CBS interviewed three families and asked for their expectations about how their personal tax burden would be impacted by passage of the GOP tax bill. Next, a CPA the network brought on analyzed the families’ taxes and told them on camera what they could actually expect to pay.
Since these three families had been completely misled by Democrats and the media for months, all expected to have to pay more or see no change in their taxes.
In fact, all three save money under the Republican plan.
The first interviewee, a single mother in North Carolina who makes under $40,000 a year, didn’t think her taxes would change. However, she will save roughly $1,300 more per year thanks to the tax cuts.
Two college professors in Rhode Island interviewed by the network, who make a combined salary of $150,000 a year, expected a higher bill, yet they will save about $650.
Finally, a California couple with three children, a small business, and approximately $300,000 in annual income believed their taxes would go up—because California is a high-tax state and state and local tax deductions are capped at $10,000 under the GOP bill. Much to their surprise, they will save $13,000 annually under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
It was amazing to watch the utter surprise on the faces of these people—who had been told for months by the media that the Republican plan was going to cost them money.
As the CBS analyst put it, “every one of the families will have more money in their pocket next year.”
After watching the CBS report, a colleague sent me an email saying, “This segment drove me crazy. As if CBS was incapable of doing math before the tax cuts passed.”
Another huge lie that the media ceaselessly repeated throughout the debate of the tax bill was that workers wouldn’t benefit from the massive reduction in the corporate income tax rate or the change to the way foreign earnings were taxed.
Again and again, the Left and its media allies insisted that businesses would simply give shareholders big payouts and refrain from investing in U.S. facilities, boosting wages, hiring, or otherwise improving the economy.
Boy, were they wrong.
In January 2018 alone, more than 100 companies announced they were giving up to $2,000 bonuses for employees, increasing matching contributions to 401(k) plans, increasing wages of workers, or ramping up capital investments in the United States—specifically because President Trump signed the Republican tax cuts into law.
Americans for Tax Reform has been keeping an up-to-date list of companies that have announced benefits for employees as a result of tax cuts. As of February 23, 2018, the list included 401 companies that had announced bonuses, raises, or increases to 401(k) contributions because of the tax cuts.12 Consider the massive effect this has had on the hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of American workers and families who have seen a direct benefit from the tax cuts. In addition to seeing larger paychecks from reduced tax rates, they are seeing more take-home pay because the private sector responded to this tremendous Republican law.
Along with bonuses and expansions, the Baltimore Sun13 reported on January 5, 2018, that Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. (BGE) planned to pass on about $82 million in tax savings to customers through rate cuts. The company attributed the action directly to passage of the Republican tax cuts.
The newspaper quoted BGE CEO Calvin G. Butler Jr. as saying, “For us it was real simple.… We wanted to share those benefits with consumers.”
Faced with the facts of just how wrong they were, Nancy Pelosi and the hard-left leaders of the Democratic Party didn’t acknowledge their error. Instead, they doubled down, saying the raises and bonuses weren’t anything to celebrate, that they were “pathetic” and “crumbs,” in the words of Nancy Pelosi.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Nancy Pelosi’s net worth was $100.64 million in 2015.14 Maybe $2,000 is crumbs to her, but to most Americans living paycheck to paycheck, that money is a huge increase in their disposable income. It’s the difference that can mean paying a bill on time or taking the family on vacation for the first time in years. Plus, the salary increases, even if they are just by $2 per hour, add up significantly over time. Assuming a 40-hour workweek, that additional $2 per hour is an additional $4,000 per year.
To the forgotten working men and women of America who form the core of Trump’s America, that extra financial security is a godsend.
THE POLITICAL IMPACT
The success of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will become the cornerstone of Republican campaigns in 2018.
As the benefits of the tax cuts set in, the American people will see how completely dishonest and wrong Democrats and the media were about this tremendous accomplishment by President Trump. As Americans see their paychecks, 401(k)s, and savings increase, they will remember the huge bias of the liberal media. This will only further weaken the media’s already declining influence on American policy.
A New York Times SurveyMonkey poll in late February found that 50 percent of people approved of the tax cuts. This was a huge increase from a December poll they had done, which found only 37 percent of people surveyed approved of the tax cuts.15 This was a common trend. According to BusinessInsider.com, Gallup and Monmouth University polls saw similar increases in the first two months of 2018.
Passage of this historic overhaul to our tax system will also show Americans that the GOP can lead and achieve tremendously important goals that help improve the lives of Americans. This squarely delineates Republicans as the party for lower taxes, higher wages, more jobs, better economic growth, and a stronger America.
