Touting support for their tax cut legislation, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the Senate Finance Committee, and Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, released a letter this week signed by 137 economists who say they strongly endorse the Republican legislation before Congress. President Donald Trump on Friday afternoon tweeted a short video featuring the list of 137 economists.
“Economic growth will accelerate if the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passes, leading to more jobs, higher wages, and a better standard of living for the American people,” reads the letter, which was organized by the RATE Coalition, a corporate advocacy group that is lobbying in support of the bill.
But a review of the economists listed on the letter reveals a number of discrepancies, including economists that are supposedly still academics but are actually retired, and others who have never been employed as economists. One might not even exist.
One of the signatories, Gil Sylvia of the University of Georgia, does not have a biography page or any online trace of employment at the university. A university representative told The Intercept that no one with the name Gil Sylvia is employed there. There is a Gil Sylvia working as a marine resource economist at Oregon State University. He did not respond to a request for comment. (If you are the Gil Sylvia who signed this letter and exist, email me.)
The RATE Coalition did not respond to The Intercept’s request for comment.
Another signatory to the RATE letter, Seth Bied, is not an economist. He is a low-level office assistant at the New York State Tax Department, whose spokesperson said Bied does not remember signing the economists’ letter.
Other names on the economists’ letter may raise eyebrows. John P. Eleazarian is listed as an economist with the American Economic Association. But membership to the AEA is open to anybody who coughs up dues, and membership simply grants access to AEA journals and discounts at AEA events. Eleazarian is a former attorney who lost his law license and the ability to practice law in California after he was convicted and sentenced to six months in prison for forging a judicial signature and falsifying other documents. His current LinkedIn profile lists him as a paralegal at a law firm.
The RATE Coalition letter lists 13 economists as having emeritus status. But a closer look shows that many other individuals listed as currently employed are also retired. Professor Ashley Lyman is listed as a signatory who works at the University of Idaho, but his biography page shows that he is actually retired. The same goes for Richard Kilmer of the University of Florida, Jerold Zimmerman of the University of Rochester, Stephen Happel of Arizona State University, and William R. Allen of the University of California, Los Angeles. All are listed as current academics while they are, in fact, in retirement.
Other signatories are far from independent voices. One is an in-house economist at a financial services firm based in Illinois. Another is an in-house economist with Bank of America.
Others on the list are part of advocacy groups that have made tax cuts their biggest legislative priority. James C. Miller III, one of the signatories, is an official with Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers-run advocacy organization hellbent on passing tax cut legislation. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, another signatory, is head of the American Action Forum, the sister group of the American Action Network, the dark-money group aligned with Ryan’s political team.
In reality, mainstream economists from across the ideological spectrum have panned the tax cut legislation. A survey of 38 prominent economists — liberals and conservatives alike — found that only one said that the proposed legislation would result in substantial economic growth. All respondents said the legislation would add to the federal debt.
On Thursday, the Joint Committee on Taxation released an analysis showing that, despite the claims, the tax cuts will not “pay for themselves.” Republicans dismissed the findings out of hand.
In 2001, while debating former President George W. Bush’s tax cut package, GOP leaders widely distributed a column by economist R. Glenn Hubbard claiming that the legislation “won’t hurt the surplus.” That prediction, of course, turned out to be laughably false.
Update: Dec. 1, 2017
This story was updated to include Trump’s tweet about the economists letter.
Top photo: Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wis., arrives for his weekly news conference in the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center on Nov. 30, 2017, in Washington, D.C.
AEA is $20/year?
I’m gonna become an economist!
Great work.
What happened to Mr Holtz-Eakin? He used to be respected, didn’t he?
https://youtu.be/ZwLdUzL0KEA
Since the time of Lincoln, the first Republican President, a key to understanding Republican policy and strategy is understanding that they believe that nothing is more important to economic prosperity than capital. And that totally makes sense.
If you are working with your bare hands, you do well to create more than a few pennies – maybe a few dollars – of value a day. If you have capital equipment like a vehicle, a lathe, a computer or factory, you can potentially create thousands – even millions – of dollars in value each day.
The GOP believes they need to encourage more investment by corporations by taxing them less, that as more money is invested in things like lathes, computers and factories, American workers will be more productive. They’re still thinking as they did in the time of Lincoln: more capital from more investments will make us more prosperous.
