chance for resolution before the year is over, pushing the matter into early 2018.


 


He also told reporters that “no way” would he back combining such a package with a must-pass year-end spending deal designed to keep the government open, a key demand of Democrats to get their needed support to move it through the Senate.


 


Speaking on the Senate floor, he accused Democrats of a “hysterical and cynical ploy” of threatening to trigger a shutdown over the matter. Republicans are angling for a two-week stop-gap measure to get past a Dec. 8 deadline when agency spending authority lapses, with the potential for a second such measure later in the month that extends into January. Democrats haven’t agreed to those terms.



Widening the divide, many powerful Democrats are demanding these protections be enshrined in law by the end of the year. 


Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democratic leader, said later that he continues to insist that Congress act this year to address the needs of the young immigrants, brought to the U.S. by their parents when they were children. Their deportation protections were put in place by President Barack Obama and temporarily extended by Trump until early March. Ending them will affect 1,000 young people each day over two years if the deadline is reached, Durbin said.


 


“I want it done this year,” Durbin said. “This calendar year.”



At least one Republican who’s in favor of keeping the protections has said it’s possible they pass by the end f the year – just not as part of the bill to reauthorize spending.


The protection for the those covered by Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, has been up in the air throughout the first year of Trump’s presidency. Trump in September agreed with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California to move a border security bill by year’s end, and pair it with protections for the immigrants. He has since backed away from it.


 


A Senate Democratic aide familiar with the negotiations said that Republicans proposed a plan for a dramatic increase for border resources, some cuts to the number of legal immigrants and only temporary protections for the young immigrants. Durbin put forth a counter proposal with more modest border resources, combined with a permanent DACA fix and a pathway to citizenship for the immigrants.



Given the rancor these negotiations have instilled in both Democrats and Republicans, it’s also unlikely the two sides will be able to compromise on issues like preserving Obamacare subsidies, funding for Planned Parenthood and disaster relief spending.


For now, at least, Republicans have cobbled together a stopgap - though it"s still unclear if this will have the votes to pass the senate. The plan maintains the current federal spending levels but includes a provision to ensure that states are not forced to suspend the popular Children"s Health Insurance Program, which annually provides health insurance for nearly 9 million children in low-income families.


"This bill, one without any controversial policy riders, will continue government funding and give the House and Senate time to complete their work on a long-term solution," McConnell said on the Senate floor Monday.



"It will keep the government open and functional, and it includes critical resources for our national defense and to give states certainty to continue the Children"s Health Insurance Program while the bipartisan work on CHIP reauthorization continues," he added.


McConnell summarized the republican position best, noting that that Congress has until March before those covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program lose protections from the program President Trump is ending.


“I don’t think the Democrats would be very smart to say they want to shut down the government over a nonemergency,” McConnell said on ABC’s “This Week.”


Of course, the Democrats will claim that it is an emergency, and certainly a worthy cause for government shutdown, just as Trump enjoyed his biggest legislative victory to date.


As the Hill pointed out, Pelosi and Schumer said in a statement accepting an invitation to meet at the White House on Thursday that a “bipartisan deal” could be found to pass the “DREAM Act along with tough border security measures.”


“There is a bipartisan path forward on all of these items,” the two said in the statement, which also emphasized the need to boost defense and nondefense spending and provide disaster relief.


* * *


Meanwhile, on Tuesday morning, as touched upon up top, the House Republican leadership said it was forging ahead with a stop-gap bill to keep the government funded through Dec. 22 and avoid a shutdown, despite a Monday night push from the conservative Freedom Caucus to move the date past Christmas. Lawmakers emerged from a House GOP conference meeting on Tuesday morning indicating that leaders are leaning toward a two-week continuing resolution (CR).


“Leadership is locked in on Dec. 22,” Freedom Caucus Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) told The Hill.


The Freedom Caucus had protested the strategy and held up a vote on a motion to go conference with the Senate on tax legislation Monday night until they got assurances from leadership that they would consider a longer CR. But leaders appear to be sticking with their original plan.


* * *


Still, the question remains: How long can lawmakers keep doing this before they get tired of pretending they have some deal in the worlds, and realize that a permanent solution is impossible and usher in the first shutdown since 2013?









Saturday, December 2, 2017

In Major Victory For Trump, Senate Passes "Sweeping" Tax Bill Which Nobody Read: Here"s What"s In It

Shortly before 2am on Saturday, the Senate passed "the most sweeping rewrite of the U.S. tax code in three decades, slashing the corporate tax rate and providing temporary tax-rate cuts for most Americans" handing Republicans a badly needed legislative and political victory. Senators voted across party lines in a 51-49 vote, ending days of debate and "hand wringing" as leadership worked frantically behind the scenes to win over holdouts and get the proposal in line with the chamber’s rules.


Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, who had cited concerns over the bill’s effects on federal deficits, was the only Republican dissenter. Corker, who is retiring after 2018, said in a statement ahead of the vote that he "wanted to get to yes" on the tax plan. "But at the end of the day, I am not able to cast aside my fiscal concerns and vote for legislation that I believe, based on the information I currently have, could deepen the debt burden on future generations,” he said.


Corker"s dissent however was not enough to halt passage, and shortly thereafter Vice President Mike Pence presided over the final passage vote. GOP senators, who stayed on the Senate floor until the vote closed after midnight, broke out into applause after Pence announced the bill had passed.  



"This is a great day for the country," Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said during a 2 a.m. press conference after the vote.  "We have an opportunity now to make America more competitive, to keep jobs from being shipped off shore and to provide substantial relief for the middle class."


The bill would lower tax rates for individuals through 2025 and permanently cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% (more details below). The bill’s tax cuts for individuals are temporary in order to comply with budget rules that the measure can’t add to the deficit after 10 years. The bill would also repeal ObamaCare’s individual mandate, a priority for President Trump and many Republicans.


* * *


The vote brings the GOP close to delivering a much-needed policy win for their party and President Donald Trump. After the vote, Trump said on Twitter that he looks forward to signing a final bill before Christmas. The president expressed gratitude to McConnell and Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch for steering the measure through the Senate. “We are one step closer to delivering MASSIVE tax cuts for working families across America,” Trump wrote on Twitter.



On Saturday morning, Trump followed up his praise to the Senate GOP, tweeting the "Biggest Tax Bill and Tax Cuts in history just passed in the Senate. Now these great Republicans will be going for final passage. Thank you to House and Senate Republicans for your hard work and commitment!"



* * *


Amid the republican jubilation over the passage of a bill which is heavily weighted to benefit corporations and pass-throughs, and will encourage all self-employed businesses to become LLCs, there was juist one problem: nobody actually read the 479-page bill.