Meanwhile, the Democrats who opposed this bill—especially the 10 Senate Democrats who are running in states that President Trump won in 2016—will have to explain themselves to their constituents. They will have to explain why they were for higher taxes, lower wages, fewer jobs, slower economic growth, and a weaker country.
Americans received their first post–tax cuts paychecks in February, and we immediately saw this shift start to happen. On the day the tax cuts passed, Real Clear Politics generic ballot congressional polling showed Democrats up by 15 points in a nationwide average. By February 23, 2018, that gap had closed to an eight-point lead.16
I suspect once the American people hear these two arguments—and see the reality of the GOP tax cuts—they will overwhelmingly choose Republicans to represent them in the House and Senate in 2018.
CHAPTER EIGHT
THE COMEBACK OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL JUDICIARY
President Trump made a bold prediction early in his presidency.
At one of his first cabinet meetings, Trump said, “a big percentage of the court will be changed by this administration over a very short period of time.”
President Trump was right.
When Trump took office, there were more than 100 judicial vacancies. Although Democrats have tried to block his progress at every chance, President Trump has managed to get federal judges confirmed at a faster pace than any of his predecessors. As of January 2018, 23 Trump-appointed judges have been confirmed by the Senate. By comparison, only 10 judges had been confirmed by January 2010 under Obama.1
Trump’s unprecedented success with getting federal judges appointed to the court is one thing that the elite media cannot deny. As Trump continues to appoint federal judges, he solidifies a legacy that will last much longer than his tenure in office.
President Trump understands that federal judges are appointed for life and that they are instrumental in making sure that our judicial system rules according to the Constitution and not according to a judge’s political agenda.
Instead of acknowledging Trump’s unparalleled success in filling federal judge seats, the mainstream media and the anti-Trump coalition have only sought to discredit his accomplishments. The media has latched on to the narrative of a disgruntled group of lawyers who are upset about losing influence—the American Bar Association (ABA).
Since the Eisenhower administration, the ABA has played a role in judicial selection, mostl
y by screening judicial nominees before presidents officially nominate them. Typically, the group rates judicial candidates as well-qualified, qualified, or unqualified. This gave the group a tremendous amount of influence.
Since this activity began, the ABA has built a record of clear preference for liberal nominees. The group also continues to promote liberal agendas under a paper-thin veil of nonpartisanship. It has a long history of fighting for abortion rights and other staunchly liberal stances, for which the group’s president, Hilarie Bass, frequently advocates.
Bass has openly expressed her liberal views on Twitter and advocated for tight gun restrictions. She has also praised Democrats for pushing radical environmental rules. Bass has also shown her bias against Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Bass questioned Sessions’s independence while criticizing his strong stance on separation of powers within our government. This is ironic considering the heat Sessions took from President Trump when Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation simply because he was part of the Trump campaign. Whether or not it was wise to recuse himself, Sessions clearly proved he would act based on his own conscience and not on orders from above.
Consistently, liberal nominees do better in the ABA process than conservative ones. One study found that 65 percent of nominees under Clinton received the ABA’s highest rating compared to just 17 percent of the Bush nominees. Also, conservative judges without prior judicial experience do significantly worse than liberal judges without experience.2
This history of bias led President George W. Bush to reject the group’s influence. Bush informed the ABA that he would not use them to screen judicial nominees before they were reported to the Senate, but he would welcome their ratings, along with ratings from other groups, after the judges had already been publicly nominated. The Bush administration’s argument was no one group should have “a unique, quasi-official role and thereby have its voice heard before and above all others.”
Obama, on the other hand, fully reversed Bush’s action and relied heavily on the ABA for judicial recommendations. President Trump has returned to the Bush policy, denying the elite ABA its coveted insider position in judicial nominations. Naturally, the group is upset about its loss of prestige (and elite status), so it is attacking Trump’s nominees. The group is declaring many of Trump’s nominations as “unqualified” and conveniently keeping its criteria to itself.
As Republican U.S. Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma said, “they’re very secretive about the process and why they make the decisions they do.” Naturally, the elite media, lobbyists, and liberals in the anti-Trump coalition are repeating these claims with glee and treating the ABA’s word as infallible.
Ultimately, Senator Lankford is being generous. The fact is, President Trump has promised since the beginning of his campaign to drain the swamp. This includes ditching bad 50-year-old traditions that undermine the power of the president and elevate the power of left-wing DC interest groups. The great American comeback requires putting great people in great positions, which will invariably upset swampy Washingtonians.
As White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said:
This is a president who is focused on making sure we have judges in place that understand what their role is. That’s not to create law, that’s not to change laws. But it’s to be actually focused on the Constitution.