Is capital essential to our economy? Of course, but so is agriculture. There is a difference, though, between knowing that we’d perish without farmers, and expecting agriculture to employ a growing number of people. In 1800 ~90% of Americans worked in agriculture; by 2017, ~ 2% do. Agriculture is essential but that’s a far cry from saying that more farmers will make our country more prosperous. Agriculture is not the industry we look to in 2017 for the creation of new jobs and wealth. And like agriculture, manufacturing is also not the industry we look to in 2017 for the creation of new jobs and wealth, despite what our current President keeps saying for his own political purposes. As farming before it, jobs in manufacturing have been in steady decline as a % of the workforce since about 1940.
The simple justification for GOP tax cuts is the belief they will result in more capital investment. But current excess reserves being held by our financial institutions (banks, credit unions, etc.) totally negates that justification.
Banks are professionals at understanding credit risk and knowing when to loan money for a kitchen remodel or a business expansion. Bankers – like business executives, teachers, police, and engineers – make mistakes, but this matter of deciding where capital should be employed to maximize the returns on capital is what they do. If they have a billion dollars, they look for ways to invest or loan that out in order to create a return. Only as a last resort will they leave it idle and not making money. Bankers are currently letting trillions sit idle because they don’t currently see profitable ways to employ this capital. Another way to put it is that they don’t see capital as scarce. And why don’t they see capital as scarce? US banks have $2.2 trillion in reserves, the S&P 500 has $2 trillion in cash (even while spending half a trillion a year on stock buybacks), and there is more than $12 trillion in negative interest rate bonds around the world. Absolutely and positively none of this suggests we have a scarcity of capital here in the U.S.
So . . . back to the GOP tax cut . . . their thinking behind it is simple: if we tax less, there will be more capital, and that capital can be employed to expand businesses that will generate more profit and jobs.
Capital was scarce 150 years ago during Lincoln’s presidency. At that time, nearly any policy that encouraged the growth of capital was likely to have a positive effect on the economy, helping to make us all more prosperous.
Capital is now in great abundance, but policies that starve public education and research to send back more capital to corporations and individuals will only hurt economic growth, not help it. There is no way that someone can look at the evidence and conclude that what our economy lacks now is capital. There is no way, of course, unless you have failed to update what was once a great perspective to adjust to a new landscape. The party of Lincoln has given way to the party of Trump. Mindful intelligence that carefully considers new facts has given way to mindless ideology that ignores them.
Or maybe I’m thinking too much. Maybe I’m being too much of a financial industry analyst. Maybe it’s just the GOP only cares about keeping the money pouring into their reelection coffers from big business lobbyists.
businesses only hire people when the current number of employees cannot meet their workload , however I talked to many business owners who said that they would not hire anyone while Obama was in office even when they admitted they needed more help, but they di not want to help Obama, so they waited for a white republican POTUS
This is what I takes! The younger generations are now waking up and becoming politically active! They are realizing their life will be $ucked out unless they do something
Lee, you are gold – thank you. Can Ryan be prosecuted for knowingly disseminating false information like this?
For Wallstreet thieves, it’s getting a little tougher to find reliable pimped out whores and whore media who can make their lies stick. Awful, just awful.
Be fair; at least two of the signatories are (or were) serious economists with major research contributions under their belt; Bagwati (now in his 80s) and Calomiris (still producing research for major journals.)
So at least 2 of 137 … should have known better?
Who cares what economists think? Economics is supposed to be part economic history and part analysis. The problem is that most economists are economic historians, meaning when they want to predict what is going to happen, the look into history to see what happened when the situation was similar and see what happened then. Very few economists actually know how to do economic analysis. It’s little wonder the global economic system is collapsing. When an economist has been proven wrong on a consistent basis, stop listening to him/her. This is precisely why economics is not a science. In science when a theory is proven wrong, it is thrown out. In economics when a theory is proven wrong, the person who thought up the theory is given a Nobel Prize for the effort.
Right on the money! Not only is economics not a science, it is like a religion,
because what one believes is more important that reality; when data fail to confirm one’s economic “theory”, they are simply ignored. Politicians love
economists for precisely that reason: they can always find someone whose
economic theory conforms to their political beliefs.
It has become a fashion to criticize Donald Trump whatever he does or says. I am no economist. I wonder was everyone on drugs when they elected him as President.
