Republican tax cut sham-cycle

If Republicans actually expect lower taxes to lead to higher revenue, how come they never promise us what they intend to do with all that overflowing surplus: expand programs, lower taxes even more? We know it wont be the first with Republicans — do they have some “crossover point” in mind for the second; a specific lower tax point at which they admit lower taxes will actually begin to lead to lower revenues?  Just to be scientific about it.

Be interesting to inquire of them about that point, loudly and in public. :-)–

What will really happen of course is that revenues will take a dive — at which point the Republicans can be expected to scream bloody murder about the growing deficit on our great grandchildren and the "desperate"  need to cut back programs that assist lower income people — instead of simply raising taxes back up to where they had been all along on higher income people. And then they can re-initiate the sham-cycle over (and over) again as many times as they can get away for it.

Be interesting to interrogate the Republican party loudly and in public about what their response to lower tax revenue might actually be. :-O

Actually GW Bush did say he would use the added revenue to pay down the deficit -- which is funny because, when he replaced Bill Clinton, surplus tax revenues (much fueled by the dot-com boom) were already paying down the deficit.  GW cut taxes and revenue dived ...

... while the excess tax savings the rich could not spend on themselves ended up being loaned to others thru loony lending schemes that fueled much of the real estate and stock market busts -- and the deepest recession since the Great Depression.
 * * * * * * * * * * * *

See Barry Ritholtz [and Wall Street Journal] seriously put the lie to Republican tax cuts:
http://ritholtz.com/2017/11/tax-cuts-dont-reduce-debt/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBigPicture+%28The+Big+Picture%29

MUCH BETTER DEAL, if you want to make waves that everybody (anybody) notices (even the media!)

After reading this I guessed "yuppie" progressives might at last find (electoral) value trying to rebuild labor union density: "Republicans would have no place to hide."
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html

Nothing.  So I came up with this.  3% of California voters could put making union busting a felony on the ballot -- one step to law books.
http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2017/07/california-shills-around-block.html

Then I read about this.  Preemption Chinese Wall -- so everybody thought.
http://prospect.org/article/way-forward-labor-through-states

So I came up with this.  First Amendment protection of organizing covers state labor protection for organizing when such protection is the necessary condition for organizing in that state.  Nor can fed labor law that was designed to make it safe for unions become the hermetic seal against state help -- while doing nothing (in this era) itself.
http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-restocking-of-american-labor-union.html

Still nothing  Then I read this piece.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/11/01/democrats-add-to-better-deal-platform-with-a-slew-of-pro-labor-union-ideas/?utm_term=.9494ce60471d

MUCH BETTER DEAL, if you want to make waves that everybody (anybody) notices (even the media!).

Congress: Why Not Hold Union Representation Elections on a Regular Schedule?
Published November 1st, 2017 - Andrew Strom
Best idea yet -- play perfectly into Repub tactic to force government unions to re certify yearly.
https://onlabor.org/why-not-hold-union-representation-elections-on-a-regular-schedule/

States: Preemption bars setting up union elections.  Not prevent making union busting a felony -- per First Amendment and Congressional original intent for NLRA.

The far-out wilder each may seem to the reader per cultural inertia -- potentially the bigger the waves for everybody to (including media) to notice.  We'll see.  ???

PS.  Can't get minorities out to vote because alienated and don't expect anything for any candidate?  Let alienated voters set up their own (favorite) ballot initiative (available in some form in most states -- 12 go all the way to the law books in different steps) -- then do the "shills around the block" supporting their self-dealt hand.  Will vote Democratic while they are in there.