In an effort to preserve the original intent of the Constitution, President Trump has instead relied on the advice of the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation to seek out and find federal judges who will be constitutional originalists.
In particular, Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society, has been vital to the Trump administration. Leo clearly expressed the impact President Trump’s nominations will have in an op-ed he wrote for Newsweek in January 2018:3
Since the 2016 election, President Donald Trump has nominated judges who have a demonstrated commitment to, as the president puts it, interpreting the Constitution “the way it was meant to be.” In so doing, Trump is ensuring that his legacy will last far beyond his term in office. Tax and health care reform can quickly evaporate with future changes in congressional majorities, but federal judges serve for life, often making decisions about our Constitution and laws that affect one or two generations.
JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH
The crowning achievement of President Trump’s judicial agenda up to now is the appointment of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Gorsuch is exactly the type of judge that our country needs—one who will uphold the Constitution over political agendas and seek to ensure consistency and fairness under the law.
During Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings, many Democratic senators tried their best to make Gorsuch seem as if he had a political agenda or that he would rule according to President Trump’s agenda. Many pointed to Gorsuch’s judicial history when he served on the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. One of the main rulings Gorsuch made that the Left has tried to demonize was his ruling in Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius.
Hobby Lobby is a store with a strong commitment to religious values that sells arts and crafts. Anyone who visits a Hobby Lobby store can immediately recognize the Christian values expressed in their business protocol. They are closed on Sundays to respect the Sabbath, even though it costs them a lot of money to do so, and they play Christian music in their stores.
Under the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, Hobby Lobby was required to provide health insurance that covers contraceptives, even though some of the required covered contraceptives violate Christian values. The owners of Hobby Lobby argued that the mandate forced them to do something that was against their deeply held religious convictions. Gorsuch agreed. In his concurring argument, he wrote that the mandate in fact would force them to assist in activity “their religion teaches to be gravely wrong.”
When Democrats interrogated Judge Gorsuch about his ruling during his confirmation hearings, Gorsuch explained that he was influenced by a law sponsored by none other than Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, when he was serving in the House of Representatives. The law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), was an attempt to further strengthen freedom to practice religion guaranteed under the First Amendment.
The law stated that the government cannot abridge sincerely held religious belief without a compelling reason under “strict scrutiny.” As Gorsuch explained in his hearing, requiring strict scrutiny puts a heavy burden on the government because the strict scrutiny standard is the highest legal standard to meet. Given the facts of the case, the government had neither a compelling reason nor a narrowly enough tailored law for abridging the religious rights of Hobby Lobby, according to Gorsuch. His ruling was based completely off the Schumer law, which was sponsored in the Senate by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Gorsuch suggested if Congress had a problem with the RFRA’s application, then it could change the law.
Gorsuch’s Hobby Lobby ruling was later upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and has remained one of the most important court cases to successfully challenge the merits of the Affordable Care Act.
Gorsuch also demonstrated his respect for the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom by dissenting in a case in which two other federal judges ruled that memorial crosses on the side of public roads in Utah amounted to the government’s endorsement of Christianity. In his dissenting opinion, Gorsuch wrote, “we can’t be sure he [a driver] will even bother to stop and look at a monument before having us declare the state policy permitting it unconstitutional.” He further elaborated that a reasonable observer might not even be able to see the names on the memorial as they sped past them and this was clearly an instance of trying to find a problem where there wasn’t one.
As I discussed earlier in this book, the Establishment Clause is meant to protect our right to practice religion—not ban its practice in public spaces. These cases give us insight into Gorsuch’s commitment to the law—not his political beliefs, as Democrats allege.
In his relatively brief time on the Supreme Court, Justice Gorsuch has further demonstrated his commitment to the Constitution. In June 2017, Gorsuch wrote a strong dissent, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, after the Court opted not to hear the case Peruta v. California. In the case, Edward Peruta was denied permits in his county to carry concealed weapons. Gorsuch and Thomas argued the Court should take up the case.
The central question in Peruta v. California is whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution allows citizens to bear arms outside of their homes or whether those rights can be infringed by the state by requiring carry permits. Peruta fought the case through the federal system because he felt his right to bear arms had been violated.
The elite anti-Trump media has tried to frame the Gorsuch-Thomas dissent as being politically motivated. However, this completely ignores that hearing the case would provide very clear answers about basic constitutional protections, which many states have questioned, challenged, or blatantly undermined. This is a foundational function of the U.S. Supreme Court.
In their dissent, Gorsuch and Thomas wrote, “The most natural reading of this definition [of the right to bear arms] encompasses public carry. I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.”
Trump's America Page 14