People analyzing this plan are missing the fundamental essence.
It doesn’t matter if this is a bad plan or not.
Republican voters will believe whatever they are told to believe.
I used to respect conservative thought, especially on economic matters, but that ended a long time ago.
This morning i spoke with an American friend who owns a small business and he told me he would hire more people and probably increase wages in the nextcouple of years as a result of these new tax plans. Hillary is thinking ‘this increases my chances in 2020 as there will be less deplorables !’
He might even believe that…until he sees how much his revenue drops. Depending on his bracket (unless he makes OVER a certain amount), he’ll also have higher tax obligations, to boot.
Owners of businesses hire people because they need the labor, and they raise wages because they need to retain people. Otherwise, they pocket their profits. You’ll find very, very few business owners (and even fewer shareholders) who will grant unnecessary raises and work hours out of charity. The idea that business owners would pay more and hire more if only they had more money is as much a fantasy as the stories people are always telling about their ‘friends’.
Granted, I’ve seen business owners badly damage or destroy their businesses by being cheap with wages (and so demoralizing and losing vital people) and being cheap with hiring/hours (and so wrecking the functionality of their company) because they were freaking out about labor costs. But that kind of irrational behavior only applies to their own interests, oddly enough.
Surely no one still believes in “trickle down economics”. That has been proven false for years. Most people understand what happens to the money that the wealthy and corporate elites get through tax cuts. It goes into their investment portfolios. They don’t spend the money the way that poorer folks do which stimulates growth.
change your handle to “voice from Stalingrad”, comrade. you’re not fooling anyone. i’m a small business owner. i’m not going to hire more people or increase wages just to burn money. that’s not how businesses work. trump himself refuses to pay livable wages, so he hires foreign workers on visas to work at his golf courses.
if this tax plan allows me to keep more of my money, then i’ll upgrade from my current BMW M550i to a Porsche Panamera Turbo S, and buy a third house in Poconos that I will only use when i go skiing.
The title of this piece lists the imaginary sources that support the Republican fleecing of the poor to transfer more wealth to the rich
and the corporations as if it were something extraordinary. First, this is neither a surprise nor unusual considering that a full blown
Narcissist is running the show. As shrinks and anyone else who has had the misfortune of coming in direct contact with someone
afflicted by a personality disorder knows, these spaths live in a world of their own construct where they make up stuff as they go so it fits
their delusions of reality. What should be alarming and worrisome is the fact that so many, particularly those who are personally and
adversely affected by these actions, are willing to voluntarily and happily go along with and support their own demise. Perhaps shrinks should
explore this phenomenon and see if it is a case of collective madness. If Charlie Manson hadn’t suffered an untimely death, Trump and his band
of opportunistic loonies in Capitol Hill would have probabaly pardoned him so he could serve as head of the Department of Children and Families
or to run for a seat in Congress. Nothing is too disgusting, low or immoral for these bandits. Norms and decency no longer apply and forget conscience
or right and wrong. These characters make Caligula sound sane and reasonable. And Americans applaud and worship them.
Thank you sir for pointing out my error . I did apologize to those I offended .
Intentionally lost by the minutia of the chattering heads is the unconscionable repeal of the estate tax- far more impotant to the plutocrats than any income tax rate reduction, with no benefit to the economy to even try to argue about. The Republicans were ready to shut down the government in 2010 when the bush estate repeal expired (remember thr fiscal cliff?). This is the holy grail for their donors.
I’m pretty sure Mickey Mouse is on that list, too.
Thanks, Lee. There is some terrible reporting on Fox News that ignores the massive cuts to the rich and the actual evidence that this gargantuan bill will be good for a majority of US households.
However, the survey of the 38 economists that you mention at the end of the article doesn’t appear to totally pan the bill, at least that what it seems to a non-economics expert like myself. It asks these expert economists to forecast:
A) GDP growth
B) The national debt.
if to the current tax bill where to take effect. For A), there are 36% of economists on the fence, ie. uncertain, not to mention those few (3 or so) that did not respond. This could be the result that GDP on aggregate is hard to forecast or that the corporate tax relieve will actually bring money back into the overall economy. But this doesn’t seem to answer the main issue, “is this tax cut fair?” The *one* person who actually agrees (Darrell Duffie of Stanford) that this tax plan would grow the GDP says:
“A reduced corporate tax reduction is likely to grow GDP. Whether the overall tax plan is distributionally fair is another matter. ”
On other surveys on the site, Duffie agrees with infrastructure spending, which could mean he is less conservative than this survey might suggest though I am not familiar with his politics nor the reliability of his economic forecasts. Nonetheless, I think what he says is valid. Moreover, this survey may not be totally relevant for your readers because the GDP is a poor barometer for understanding the overall per capita health of our economy anyways, i.e. the stock market’s rise doesn’t really mean working families see any of the benefits.
