Taxes

Mulvaney on Tax Cuts: We’re ‘Manipulating the Numbers, Gaming the System’

JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney appeared on CNN yesterday morning where he was asked why the corporate tax cuts included in the congressional Republican tax cut bill(s) are permanent while the meager middle class benefits are temporary.

Like many other Republicans in Washington, Mulvaney elected to say the quiet parts out loud and admit that the middle class benefits are a gimmick.

Asked why the corporate tax cuts in the bill are permanent, while ones for individual Americans will sunset by 2025, Mulvaney said that “ this is where Washington really does speak a different language” and that the sunsetting provisions were necessary to work within the rules of the Senate and “simply trying to essentially manipulate the numbers and game the system so that you can fall into this square peg”.

The small benefits for working class people included in the GOP bills are temporary because that's who's going to pay for permanent tax cuts for the rich. A few years of higher standard deductions and laughably-small child tax credits are a smoke screen. The bill for their tax cuts is going to come due and average people are going to pay for it.

The ultimate irony here is that Republicans (including Mulvaney himself) demanded the fiscal constraints or "square peg" they're maneuvering under while President Obama was in office.

The only fiscally conservative politicians that remain in Washington today are Democrats.

  • Badgerite

    Ryan is now claiming that the this tax ‘reform’ will be “simpler and fairer”. Why you can file your taxes on a postcard.
    Personally I do not care to file my taxes on a postcard. And the simplicity is because they have taken away almost all the portions where you get to deduct all the things that the middle class used to be able to deduct from your income before it was taxed. Yeah. It’s simple. Like a robber’s note is simple. “Put all the money in the bag and give it to me.”
    Simple.

  • muselet

    “Every time I come on your network, we have a discussion about how the proposed tax bill is going to lower taxes on the rich,” Mulvaney said, saying that he had “to smile” at the question.

    How very mysterious. I wonder why that topic keeps coming up.

    I think Bernie Sanders has it right:

    “When they run up a $1.5tn deficit, as they will in this legislation, they’re going to come back – and that’s what Paul Ryan is saying – they’re going to come back with massive cuts to social security, Medicare and Medicaid, because they say, oh, my goodness, the deficit and the national debt are too high,” Sanders said.

    I suppose we should applaud Mick Mulvaney for his inadvertent honesty. Perhaps we can reward him by only tarring and feathering him; let him walk out of DC rather than being run out on a rail.

    –alopecia

    • ninjaf

      Oh, no worries…he’s strolling over to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau next to work his consumer protection “magic.”

    • JMAshby

      When this is all over, Mulvaney will be relegated to punditing on the Christian broadcasting network. Tax cuts will either fail to pass, or they will pass and it will be a disaster. And we know Trump never takes responsibility for anything. In either case, fingers will point at Mulvaney, Mnuchin and Cohn and, honestly, the fingers will be right. These are ridiculous men, but Mnuchin and Cohn will always have their richy-rich pals. Mulvaney is a nobody. He’s gonna get sent packing.

  • Aynwrong

    It’s things like this that make me believe more and more that Trump’s appeal to his voters had/has little to nothing to do with the economy. How much more obvious could this be?

    • ninjaf

      If they aren’t revolting after this, then I think the argument that they are economically anxious has been busted.

      Speaking of which…why isn’t #theresistance out in the streets on this?

      • They were already pretty revolting before they voted for Trump and they’ve just gotten more revolting since.

        (Sorry.)