As Montana Senator Jon Tester wrote late on Friday:



NY Governor Andrew Cuomo showed what the "handwritten notes on the page" looked like:



Commenting on this, Senate Democrat Charles Schumer noted that a set of last-minute revisions to the bill changed it in ways that had yet to be analyzed by the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’s official scorekeeper for the effects of tax legislation. “Is this really how Republicans are going to rewrite the tax code? Scrawled like something on the back of a napkin?” However, McConnell said the bill, the first text of which was introduced on Nov. 20, went “through the regular order.” He dismissed complaints like Schumer’s. “You complain about process when you’re losing,” McConnell said.


Bottom line: the chaotic process was similar to how Obamacare was passed on Christmas Eve in 2009: in fact maybe a slight improvement: at least this time Congress didn"t have to "pass the bill to find out what is in it." And it"s not like anyone reads these bills anyway.


So what happens next?


Before it goes to Trump, lawmakers will have to reconcile differences between the Senate bill and one the House passed last month, a process that will begin Monday. Although both versions share common topline elements, negotiations on individual provisions inserted to win votes, particularly in the Senate, may be protracted and difficult. The final product will end up being a central issue in the 2018 elections that will determine control of Congress.


“We’re going to take this message to the American people a year from now,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said after the vote.


* * *


Among the major overhauls, both the House and Senate measures would cut the corporate tax rate to 20% from 35% - though the Senate version would set that lower rate in 2019, a year later than the House bill would. Also, the Senate bill, unlike the House version, would provide only temporary tax relief to individuals, ending tax cuts for them in 2026. Both bills are expected to add more than $1.4 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years, before accounting for any economic growth. Bloomberg reported that last minute revisions to help shore up GOP support added about $32.5bn to the measure’s 10-year cost, according to a one-page analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.


The House and Senate bills also align on the contentious issue of individual deductions for state and local taxes: They’d eliminate all but a deduction for property taxes, which would be capped at $10,000. They differ on the home mortgage-interest deduction; the House bill would restrict that break to loans of $500,000 or less with regard to new purchases of homes. The Senate legislation would leave the current $1 million cap in place.


According to Bloomberg, the bills also differ on the tax rates they’d apply to multinational companies’ accumulated offshore earnings. The House bill would tax those profits at 14 percent for earnings held as cash and 7 percent for less-liquid assets. The revised Senate bill contains a lengthy section that has no direct mention of the rates, but a person familiar with the Senate plan said they’d be 14.5 percent for cash and 7.5 percent for less-liquid assets.


The Senate also approved a 23% tax deduction on business income earned from partnerships, limited liabilities and other so-called pass-through businesses. The House version would create a 25% tax rate for such business income, with restrictions on which businesses could qualify. Small businesses would get extra relief under the House legislation as well.


The House bill would also eliminate the estate tax, while the Senate version would limit the tax to fewer multimillion-dollar estates, but leave it in place. And after 2025, the limits would lift. Under current law, the estate tax applies a 40% levy to estates worth more than $5.49 million for individuals and $10.98 million for married couples. The Senate bill would temporarily double the exemption thresholds. The House bill would double the exemption thresholds, and then repeal the tax entirely in 2025.


As discussed previously, the House bill would consolidate the current seven individual tax brackets to four, leaving the top tax rate at 39.6%. The Senate bill would have seven brackets - with lower rates, and a top rate of 38.5 percent. As Bloomberg notes, "studies have shown that many of the tax bill’s benefits would go to the highest earners - and some middle-class taxpayers might actually pay more - a finding that could impact the House-Senate talks."


Most importantly, perhaps, the Senate bill includes a repeal of Obamacare’s mandate that most Americans have health insurance or pay a penalty. The House bill does not.


Here is a side-by-side comparison of the two plans thanks to the WSJ:



Also while we have yet to get confirmation, below is a list of last minute changes and revisions that made it into the final bill per Reuters:


  • PASS-THROUGHS: Senators Ron Johnson and Steve Daines announced their support for the tax bill after securing agreement on a bigger tax break for the owners of pass-through enterprises, including small businesses, S-corporations, partnerships and sole-proprietorships. An original 17.4 percent deduction would rise to 23 percent.

  • FULL EXPENSING: Senator Jeff Flake, who was a holdout over deficit concerns, agreed to vote "yes" after Republican leaders agreed to change a provision allowing the full expensing of business capital investments to sunset after five years. Flake worried that Congress would be unable to eliminate the benefit cold turkey, allowing it to bleed red ink for years to come. But the Arizona Republican says the change would instead phase out full expensing over three years beginning in year six.

  • RETIREMENT SAVINGS: Senator Susan Collins said she persuaded Republican leaders to retain catch-up contributions to retirement accounts for church, charity, school and public employees.

  • MEDICAL EXPENSES: Collins also said she was able to include language to reduce the threshold for deducting unreimbursed medical expenses for two years to 7.5 percent of household income from 10 percent.

  • STATE AND LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES: Collins has proposed an amendment that would retain a federal deduction for up to $10,000 in state and local property taxes.

  • INDIVIDUAL ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX: Rescinding a proposed repeal of the AMT and instead increase exemption levels and phase-out thresholds is also on the table.

  • CORPORATE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX: So is rescinding a proposed repeal of the corporate AMT.

  • REPATRIATION: Another change could be to increase tax rates on U.S. corporate profits held overseas to 14 percent for liquid assets and 7 percent for illiquid holdings, up from 10 percent and 5 percent, respectively

Attention now shifts to a House-Senate conference committee - a specially appointed, temporary panel that will be charged with hashing out the differences in the bills and preparing a final version for both chambers to consider. Party leaders will select a small group of lawmakers, likely from the House and Senate tax-writing panels in each chamber, who would then be approved by each chamber. That work could start as early as Monday, with many high-stakes issues to be worked through. The deadline of Dec. 31 is an artificial one, though - aimed partly at securing a victory well in advance of the 2018 congressional elections. Republicans would have until the end of 2018 before they lose their ability to clear final passage in the Senate without a filibuster.









GOP Releases All 479 Pages Of The Tax Reform Bill - "Vote-A-Rama" Begins

The Senate tax bill is headed for a potentially unlimited series of decisions on possible amendments - known as “vote-a-rama” - as the full text of the revised bill has just been released.


As Bloomberg reports, it’s unclear how long that process might take, though we do note that unlike Obamacare, Senators will at least get to see what"s in the bill before they vote on it.


Democrats could spend hours offering numerous amendments meant to highlight any flaws they believe the bill contains.