As to B), all economists agree that this will increase the national debt. This is will in turn increase our dependence on foreign investment (or the value of our existing debt) and is in direct contradiction to what Trump has said in regards to decreasing our trade dependence on foreign governments, particularly China.
Charles; I’m an economist and professor. Answering “uncertain” on this type of survey often means that it is outside your area of expertise so you think it is inappropriate to weigh in on the question.
This bill is no more than the same old trickle up economics republicans have always been pushing for decades. With increased savings from paying less in taxes, business is going to create more jobs? No way, never will, not if there isn’t a clause in the bill forcing business to do so. Business is going to take the money and buy back stock and reward the CEO’s and stock holders. The public will not see a dime.
“Nearly doubles the standard deduction: Like the House bill, Senate Republicans would significantly raise today’s standard deduction. In the Senate bill, the deduction for singles increases to $12,000 from $6,350 currently; and it raises it for married couples filing jointly to $24,000 from $12,700.”
Doesn’t that kind of provision expire in 2027, since the GOP had to lie, abandon regular order, promise drilling in ANWAR, skip typing up the bill before the vote, and FAR more, simply to pass it under reconciliation?
No matter what it does to the std. deduction, there’s no credible evidence it won’t add well over ONE TRILLION to the deficit, most of that going to the wealthiest of the wealthy, and very little to average taxpayers.
..which is more than offset by elimination of the personal exemption and increased rates on the un-wealthy.
A little perspective on retirees from a “retiree” – many people retire from their jobs, but not their careers or their expertise. Some do consultancy or advisement in their fields, some maintain professional contacts and/or emeritus status with their former corporate employers or universities. The person’s credentials, expertise and tacit knowledge are what’s key in whether they are qualified to do the job or endorse a product/service/economic plan etc.
So take that into consideration before dismissing the retired economic evaluators.
On another note, thanks for doing the background work on these 137 endorsers of this #TrumpTaxScam.
God bless this old democratic experiment. This is exactly the kind of measure voters were crying out for.
Can’t argue with the truth, I guess…even if it only goes to confirm the overwhelming amount of stupid we’ve accumulated.
Brad Delong has a good critique http://bit.ly/2BtkEzC
In it he notes that the most prominent economist on the list, Jagdish Bhagwati, has pretty much recanted
https://twitter.com/jasonfurman/status/936604746294677506
Also Douglas Holtz-Eakin has not always been so enthusiastic. When Ryan supported a boarder adjustment (vetoed by the Waltons)
Holtz-Eakin did not have such a favorable view of counting on magic effects of tax cuts on growth
http://bit.ly/2kfnXHt
“Trump’s tax plan is built on a fairy tale”. He has now turned 180 degrees. But he does consistently write things useful to Ryan who pays his salary.
You’re just simply amazing Lee!.
Keep it up!
Trump is grabbing America by the pussy…
trump’s thrashing naked on top of his dishoveled bed with stretched pictures of sugar plums, kushner and flynn dancing in his head. no, it’s ryan and mcConnell who’ve grabbed America by the pussy. in my estimation the [sexual] predators we’ve been hearing about lately can’t hold a candle to the ones in the republican party.
Now that re-election has been assured with this fullfilled tax plan promise, expect the Democrats and their Media allies to increase their attacks on Trump. There will be blood…
Trumps Tax Bill is nothing but a clear act of Economic Warfare against the Students, Elderly and Middle class
Good I hope they pound this fool every day, until his impeachment which should come following the midterm elections.
The problem is America & the world can not wait that long, this fool just might go NUCLEAR !
Just another example of bought & paid for whores by Corporate America. Same S**t different day !
Please, sir, do not offend whores that way. After all, they work very hard to earn an honest living…unlike their counterparts in Capito Hill.
