All errors should be reported to

Wednesday, November 08, 2017

“Get it done or don’t ever call me again”

One year ago today, sane Americans turned the House, the Senate, and the White House. And 365 days later, only the latter seems to be getting the job done.

President Trump has rolled back bad regulations, appointed good judges, and pushed the Pentagon and State Department to work with others in Arabia to rid the world of the Islamic State. The groundwork is laid for constructing the Wall. Trade agreements are being re-negotiated.

Congressional Republican have been tardy in their work. Supporters are unhappy.

From the Hill:
A House Republican lawmaker acknowledged on Tuesday that he’s facing pressure from donors to ensure the GOP tax-reform proposal gets done.
Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) had been describing the flurry of lobbying from special interests seeking to protect favored tax provisions when a reporter asked if donors are happy with the tax-reform proposal.
“My donors are basically saying, ‘Get it done or don’t ever call me again,’ ” Collins replied.
House GOP leaders are pushing an aggressive timeline for overhauling the tax code for the first time since 1986. They hope to pass the bill, which was only unveiled last week, before Thanksgiving so that it can be enacted into law by the end of the year.
It is not just donors who are upset.

I am sure that everyday Republicans want taxes cut because they know that such action will kick the economy into high gear.

Frankly, drop the reform and just cut the taxes, starting with the corporate tax rate. Tax reform is too damned complicated to be done like this.

Trump's delivered. His 3% economic growth is better than anything Obama delivered or Hillary would have delivered.

But we need 5% growth to catch up with the lost decades under Bush 43 and Obama.

Tax cuts will do so.

Republicans must either cut taxes now or prepare to die at the polls next year. Some obviously are suicidal.


Please enjoy my books on how the press bungled the 2016 election.

Caution: Readers occasionally may laugh out loud at the media as they read this account of Trump's election.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.

Caution: Readers occasionally may laugh out loud at the media as they read this account of Trump's nomination.

It is available on Kindle, and in paperback.

Autographed copies of both books are available by writing me at

Please follow me on Twitter.


  1. “Get it done or don’t ever call me again”

    How about, Defecate or vacate the loo.

  2. Call for Mr. Bunyan! Please come to the tax yard with your biggest axe.

  3. Don with his Baghdad Bob comparisons again. "His 3% economic growth is better than anything Obama delivered or Hillary would have delivered."
    Untrue. Apples to oranges. Eight times under Obama, the quarterly economic growth rate was above 3 percent. Under Obama, the annual economic growth rate never rose above 2.9 percent. Trump's figure is a quarterly one, not an annual one. As for Hillary .... pure speculation. We'll never know and that's great but you can't state as fact that it would have been what you assert.
    But for someone who made a living as part of the MSM, never let facts get in the way of a good post.
    Don - glad to see you are bashing the Bushes after spending years on your knees for them cause they had an R after their name. See, it is not about Rs and Ds - which is what I have been saying for years - it is about who will really serve the common man.

    1. LOL
      Obama's GDP growth was 1.5% as president.
      Bush 43's was 2.1%.
      I use facts. You use insults.
      And boring ones at that

    2. Way to switch the narrative. Doesn't change your apples-to-oranges comparison. Clever but not hard to see through.

    3. Trump seems to care about the common man. I lived in Queens for 14 years where the common man is the dominant species by far. He sounds and acts like them (in public) although I don't think he thinks like them.
      I like the Bushes and agree Don has been too hard on them. They are Yale educated elite who made most of their money by working for it.They took up public service for reasons I do not personally know but may have been out of a sense of aristocratic obligation. Both were noble and courageous in war, uncommon virtues, certainly ones absent in Obama and HC. They dislike Trump because he seems to possess no couth but also because he showed their fellow Bush to be unworthy of the job they held, a 100 mil humiliation. Hard to take if you see yourself as in the family of Achilles and Agamemnon.
      The stock market would have also risen under HC, or at least some I know in the business say this, but I have yet to meet one who is not relieved that she lost. Corruption distorts markets worse than bragging.
      Her soul is a moral desert as far as I can tell. For that reason alone, HC didn't care about the common man much, I don't think. She acted like she wanted to get as from them as possible, not a sin but hypocritical at least. The benefits they would have received from her administration most likely would have been from meager redistribution. In fact it was the common man in fly over Land who destroyed her ambition to rule.
      The CM will have a much better chance under Trump, something his very real oligarch enemies know and fear.

    4. If you are for the common man you must be for Trump.

      Name one Democrat you regretted voting for.

    5. If there's anyone I hate more than an Anonymous poster who doesn't even tag with initials, it's an Anonymous poster who uses trite cliches like "apples to oranges" and then walks away, pimp-chuckling. A pimp for Obama, who blamed ALL of his massive failures on the previous administration. The biggest excuse-giver in the history of the Presidency.

      Oh, and if that last post was Mr. Dickhead also, I can answer that with a line from the bearded Dos Equis guy: My only regret is that I have no regrets. Cause I haven't voted for a Democrat in almost 30 years.

  4. Eight times under Obama, the quarterly economic growth rate was above 3 percent.

    Before or after they were forced to revise it down by reality?