Full Text:










Tuesday, November 28, 2017

Top Democrats "Abruptly" Pull Out Of White House Meeting After Trump Twitter Attack

Following this morning"s tweet, in which Trump said that he was meeting with top Democrats Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to keep the government open, but because "they want illegal immigrants flooding into our Country unchecked", he "doesn"t see a deal", and which sent the T-Bill market turmoiling as mid-December government shutdown odds surged, moments ago the top two Democratic leaders in Congress pulled out "abruptly" (in AP"s words) of the previously scheduled meeting with President Donald Trump.


Instead of meeting Trump, Schumer and Pelosi shot back with a statement asking for talks with top GOP leaders in Congress. The top democrats said they’d skip a “show meeting” at the White House and instead ask for a meeting with their Republican counterparts, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.


“Given that the President doesn’t see a deal between Democrats and the White House, we believe the best path forward is to continue negotiating with our Republican counterparts in Congress instead,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a joint statement.


Some Democrats have called for any year-end spending deal to include legislation that would codify an Obama administration policy providing protection against deportation for young undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children. Trump, who announced in September he was ending the program, has said any deal protecting the so-called “Dreamers” should be paired with funding for a border wall and legislation that would reduce legal immigration.


If Democrats and Republicans do not reach a deal on spending by Dec. 8, the federal government could face a partial shutdown. Trump’s meeting with the Congressional leaders, which will also include Republicans House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, is scheduled for 3 p.m.


As a reminder, the Dec. 8 deadline was set in a deal Schumer and Pelosi struck with Trump - against the wishes of Ryan and McConnell - to avoid a government shutdown and debt default in September. They agreed to fund the government at current levels and suspend the debt limit for three months.


As Bloomberg reminds us, since that deal was struck, Congress has focused mostly on a tax overhaul and has made little progress reaching a spending deal to keep the government open. Other issues have also piled up, including the fate of cost-sharing subsidies that help defray deductibles and coinsurance payments for low-income patients with Obamacare insurance policies. Trump stopped paying the subsidies.








The negotiations also include efforts to lift legislative caps on military spending, raise the debt limit, provide more funding for disaster assistance, and extend a children’s health insurance program and an intelligence surveillance program. Several of those issues face year-end deadlines and may end up in a huge spending plan that requires votes from both Republicans and Democrats.



The Trump administration does not want to include immigration as part of the year-end spending deal to keep the government open, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said on Monday. “We hope that the Democrats aren’t going to put our service members abroad at risk by trying to hold the government hostage over partisan politics, and attaching that,” Sanders told reporters on Monday.


Markets reacted favorably to the news, with stocks jumping on speculation that a meeting between the top Democrats and Republicans will be more productive than the "show meeting" between Trump and the democratic duo.



While stock euphoria is predictable, those curious if the government"s shutdown odds are rising are urged to look at the Dec. 7-Dec. 21 Bill spread which, ominously, continues to blow out.










Monday, November 27, 2017

In Win For White House, Rand Paul Says He Will Vote "Yes" On Tax Reform

In a surprising reversal that President Donald Trump will undoubtedly tout as a major victory, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has publicly confirmed that he will be voting ‘Yes’ on the GOP tax plan when the senate votes on it later this week.


Paul says he will vote ‘yes’ even though the tax overhaul “isn’t perfect” and he’d like to see a larger cut. In an opinion piece published on Fox News’s website, Paul explained the reasoning behind his change of heart in greater detail.



Ultimately, Paul said, he is voting ‘yes’ because the US tax code, which has 97 different federal taxes, must be simplified. Congress can always authorize more cuts at a later date. In fact, Paul says if the public will is strong enough, Congress could authorize a new tax cut every year.


Currently, there are at least 97 different federal taxes. The tax code that instructs people how they must hand over their hard-earned money to government spans some 74,000-plus pages.


 


This is absurd, and so is the fact that government will collect over $3 trillion from taxpayers next year but still is not satisfied.


 


One of the main differences between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans, in general, favor less government and more tax cuts. That’s why I’m pleased to see us moving forward on a plan for tax cuts, and why I hope to vote to pass such a cut in the coming weeks.



Paul said he supports the Senate proposal to end Obamacare’s individual mandate penalizing people who don’t have health insurance, and that he would like to see preservation of some state and local tax deductions.


He also applauded his fellow senators for abandoning the concept of revenue neutrality, saying he’d like to see the tax cuts eliminate even more than the $1.5 trillion in revenues expected over the next 10 years, according to an analysis by the CBO. Paul said he’d be comfortable with a reduction in revenue of up to $2.5 trillion.


I spoke out all year against the GOP leaders’ initial plan to make their tax reform “revenue neutral” — meaning not really a cut. I’m pleased to see my point of view has prevailed, and the current tax plan calls for a $1.5 trillion cut over the next ten years. I would have liked to see more — in fact, I offered an amendment to move it up to $2.5 trillion — but I’ve stated many times that as long as it is a real cut, I’ll vote for it, even if it isn’t as large as I would prefer.


 


I’m also pleased to note that, in part by my urging, the Senate tax-plan writers have included repeal of the ObamaCare individual mandate in the tax plan. The mandate is clearly a tax, a fact that was established by the Supreme Court when it upheld ObamaCare. So including it in the tax bill only makes sense. In addition, with CBO scoring it as a $350 billion savings, repealing the mandate helped pave the way for increased middle-class tax cuts, like an expanded child tax credit.



Winning Paul"s vote has been a top priority of President Trump, who has often expressed admiration for the Kentucky senator even though Paul has, until this point, been one of the most obstinate opponents of the Trump agenda.


However, his support doesn’t guarantee passage for the tax plan: At least five other senators have either said they’re not voting for the bill, or that they’re on the fence. However, Fox News is reporting that a deal is in the works to add more deductions to the bill to help win over Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, who said two weeks ago that he would vote "no" on the bill. However, Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker and John McCain remain on the fence. And while Montana"s Steve Daines has raised hackles about the bill because, he says, it favors corporations over small businesses, he recently touted a "productive" conversation with Trump, and appears to be leaning toward a yes.


We now await Trump’s congratulatory response to Paul’s decision. It should be coming any minute now.


GOP leadership says they will bring the bill to a vote on Thursday. But of course, if they fail to rally support from Republican holdouts, that could change.









Saturday, November 18, 2017

"Helpless, Raging" Charlottesville Families Shocked By These 2018 Obamacare Premiums..."It"s Horrific"

Over the past several months, Democrats have jumped on every opportunity possible to blame the Trump administration for yet another year of staggering Obamacare premium increases.  Ironically, despite arguments from the Left that Trump"s defunding of Obamacare"s marketing budget would cause 2018 signups to plunge, as Politico recently noted, they"re actually up in 2018...which begs the question: was the Obama administration just wasting $100 million a year in taxpayer money for nothing?  Shocking thought, we know.