I apologize you are absolutely correct ! I am very sorry to those I have offended ! !
People be WARNED, if you vote Conservative your taxes, your environment, your education, your whole way of life will change for the worse. YOU MAY NEVER HAVE A VOTE AGAIN EITHER.
When you vote ideology vs pocket you lose, the funny thing is the people who voted ideology ( racism ,bigotry etc) will be the big losers here, The poor wii suffer the Tax Cut way more than any other group.
Mr. Lee makes a good case that support for the tax plan is more diverse than it appears. But many of those who support it are still economists, which raises a red flag for me. The last time that economists were right about anything was in the Eisenhower administration. Since then, every single thing that has happened in the real world has come as a complete surprise to economists, sending them scurrying back to ‘tweak’ their computer models.
This doesn’t mean I think economists have no value. They are, after all, very good at explaining why something happened after the fact. They are also useful for attacking and pointing out the intellectual deficiencies of other economists. And finally, their very existence is proof, according to economic theory, that they must add value to society – even if it is only to help sell dubious tax plans.
“The last time that economists were right about anything was in the Eisenhower administration.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!
As an Econ major, I concur. It’s the most worthless subject on the planet.
Only second to any major whose title ends with the work “Studies”.
Honestly, no one gives a shit. We are trolling you openly and having a laugh about it.
Stick that in your “outrage”.
The ferocious delusions contained within your use of ‘we’ are just… adorable.
You have been fed the “Les Miserable” line so much it’s like gospel.
I own several passthrough entities all in Texas. 2 manage real estate one is a job shop / placement firm for oil and gas firms.
Business is good
Not everyone is broke like you
Assumptive attacks based on nothing, anonymous bragging, obvious desire for inclusion in the perceived ‘winning team’, underlying aggression for who knows what reasons, and a lack of self-awareness that leads to self-caricature. God bless the internet.
They’re trolling the majority of the dumbasses who voted for them, likely including you
Congratulations on being a nihilist and fucking everyone in the process including yourself. We appreciate you taking a break from making Pepe memes to confirm the idea that you and your ilk are completely fucking worthless.
And backed by a cadre of WALLSTREET THIEVES looking to keep robbing Americans and sending their sons and daughters to die in their wars for profits with the aid of the elected whores in office.
WANT PROOF?
How much is the military budget?
What is the priority of the military budget of the lives and comfort of Americans?
What are the wallstreet thieves and elected whores trying to protect?
Who is demanding the cost for these wallstreet thieves and their whores?
What manner of extortion is it that the ultimatum of war or poverty is good?
Why do not Americans own the currency system but instead allow it to be owned by 8 criminal families?
This article makes some worthwhile observations. But sadly, it appears to operate under the absurd premise that modern mainstream economists who actually exist might have more of value to contribute than ghosts and goblins.
Write the Republican party off! This is going to be really bad for the middle class and unfortunately this won’t ever be undone… This is just a part of the plan to make the Oligarchy complete.
So retired professors can’t have an opinion? That is silly. And why is an in house economist’s opinion less valid than an economist for some left wing group?
Lee, I’m sure you’ve checked out the fairandsimple.gov webpage linked in the video clip. I almost thought it was a joke, simply because I’m not used to government webpages looking so saavy and being so cheesy. The quality of the clip made me wonder who produced it. Clearly, as you and Don Midwest USA point out, there are factual errors, and perhaps using people’s names without their knowledge. Not all 137 are listed in the video clip. Do you have a list of them, what their claimed affiliations are, and what reality is?
On another note, the ridiculous questions on the webpage ask people what tax reform has in common with a song from the band Europe, Ferris Bueller’s, among other things. Apparently it is the year 1986. Do you know what else was passed in 1986? It was the last time some kind of immigration relief was offered through IRCA. 1986 seems like a major historical marker for the Trump Administration…
One correction: A professor can go “emeritus” without giving up active teaching and research. Some of those people may be retired and inactive; others may still have active research programs.
Otherwise, spot-on.
Wait I’m confused, which ones were “ghosts”? I only see that in the headline.
I think they’re referring to “Gil Sylvia” who may or may not exist.