  5. Losing is to Republicans what vinegar is to pickles. They're the Washington Generals of politics.

  6. It's cute how tax cuts are the magic flubber that just works. The Laffer curve and underlying myth perpetuated by supply-siders is taken as gospel by red-state wannabe trickled-upons. Consider reductio ad absurdum where taxes are eliminated: Land o' Milk & Honey and streets paved of gold would surely be the result. Keep praying for the trickle, folks.

    1. If lefties didn't lie about the Laffer curve, they'd have nothing to say about it.

    2. Right, Lee. This guy is a liar. The curve stipulates that there is an optimum taxation rate below which government is getting less revenue than it could and above which there is a decreasing revenue because enterprise is strangulated. It nowhere implies that revenues continue to increase as taxes are lowered.

      It says nothing about economic output per we, but an implied conclusion that one must reach is that when taxes are lowered output goes up, and that is probably true under any circumstances.

    3. Yep. If there were any lefties who'd ever passed algebra, they'd understand how it works. Oh, I forgot -- algebra is racist and sexist.

      Here's the Laffer curve in redux.

      1. People tend to respond to incentives. You have to understand human nature, which leaves liberals out.

      1.a. If you penalize work and reward sloth, fewer people will choose to work.

      1.b. If you penalize investing and reward sheltering of money, people will tend to shelter their money.

      2. A tax rate of zero percent yields zero revenue. Obvious.

      3. A tax rate of 1 00% yields zero revenue. Slightly less obvious, so we've already lost the lefties, but it follows from our earlier propositions. Who is going to work when you just have to mail your paycheck to Uncle Sam? Who is going to invest in anything when the risk outweighs the reward?

      4. Imagine an x-y axis where x = tax rate and y = tax revenue. On our graph, as discussed earlier, f(0) = 0 and f(100) = 0.

      5. There are some points x where f(x) > 0. That's why we have taxes. If no tax rates yielded revenue, why have them?

      6. Given that f(x) is a continuous curve, and given that f(x) must head back toward zero as x approaches 100, there is some point P on f(x) that represents its maximum value.

      7. That means any tax rate higher than x where f(x) = P yields less revenue than at P.

      8. Conclusion: for tax rates x' where x' > x \where f(x) > P, you can reduce tax rates and at the same time increase tax revenues.

      The Laffer Curve is predicated upon:

      1. Today's tax rate x > x where f(x) > P. If x is less than that, f(x) will be lower, not higher.

      2. The f(x) function is continuous.

      3. There is only one inflexion point where f(x) = P where P = maximum y.

      So the theory can be quibbled with. Is it really a continuous function? Is there really only one high point? Must all values of x where f(x) < P yield gradually less revenue than P or the higher points less than P?

      But there's nothing wrong with the basic theory of Laffer's curve. It can be attacked with evidence, but ridicule and scoffing are not evidence.

    4. 8. Conclusion: for tax rates x' where x' > x and where f(x) < P, you can reduce tax rates and at the same time increase tax revenues.

    5. "where f(x) < P": Here's the faith part. Clap harder to make it true.

    6. There's no faith involved, just mathematics. You're not anti-mathematics, are you?

    7. Well said and explained, Lee!

      Of course there's no truth that a Leftie can't deny and belittle, as they have no understanding.

      And as the goon above points out, they're also lacking in faith!

      Too bad that because they're Lefties, they'll never figure out how they're wrong. They're too busy denying!

    8. Thanks!

      I had an similar argument with a fellow computer geek about 32 years ago when I worked for a defense contractor. He was very unhappy with Reagan and had adopted Bush's pet term for supply-side economics: voodoo economics.

      I asked him a series of questions that followed the lines of my argument above...

      Do you believe people in general tend to follow their economic incentives?

      Do you believe people in general prefer to have more money, or less?

      Do you believe, if work is penalized and sloth is encouraged, you'll get less work and more sloth, or the other way around?

      Do you think 100% tax rates would be productive or counterproductive?

      And so forth. I cornered him, as genially as I could, where he had to admit the math looked sound. He had to, he was an engineer.

      So he then quibbled with my assumptions. Which are fair game, no doubt about it.
      He questioned whether f(x) would necessarily be continuous. I shrugged and said, economists generally keep the assumption of continuity unless there's evidence against it.

      Well, he replied, tax rates today may very well be to the left of the point of highest revenue yield, we don't know otherwise.

      But with that statement, he had to admit that the concept was basically sound in principle.

      Yes, after some point, higher tax rates yield less revenue *because* people like money.

      But we're somehow the stupid party.

  7. "Losing is to Republicans what vinegar is to pickles. They're the Washington Generals of politics."

    I'm stealing that.

  8. Look who is gonna make sure that Trump's tax plan doesn't make it through the Senate: Johnny Maverick McRINO, Corker, and Flake. They're showing themselves to be the backstabbers they are. What wonderful Republicans. - GOC

  9. “Get it done or don’t ever call me again”

    say the Trumpkins about repeal of Obamacare (or just the tax and mandates), closing the borders, ending Amnesty.

  10. Meaningful tax cuts ain't never gonna happen unless the Establishment Republicans are voted out next year. They are as much in love with big bloated government as the Democrats are.