Meanwhile a fresh barrage of outcries from Democrats, most notably Ms. Nancy Pelosi, came after Trump"s decision to cut federal subsidies, an action which the CBO insisted could result in devastating premium increases of up to 20%.


Of course, if Trump is responsible for 20% of Obamacare"s premium hikes in 2018, then perhaps Nancy Pelosi should explain to the Dixon family in Charlottesville, VA precisely who is responsible for the other portion of the 235% premium hike they just received. 


As the Washington Post points out this morning, the Dixons, a family of 4 in Virginia, were shocked earlier this month to find that their Obamacare premiums were going to surge from roughly $900 per month in 2017 to over $3,000 per month in 2018.








Ian Dixon, who left his full-time job in 2016 to pursue an app-development business, did so because the ACA guaranteed that he could still have quality coverage for his young family, he said.


 


But when the 38-year-old Charlottesville husband and father of a 3- and a 1-year-old went to re-enroll this month, his only choice for coverage would cost him more than $3,000 a month for his family of four, which amounted to an increase of more than 300 percent over the $900 he paid the year before. And this is for the second-cheapest option, with a deductible of $9,200.


 


“Helpless is definitely a good word for it,” Dixon said. “Rage is also a good word for it.”



Obamacare


Of course, Democrats and the MSM also applauded Obamacare"s "great success" earlier this year when several counties that were previously feared to be left with no coverage options in 2018, suddenly picked up a carrier.  That said, perhaps Bloomberg, Reuters, NBC, etc. should reconsider just how meaningful these Obamacare monopolies are if the premiums charged are so high that no one can afford them anyway...








Earlier this year, Aetna and Anthem pulled out of the Albemarle market, citing too much unpredictability and risk. A smaller carrier, Optima, came in to fill the void. Consumers in the area went from having 19 plans offered in the options from Aetna and Anthem to only five coverage options with Optima.


 


Several factors led to Optima’s offering such high-priced plans, said Michael Dudley, the president of Optima.


 


First, small communities like Charlottesville tend to be pricier to cover because there is a small patient pool to balance out risks. So Optima took a cue from the carriers who had already ditched the market when actuaries predicted it was a place where the insurance companies might be paying out more to cover claims than it receives in premiums.


 


It is also a more expensive coverage area because the primary provider is University of Virginia Health System, an academic medical center that charges higher rates for its care than a community hospital. Optima will include UVA Health System in-network, unlike many carriers who have dropped the big medical centers as a cost-saving measure.



...perhaps local business owner Shawn Cossette can provide the Obamacare cheerleaders within the media some helpful insights...








Among them was Shawn Marie Cossette, 55, who runs her own event and floral design business in Charlottesville. Last year, she purchased an Anthem silver plan for $550 a month for herself. This year, under Optima, a silver plan would cost her $1,859 monthly.


 


“It’s a huge percentage of my income,” she said. “I really believed in the ACA. I really feel everyone deserves the right to health insurance, but who can afford those prices if you don’t qualify for subsidies?”










Thursday, November 9, 2017

Goldman Still Sees 65% Chance Of Tax Reform Passing; Expects Senate To Make These Changes...

After a wave of GOP defections in recent days and waffling on timing, Goldman"s economics team apparently still sees a 65% chance of a tax reform bill being enacted by "early 2018," but warns that the final bill may look nothing like the one recently proposed by the House.


As we pointed out yesterday (see: The Republican Tax Plan Will Crush These Housing Markets), Goldman fully expects the Washington D.C. swamp, led by realtors and homebuilders in this case, to attack various components of the House"s bill, including efforts to slash the mortgage deduction cap, but don"t think those efforts will be enough to tank tax reform altogether.








Political opposition to the bill seems likely to result in changes to the bill, particularly in the Senate, but it is less likely to block enactment of a tax bill altogether. The National Association of Realtors (NAR), National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), and anti-tax groups such as the Club for Growth have opposed the current House proposal for various reasons.


 


That said, we believe this is more likely to result in changes to the bill in the Senate rather than a failure to pass a tax bill at all.


 


These changes—for example, raising the proposed principal cap on mortgage interest deductibility and potentially making the treatment of pass-through income more generous than the initial House proposal—could crowd out other priorities, but don’t seem likely to block passage entirely. There is also a more fundamental political motivation, which is that many congressional Republicans would like to enact at least one piece of major legislation prior to the 2018 midterm election.



McConnell


So, what does Goldman see changing in the Senate bill?  Here"s a recap:








Mortgage Deduction: We expect the Senate to be more generous on mortgage interest than the House’s proposed $500k cap on principal on which interest can be deducted. This might involve an initial proposal to set the principal cap at $750k, or possibly keeping the deduction as it is today (principal is deductible on mortgage principal of $1 million and home equity debt of $100k). A $750k cap might raise about one-quarter of the roughly $300bn over 10 years the $500k limitation would raise.


 


SALT: By contrast, we expect the Senate to be less generous on state and local tax deductions, potentially proposing to eliminate all state and local tax deductibility, whereas the House has proposed to allow up to $10k in property taxes to be deducted (no state/local income taxes would be deductible).


 


Estate tax repeal: The House proposal would double the amount exempted from the estate tax for the next five years, and then repeal the tax altogether after 2023. We do not expect estate tax repeal to have adequate support in the Senate, which might free up a bit less than $100bn (compared with the House bill) for other purposes.


 


The corporate tax rate: The Senate’s version of tax reform legislation looks likely to propose a 20% corporate tax rate, but we continue to believe it is likely this will be phased in rather than taking effect immediately in 2018. Our expectation is that the final House-Senate compromise will phase in the corporate rate reduction because of fiscal constraints; we also believe there is a good chance the rate will be higher than 20% and that it will potentially end up around 25%.


 


Interest deductibility: The House has proposed limiting corporate interest deductibility to 30% of EBITDA. It is unclear what approach the Senate will take on interest deductibility, but some limitation looks likely to be proposed, in our view. One alternative that has been discussed in the past is to limit the deduction to a share of overall interest expense (e.g., 70% or 80% of interest could be deducted). This would have the advantage of reducing the disruption to the most highly levered firms, and might also potentially allow for grandfathering of existing debt.


 


Base-erosion measures: The House proposal has a few measures aimed at preventing the shifting of corporate profits from the US to other lower-tax countries. One is a 10% minimum tax on foreign earnings (more precisely, 50% of foreign profits above a normal return on capital would be taxed as US income at the 20% corporate rate, for an effective rate of up to 10%). A second measure would impose a 20% excise tax on related-party cross-border transactions (discussed below). We expect the Senate to include a measure aimed at preventing base-erosion in the Senate bill as well, potentially including the foreign minimum tax, but expect the Senate to take a different approach than the proposed 20% excise tax, which has already changed in the House in any case.