The body of the article says that one of the letter’s signatories, Gil Sylvia of the University of Georgia, “might not even exist”. The evidence for his nonexistence isn’t conclusive, but in any case something definitely seems fishy when UGA says that no such person works at the school and there’s no online evidence of him having been there. If Gil Sylvia is real, one wonders what is his actual connection to UGA, why does he no longer have any readily visible connection to UGA, and what was behind the decision to list UGA as his ostensible home when it is so far from being his home base in reality? An economist at Oregon State University (far from UGA) who is named Gil Sylvia refused to respond to the Intercept’s request for comment. The letter tries to give the impression that it’s supported by an economist at a school as reputable as the University of Georgia, but that definitely isn’t true and it’s not clear that anyone named Gil Sylvia signed the letter.
There’s another possible ghost I guess. The Intercept article mentions that Seth Bied who is listed as a signer — and who actually is working as an “office assistant” — reportedly “does not remember signing” the letter. That isn’t a complete disavowal of signing, and the “does not remember” comment comes from a spokesperson for his workplace (which apparently is embarrassed by his being listed as a signer) rather than from Seth Bied himself. Still, in both these two cases, “economist” Seth Bied and “Gil Sylvia of the University of Georgia”, you can see the following features: (1) statement by the ostensible institutional home base of the signer saying that no such person seems to have signed, and (2) the ostensible signer, if he did sign, clearly is a lot less of a reputable economist than the letter made him seem. I guess “ghost” is a fair enough word in such cases. Still, the plurals in the Intercept’s headline (“ghosts, office assistants, ex-felons”) aren’t always strictly justified — some of these categories seem to overlap, and there’s only one ex-felon who signed.
Clearly, the campaign behind the GOP tax bill had to scrape to come up with 100+ economists who were willing to say that the bill would accelerate economic growth and increase wages and living standards. Those are the things that need to be said to the public to sell the bill most effectively — but is it really reasonable to believe that a bill that resulted from the usual corrupt legislative horse-trading will somehow have exactly these virtues? Since the Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, has ideologically captured the thoughts of many millions of people, it’s not surprising they can find 100+ economists who are willing to ascribe to the party’s bill just what the party’s sales effort requires. In any profession, not just economics, you can find people who are so ideologically captured by one party or the other that they believe and endorse exactly what their party wants people to think. By calling on that kind of ideological loyalty, each party’s salespeople are able to present the illusion that their sales message enjoys widespread intellectual and empirical support. But most of the reputable economists who have studied tax policy in detail apparently weren’t willing to sign on to such a letter this time. I appreciate how the Intercept’s Lee Fang demonstrated just how far this letter had to scrape to find economists in support of the party’s orthodoxy. But what I’d like to read more is an article that engages with the intellectually serious, non-party-captured research and debate that a field like economics is capable of — I want to see an article that shows for readers how much more useful and exciting genuine research about this kind of thing is than the claptrap that we usually get when academics and quasi-academics are trotted out to serve the machinations of the political arena.
Many Intercept headlines are click bait, that is, misleading statements designed to encourage skeptical readers to click on the article. Alas, I have fallen for it too often.
Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mans have worked together for some years. Norm is at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and Mann is at Brookings Institute
They have written books alone and a few together. In 2006 published “The Broken Branch” Here is the first part of the publishers statement on the book
“The Broken Branch offers both a brilliant diagnosis of the cause of Congressional decline and a much-needed blueprint for change, from two experts who understand politics and revere our institutions, but believe that Congress has become deeply dysfunctional. Mann and Ornstein, two of the nation’s most renowned and judicious scholars of government and politics, bring to light the historical roots of Congress’s current maladies, examining 40 years of uninterrupted Democratic control of the House and the stunning midterm election victory of 1994 that propelled Republicans into the majority in both House and Senate. The byproduct of that long and grueling but ultimately …….” (from book info on amazon.com)
The reason for this comment is that Norm a few minutes ago tweeted
“There has never been a more outrageous, revolting, unfair process to pass a corrupted bill in the history of Congress. That Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Flake, John McCain, Lindsey Graham have endorsed this makes anything positive they have done get erased. Unconscionable”
Check out his twitter feed and see the comments. Many point out that no one has read the bill but they will vote on it.
The theme of the comments is to point out who the legislators work for …
I keep wondering if they passed the bill with all the handwritten portions in the margins? Evidently, they were worried the public might get to read it over the weekend, (or the media, or the Senators), while it was typed up, and couldn’t take that chance.
Vile.