Meanwhile, rumors have surfaced of late that suggest the Trump administration delayed an executive order repealing Obamacare"s individual mandate on hopes that it could be wrapped into the Senate"s tax reform bill...Goldman is skeptical...








Probably not, but it looks like it could be included in the House bill before it passes. There are two reasons this could be an attractive option. First, many Republican voters see ACA repeal to be at least as high a priority as tax reform, so combining the issues would allow Republican leaders to take action on aspects of both. Second, mandate repeal has been estimated in the past to reduce the deficit by more than $300bn over ten years because it would reduce enrollment in subsidized health insurance. This would allow tax writers to fill the hole that has been created by scaling back other revenue raisers already, and the further scaling back that is likely to occur as the process moves forward. However, there is an even stronger argument against including mandate repeal, which is simply that repeal of the individual and employer mandate—so-called “skinny repeal”—failed to pass the Senate over the summer and including it in tax reform could simply sink both efforts. So if it is included in an early version of tax reform, repeal still seems likely to be dropped before tax reform becomes law.



Of course, the much bigger issue is whether the Senate will be able to overcome a very narrow Republican majority while passing a bill that complies with "Reconciliation Rules" and the "Byrd Rule."








Yes, this is one of the reasons we expect the bill to change. “Reconciliation” bills need only 51 votes to pass the Senate if they remain within fiscal targets in the budget resolution and do not violate any existing Senate rules. A violation takes 60 votes (and therefore Democratic support) to overcome. The recent budget resolution allows for a tax cut of up to $1.5 trillion over ten years. After recent changes to the bill in the House, the bill is now estimated to increase the deficit by $1.57 trillion over ten years. A second procedural obstacle is the Senate’s “Byrd Rule”, which prohibits reconciliation legislation from raising the deficit after ten years. The House provisions are mostly permanent, which would violate the Byrd Rule. This leaves the Senate with two options: offset the cost of tax relief with base-broadening or other measures after ten years, or make the tax relief temporary. We expect the Senate bill to do some of each by partially offsetting tax reductions and then allowing whatever has not been offset to expire. This means that the more structural elements of the bill would likely be permanent, such as the limitation on individual itemized deductions and the shift to a territorial tax system for foreign corporate income, while at least some of the tax relief, including individual and corporate rate reductions, would expire after ten years.



So what say you?  Will tax reform mark the Trump administration"s first major legislative victory or will John McCain spoil the party once again?









Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Tax Bill Fiasco: Senate Considering 1 Year Corporate Tax Cut Delay; Dollar Slides

Suddenly Republican tax reform is looking deader than a doornail.


According to the Washington Post, which cites " four people familiar with a draft of the legislation " not only is there little to no compromise on the way forward, but the only thing Senate Republicans leaders can agree on is to punt the centerpiece of the GOP tax plan by at least a year, and are considering a one-year delay in the implementation of a major corporate tax cut. This change would lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 20 percent in 2019, not 2018 as currently constructed by a House GOP bill. And while the delay would save $100 billion in much needed funds, it would be met with resistance from Trump, who wants the tax cuts implemented immediately.


In any case, to ensure that companies don’t postpone major investment decisions and wait for the lower rate in 2019, Senate Republicans are considering allowing companies to immediately deduct capital investments in 2018 from their taxable income, the WaPo sources said.


The news comes amid the expected growing opposition in the Senate to the current bill. One day after Trump nemesis John McCain said tax reform is "dead on arrival", on Tuesday, Sen. Ted Cruz said that the House tax bill could end up raising taxes on some middle-class Americans, and he pushed for assurances that the Senate bill would lower everyone’s taxes. Meanwhile, senators Marco Rubio and Mike Lee are pushing for an expansion of the child tax credit beyond what was introduced in the House. They have called for raising the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000. The House bill would raised the credit to $1,600.


Furthermore, the WaPo adds, that significant differences are also expected on the individual income-tax provisions.








Senate negotiators are planning to eliminate the state and local tax deductions that families take, going further than the House bill. They are also expected to retain roughly seven income tax brackets, rather than the four the House has proposed.


 


Details could change ahead of a formal release of a bill this Thursday by the Senate Finance Committee.



There will be a number of other changes to the taxes that certain businesses pay and the way companies are taxed on overseas earnings. Senate negotiators aren’t planning to include a temporary $300 “family flexibility credit” contained in the House bill. It’s this credit, which would expire after five years, that has fueled criticism that the House bill would eventually lead to higher taxes for some middle class families.


Separately, Bloomberg reports that on Tuesday afternoon President Trump called into a meeting between Senate Democrats, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and White House Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short, Democratic Sen. Jon Tester tells reporters. Tester said that Trump spoke (maybe screamed would be a better description) for about 15 minutes by phone from Asia and insisted the rich will be hurt by the tax bill.


During the same meeting, Dem. Senator Sherrod Brown gave Cohn copies of two bills he wants in the tax package, including one that would boost income of those making $20k-$70k. Brown added that Trump said over the phone he liked the ideas in the bills Brown presented; “I don’t know if McConnell is not hearing what the president is saying or if McConnell is not paying attention," Brown says.


Or maybe Trump just hasn"t heard yet that Senate Republicans, after failing to repeal Obamacare not too long, now plans to concede on the most important aspect of Trump"s proposed tax plan.


In any case, a decision on delaying the implementation of the corporate rate has not been made, the WaPol said. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas), in writing his legislation, was considering having the corporate tax rate cut phase out after eight years but made a change the night before the bill was introduced to effectively make it permanent.


With the news of the potential delay hitting the market, the dollar in general, and the USD/JPY in particular was the first casualty and the pair was sold by leveraged accounts in Tokyo.










Monday, November 6, 2017

Trump Drafting Executive Order To Kill Obamacare"s Individual Mandate, Report

After having previously cut so-called "cost reduction subsidies" (see: Trump To Scrap Crucial Obamacare Insurer Subsidy) and the marketing budget for Obamacare, Trump is now reportedly ready to also repeal the legislation"s controversial "individual mandate" which taxes people who choose to forego health insurance.


According to the Washington Examiner an executive order has already been drafted to scrap the mandate but has not yet been executed only due to ongoing GOP debates over whether or not to include the repeal in the pending tax bill.








The Trump administration has prepared an executive order that would unravel Obamacare"s individual mandate, but has put it on hold to see whether it might be included in the Republican tax bill instead, a GOP senator told the Washington Examiner.


 


According to the senator, an executive order is sitting with the Office of Management and Budget waiting for approval. President Trump decided to delay the executive order after Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., pushed for the inclusion of the individual mandate repeal in the tax bill, and has been supportive of its inclusion in statements he has made on Twitter.



Obama Legacy


Of course, including the individual mandate repeal in the tax legislation is intended create billions in budget savings and offset lower tax receipts but it could come with the unfortunate side effect of alienating potential mainstream GOP votes in the Senate who refused to support the Obamacare repeal efforts earlier this year.








Including repeal of the individual mandate in the tax bill instead of through executive order would create billions in budget savings that Republicans need to pay for tax cuts. According to a Congressional Budget Office report published in December 2016, repeal of the individual mandate would save $416 billion over a decade, since it would mean fewer subsidy payments to people who sign up. A new CBO report is expected Monday.


 


The repeal is not currently in the tax bill, known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but House Speaker Paul Ryan said this weekend that it was on the negotiation table among House Republicans.


 


"We have an active conversation with our members on a whole host of ideas on things to add to this bill and that"s one of the things being discussed," he said.


 


The senator who spoke to the Washington Examiner, who asked to remain anonymous, thinks colleagues could embrace repeal in the tax bill, because the revenue generated "pays for so many tax cuts."



According to the Washington Examiner, Trump cannot repeal the individual mandate through executive order, but he can broaden "hardship exemptions," which under Obamacare are left to the discretion of the administration. The exemptions allow customers to have ways to get out of paying the fine for not having coverage, which is $695 per adult or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher.


The Obama administration created hardship exemptions for a range of situations, including if someone filed for bankruptcy, experienced a flood, death of a family member, domestic violence or a shut-off notice from a utility company.


Of course, it"s only a matter of time until Nancy Pelosi and/or Chuck Schumer take a stage somewhere to tell us precisely how many people will die as a result of Republicans even talking about an "individual mandate" repeal.









Thursday, October 19, 2017

The Scandalous Truth About Obamacare Is Laid Bare

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Foundation for Economuc Education,


A government program that is ruined by permitting more choice is not sustainable.



It’s not just that Obamacare is financially unsustainable. More seriously, it is intellectually unsustainable, even though this truth has been slow to emerge. This has come to an end with President Trump’s executive order last week.



What does it do? It cuts subsidies to failing providers, yes. It also redefines the meaning of “short term” policies from one year to 90 days. But more importantly–and this is what has the pundit class in total meltdown–it liberalizes the rules for providers to serve health-coverage consumers.


In the words of USA Today: the executive order permits a greater range of choice “by allowing more consumers to buy health insurance through association health plans across state lines.”


The key word here is “allowing” – not forcing, not compelling, not coercing. Allowing.


Why would this be a problem?


Because allowing choice defeats the core feature of Obamacare, which is about forcing risk pools to exist that the market would otherwise never have chosen. If you were to summarize the change in a phrase it is this: it allows more freedom.


The tenor of the critics’ comments on this move is that it is some sort of despotic act.


But let’s be clear: no one is coerced by this executive order. It is exactly the reverse: it removes one source of coercion. It liberalizes, just slightly, the market for insurance carriers.


Here’s a good principle: a government program that is ruined by permitting more choice is not sustainable.


The New York Times predicts:





Employers that remain in the A.C.A. small-group market will offer plans that are more expensive than average, and they will see premiums increase. Only the sickest groups would remain in the A.C.A. regulated risk pool after several enrollment cycles.



Vox puts it this way:





The individuals likely to flee the Obamacare markets for association plans would probably be younger and healthier, leaving behind an older, sicker pool for the remaining ACA market. That has the makings of a death spiral, with ever-increasing premiums and insurers deciding to leave the market altogether.



The Atlantic makes the same point:





Both short-term and associated plans would likely be less costly than the more robust plans sold on Obamacare’s state-based insurance exchanges. But the concern, among critics, is that the plans would cherry-pick the healthiest customers out of the individual market, leaving those with serious health conditions stuck on the Obamacare exchanges. There, prices would rise, because the pool of people on the exchanges would be sicker. Small businesses who keep the more robust plans—perhaps because they have employees with serious health conditions—would also likely face higher costs.



CNBC puts the point about plan duration in the starkest and most ironic terms.





If the administration liberalizes rules about the duration of short-term health plans, and then also makes it easier for people to get hardship exemptions from Obamacare"s mandate, it could lead healthy people who don"t need comprehensive benefits to sign up in large numbers for short-term coverage.



Can you imagine? Letting people do things that are personally beneficial? Horror!


Once you break all this down, the ugly truth about Obamacare is laid bare. Obamacare didn’t create a market. It destroyed the market. Even the slightest bit of freedom wrecks the whole point.



Under the existing rules, healthy people were being forced (effectively taxed) to pay the premiums for unhealthy people, young people forced to pay for old people, anyone trying to live a healthy lifestyle required to cough up for those who do not.


This is the great hidden truth about Obamacare. It was never a program for improved medical coverage. It was a program for redistributing wealth by force from the healthy to the sick. It did this by forcing nonmarket risk pools, countering the whole logic of insurance in the first place, which is supposed to calibrate premiums, risks, and payouts toward mutual profitability. Obamacare imagined that it would be easy to use coercion to undermine the whole point of insurance. It didn’t work.


And so the Trump executive order introduces a slight bit of liberality and choice. And the critics are screaming that this is a disaster in the making. You can’t allow choice! You can’t allow more freedom! You can’t allow producers and consumers to cobble together their own plans! After all, this defeats the point of Obamacare, which is all about forcing people to do things they otherwise would not do!


This revelation is, as they say, somewhat awkward.


What we should have learned from the failure of Obamacare is that no amount of coercion can substitute for the rationality and productivity of the competitive marketplace.


Even if the executive order successfully liberalizes the sector just a bit, we have a very long way to go. The entire medical marketplace needs massive liberalization. It needs government to play even less of a role, from insurance to prescriptions to all choice, over what is permitted to be called health care and who administers it.


Freedom or coercion: these are the two paths. The first works; the second doesn’t.

Friday, October 13, 2017

Trump To Scrap Crucial Obamacare Insurer Subsidy

Just hours after signing an executive order that implicitly begins unwinding ObamaCare, Politco reports, citing two people familiar with the matter, that President Trump plans to cut off critical subsidy payments to insurers selling Obamacare coverage.



Earlier today, Trump signed an executive order expanding access to more loosely regulated insurance options with low premiums, a move that could undermine the ACA insurance markets.





“We’ve been hearing about the disaster of Obamacare for so long,” Trump said in signing the order at a White House ceremony. “For a long time, I’ve been hearing repeal, replace, repeal, replace.”



He then said that the order is "starting that process" to repeal ObamaCare.



It will be the "first steps to providing millions of Americans with ObamaCare relief."



And now, as Politico reports, the process appears to accelerating as Trump"s decision to end the payments, estimated at $7 billion this year, marks the president"s most aggressive move yet to dismantle Obamacare after months of failed GOP repeal efforts on Capitol Hill.


As Reuters notes, Trump has repeatedly threatened to stop the payments, which are made directly to insurance companies to help cover out-of-pocket medical expenses for low-income Americans enrolled in individual healthcare plans under Obamacare.


The move is likely to draw lawsuits and may put pressure on Congress to appropriate funding for the subsidies.


This latest move is likely to throw healthcare markets into chaos, and will infuriate Democrats - effectively closing the "Chuck and Nancy" channel of communications - leaving a deal to avert government shutdown on or after Dec 8th (when the currenct extension deal runs out) increasingly doubtful.

Monday, October 9, 2017

Trump to Expedite the Death of Obamacare; Healthcare Stocks Clown-Punch Lower

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com



Over the weekend it was announced that President Trump was going to ditch restrictions that banned people from buying health instance across state lines. For the love of God, he"s going to allow competition and not force you to buy from your state monopoly. While this might sound wonderful, it will expedite the death of Obamacare -- which is probably the gameplay here.


Trump can"t get his way, so he"s gonna burrrrn the whole kit and caboodle down.


Source: Washington Examiner





The plans offered by associations would be less expensive because they wouldn"t have the same requirements as Obamacare coverage. For instance, they wouldn"t be required to cover customers with pre-existing illnesses and could either deny coverage or charge these customers more. They also would not be required to provide coverage for a range of medical care, from addiction to maternity services. Insurers would be likely to sell coverage from a state with the fewest restrictions, which is why its supporters bill it as a move that would allow a long-stated conservative goal to sell health insurance across state lines.
 
Association health plans used to be more common before Obamacare, which placed restrictions on their use.
 
Lifting these protections would offer less comprehensive coverage, but would also make health plans less expensive. Critics worry that they set people up for "junk insurance" and would further destabilize the Obamacare exchanges, which already are plagued with mass exits by insurers and double-digit premium hikes. The move, critics say, could result in an even sicker population on the exchanges while healthier customers are picked off into the association health plans.
 
Still, the proposal is popular with conservatives. Middle class customers who don"t receive subsidies under Obamacare are facing the prospect of buying more expensive coverage in 2018 through Obamacare"s exchanges, and could avail themselves of the option. Through a short-term health insurance option, they face similar coverage as those sold on association health plans.
 
The increases these customers face come as a result of lack of profitability in the markets as well as vast uncertainty over what the Republican-controlled Congress and the Trump administration would do about the law as they sought for months to repeal or overhaul portions of it.



 
A backdoor way of totally destroying Obamacare and there is nothing anyone can do about it -- chaos theory.


Healthcarefags, BTFO.


ESRX -5%, ABC -3%, CYH -6%, THC -5%, LPNT -3%, CVS -3%, DVA -8.5%, AAC -5.5%, ACHC -4%.


The only outlier: HIIQ.





Health Insurance Innovations: Trump rollback benefits HIIQ -- Canaccord Genuity (18.05 +1.15)


Canaccord notes that in light of WSJ reports that President Trump intends to roll back certain health insurance regulations concerning short-term medical insurance, which should have a direct benefit to Tampa-based Health Insurance Innovations (HIIQ), firm feels, "This should be positive for HIIQ: Even though 2Q"17 was still a strong quarter, we believe results would have been even better (specifically at Agile) if the Obama policy did not go into effect; thus, we believe the reversal of the three-month limitation rule will be positive for growth at Agile in addition to providing a greater sense of legitimacy for STM insurance, especially in light of the recent negative sentiment generated by the various short reports. Furthermore, we would point out that a main driver of the stock"s performance since Trump won the election was the potential for him to de-regulate the insurance industry and reverse the three-month limitation; thus, it is encouraging to see this play out."


Friday, October 6, 2017

Congress Takes The First Step To Pass Tax Reform: Here's What Comes Next

Today The House passed the 2018 budget resolution in a 219-207 mostly party-line vote (18 republicans voted against the resolution along with all Democrats), representing the first step toward the Republican goal of sending tax-reform legislation to President Trump. Republican lawmakers hailed the vote as meaningful because the due to the budget reconciliation rules, the incorporate tax measures would allow Republicans in the Senate to pass tax reform without any Democratic votes, though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can only afford two defections (this proved to be a terminal hurdle in repealing Obamacare).


“We haven’t reformed this tax system since 1986. We need to pass this budget so we can help bring more jobs, fairer taxes and bigger paychecks for people across this country,” Speaker Paul Ryan said during House floor debate.


News of the passage provided a fresh burst of upside to the S&P which closed at fresh all time highs, driven by both tech and US-focused small-cap stocks, while the VIX dropped to new all time lows.


To be sure, for the past month, all trader eyes have been focused on the prospect of US tax legislation which has fast become the only catalyst for equity valuations, and especially following last week"s  release of the proposed Republican tax plan, as well as the failure (again) of the party’s efforts on healthcare. Additionally, the tragedy of three major hurricanes hitting Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico has superimposed a new agenda onto Congress given the urgency of relief needs (which could also open the door to longer-term infrastructure improvements). As a result, how recovery and reconstruction may reshape the fiscal agenda —and the potential of getting it all done — is the main question Goldman asks in its latest "top of mind" periodical publication.


The question is critical because while today"s budget resolution passage suggests a beneficial tailwind far tax reform, there are many who warn that the real work, and major hurdles - not to mention bickering within the Republican party - is only just starting.


So to get a sense of the complexities that lie ahead, here is Goldman"s Washington economist Alec Phillips, laying out the next steps and assessing the prospects for the passage of both tax reform and fiscal policy, one which now faces substantial obstacles.


* * *


An update on the DC fiscal agenda


The recent fiscal deal cleared the decks…


The urgent need to provide hurricane relief funding drove the recent bipartisan deal to suspend the debt limit and extend spending authority, clearing the agenda of near-term fiscal deadlines several weeks earlier than had been expected. As a result, Congress has several more weeks before year-end to consider tax reform and other measures.


…but kicked the can.


However, this newfound breathing room won’t last long. Spending authority must be extended again by December 8 and the debt limit must be raised by late February or March 2018, when Congress is likely to be in the thick of debate on other issues like tax reform. We are not particularly worried about the risk of a shutdown in December but we do believe that the need to raise the debt limit during the final stages of the tax-reform effort poses risks for both issues.


Bipartisan cooperation could increase…


The recent fiscal deal also raised hopes for other bipartisan agreements on immigration, tax reform, and an infrastructure program. We think the chances for bipartisanship in a few areas might have indeed increased, for two reasons. First, additional hurricane funding could compel fiscal conservatives to support spending initiatives that they might otherwise oppose. Second, the positive public reaction to the recent fiscal deal might motivate the White House to pursue more discussions across the aisle.


…but is unlikely to become the norm…


There is simply not much overlap at the moment between lawmakers of each party on key issues under consideration, like healthcare or taxes. In addition, while the president has shown interest in a narrow bipartisan agreement on immigration, his core supporters appear to be strongly opposed.


…particularly where reconciliation could be used.


Republicans can use the reconciliation process to change the tax code or the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and are apt to do so if they can. While a bipartisan process could allow for a wider range of policy changes and would lead to more durable reforms, the drawback is that reaching an agreement is less likely. By contrast, an approach that relies on the majority party alone is likely to succeed even if it faces greater procedural constraints on the types of changes that can be made.


Health reform is off the agenda for now…


The recent Senate debate over healthcare legislation demonstrates that even reconciliation legislation is not guaranteed to pass. We had never expected Congress to repeal the insurance subsidies provided through the ACA, but we did expect Republicans to make changes to ACA policies either a repeal of a few politically unpopular provisions like the individual mandate, or devolution of control over the program to state governments. The Senate attempted to pass both but neither had sufficient Republican support. The most that appears possible in the near term is a set of targeted changes to improve the program for 2018. With the reconciliation strategy on healthcare put aside for now, a bipartisan agreement in this area looks possible, though with potentially modest effects.


…but might return.


Congressional Republicans might make another broader ACA repeal push at some point before the midterm election, by using the reconciliation process in either the FY18 or FY19 budget cycle. At this point, the House and Senate differ, with the House resolution instructing the committees with oversight of the ACA to pass legislation cutting spending by $72bn over the next 10 years, which could come from ACA subsidies or unrelated programs, like Medicare. In the Senate, the draft resolution includes no such instructions and would be incompatible with ACA repeal. We expect the Senate approach to prevail for FY2018, effectively pushing the next repeal/replace opportunity to mid-2018 or, more likely, 2019.


Tax reform is moving forward on two tracks…


With health legislation finally out of the way, the focus has shifted to tax reform. Congressional Republicans expect to use the reconciliation process to pass tax reform, which would require two steps: First, the House and Senate budget committees must lay the procedural groundwork with a budget resolution for FY18 that instructs the tax-writing committees to cut taxes by a certain amount, a process that is underway. Second, once a final budget resolution has passed in the House and Senate, the tax-writing committees—the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees—write the detailed  tax legislation that would carry out those instructions. This must also first pass at the committee level, then the full House and Senate, and finally a conference committee to resolve any differences. In all of these votes, only a simple majority would be required because it is part of the budget process, which is governed by special rules.


…and the recent news on tax reform has been positive…


Over the last few weeks, three developments have raised the odds of tax reform, in our view. First and most importantly, a tentative agreement was struck by Senators Corker (R-Tenn.) and Toomey (R-Penn.) that allows for the FY18 Senate budget resolution—released on September 29—to include instructions to the tax-writing committees to cut taxes by up to $1.5tn over 10 years. This was a critical development since, once finalized, it would allow for a cut in tax rates with less broadening of the tax base than would be necessary under a revenue-neutral instruction, allowing lawmakers to avoid making the most politically difficult choices. Second, the framework released by the “Big Six” signals modest progress on agreeing on a single set of reforms, though the details are not yet fully formed.
Third, the public support from the House Freedom Caucus for the framework and the upcoming budget resolution suggests that its members are unlikely to be a major obstacle to enactment. While the second and third items were not particularly surprising, we believe the tentative budget agreement was likely one of the more important turning points in this debate.


…but there are still plenty of obstacles to overcome.


There are two important technical obstacles that Republicans must overcome to pass tax reform via reconciliation. First, pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules constrain the consideration of deficitincreasing legislation. While most of these rules can be circumvented, one that could be difficult to get around is the statutory PAYGO rule enacted in 2010, which imposes automatic spending cuts via sequestration to offset the effect of any deficit-increasing legislation Congress passes. This would not prevent Congress from passing a net tax cut, but might serve as a deterrent. Second, the “Byrd” rule in the Senate prohibits reconciliation legislation from increasing the budget deficit outside of the window covered by the budget resolution (traditionally 10 years). Waiving either rule requires 60 votes in the Senate.


A more fundamental obstacle is political.


Thin Republican majorities in the House and Senate have made it difficult to reach consensus so far this year. Tax reform needs support from 50 of 52 Senate Republicans, and we expect the 50th vote to come from the same group of centrists who were among those who recently blocked the health bill. These senators might press to keep the size of the tax cut even smaller than the $1.5tn over 10 years allowed under the Senate budget resolution. However, our expectation is that these senators are more likely to limit the size of the tax cut, rather than block the bill entirely as they did with the health bill (find a more detailed look at tax reform prospects here).


The fiscal boost from tax changes will likely be small.


Financial markets are more focused on fiscal stimulus than Congress. However, while we believe there is a 65% probability that Congress will enact tax legislation in 2018, we expect the size of the potential fiscal boost to be fairly small. The Senate budget resolution includes a tax cut placeholder of $1.5tn over 10 years; since roughly $450bn in existing tax breaks are already scheduled to expire over the next 10 years, this works out to around a $1.05tn net tax reduction. The revenue effects of the tax cut might be estimated on a “dynamic” basis, which considers the economic growth implications of the tax bill when determining its cost. Depending on whether the dynamic score is applied to the $1.5tn or the $1.05tn, this could allow for a “real world” tax cut worth 0.4-0.6% of GDP. All else equal, we expect that this would boost growth by around 0.2pp in 2018 and 2019.



Hurricane relief funding presents some upside risk.


The prospects have risen for a year-end agreement that combines hurricane relief funding, a few targeted infrastructure financing mechanisms, and an increase in the caps on defense and non-defense discretionary spending. Following similarly sized hurricanes in the past, Congress appropriated funds equal to about 60% of the total damage estimates; this suggests that Congress could approve as much as $75bn in funding for Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. The total would rise further with damages from Maria. This would not only boost federal spending directly, but could also allow for an agreement to lift the caps on other spending (emergency spending for disaster relief is exempt from the caps). While we are not particularly optimistic that an agreement will be reached on a broad infrastructure program, hurricane spending could represent a similar amount of funds going to similar types of projects.



Finally, here is the full summary of the US budget process: