David French of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud President Trump for aggressively rolling back burdensome federal regulations. They also wince at new Census Bureau data showing more Americans aged 18-34 live with their parents than with a spouse, a major shift from 40 years ago. And they brace themselves for Barack Obama’s first public appearance since Inauguration Day and discuss how active Obama is likely to be in policy debates.
The Virginia Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the new transgender accommodation policy at one of America’s largest school districts, but the lead attorney for the plaintiffs vows the case will come back and his side will win when the decision focuses on the facts and the law.
Last week, the Virginia Supreme Court dismissed the case against Fairfax County Public Schools – the largest school district in Virginia and one of the ten largest in the United States – because it concluded the plaintiffs lacked standing before the court.
“They ruled on what’s called standing, whether there was an actual injury here. What we have here is the school board passed the policies but they haven’t actually enforced them yet against any student to the point of disciplining them,” said Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver, who represented the unnnamed student, the student’s parents and another parent with kids in the Firfax Public Schools.
“Fear of discipline should be enough. That’s what we argued,” said Staver. “But the Virginia Supreme Court ultimately ruled that it’s not ready for a decision yet until someone actually has standing. They have to have a real injury, rather than just fear that they’re going to have an injury, even though the fear is very real and very legitimate,” said Staver.
He says once the case comes back with standing, the court will be compelled to side with his clients.
“Whenever we get them to rule on the actual merits, that is whether the school board can add additional non-discrimination categories that are not included in the state law, then we win. It’s an easy decision at that point in time,” said Staver.
Staver strongly disagrees that a student must be disciplined to have standing to challenge the policy, noting that a formal punishment, even if later reversed, could tarnish a student’s efforts to be accepted at a military academy or work in sensitive areas like national security and intelligence.
He also says students shouldn’t have to negotiate a policy that doesn’t meet state law.
“The school can’t do something that’s clearly illegal, which it’s done, hang it over the heads of the students and threaten that they will be disciplined and then simply void legal repercussions by not disciplining them, but threatening discipline. The fact that they threaten discipline is enough to deter someone’s actions. For the good students, they’re not going to want to walk into a buzzsaw of discipline,” said Staver.
Staver is confident of winning on the merits because of the Dillon Rule, which states no local non-discrimination policy can add protected classes beyond what has been added under state law. Virginia has not added transgender or sexual orientation to its non-discrimination policy.
He says the looming fear of punishment based on an illegal policy is already condemned in legal precedent.
“If you have a violation of free speech, you can file for that action. But if you’re threatened in your free speech, you don’t have to go through discipline or threat or arrest, if the law or the rule or the policy or the ordinance actually creates a chilling effect so that you refrain from speaking, because you are fearful that you will be disciplined or charged or arrested, that’s enough,” said Staver.
Nonetheless, Staver says he is already gathering evidence that will argue his clients has suffered injury because of the policy. In fact, Staver says evidence came in during the lead-up to oral arguments before the court that would have greatly strengthened his case, but he points out evidence discovered after filing the case is inadmissible.
Staver is unsure whether other left-leaning school board in Virginia will take the court’s dismissal as a green light to enact their own policies. He strongly urges districts not to follow the lead of Fairfax County or else they will end up paying massive court fees when they lose on the merits.
On the other hand, Staver says the more school districts pursue the transgender accommodation policy, the easier it will be to gather evidence to being the case back to the Virginia Supreme Court.
Another advantage for Staver, is the Trump administration’s repeal of the Obama Justice Department’s directive that all public schools adopt transgender accommodation policies.
“It definitely strengthens our case on the merits because Fairfax County or any other county could say, ‘We’re just doing it because we’re compelled to do so by this federal directive. They can’t do that anymore. That particular argument , that crutch has been taken away from them,” said Staver.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America discuss the pressure mounting on the Democratic National Committee to spend big on every special House election, despite long odds in most of them. They also unload on University of California-Berkeley administrators for cancelling a speech by Ann Coulter over security concerns instead of cracking down on students and faculty threatening to disrupt the event. And they address the latest twist in leftist conspiracy theories, as liberals contend Rep. Jason Chaffetz decided not to seek re-election because he’s being blackmailed by Russia.
House Republicans are reeling from their failure to pass health care reform legislation, but a key House Freedom Caucus member says the GOP is getting close to a consensus that will make conservatives happy and make it to President Trump’s desk.
Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., a former economics professor, says the embarrassing spectacle of having to pull the American Health Care Act, or AHCA, from the floor never had to happen. He says the arbitrary voting deadline imposed by House leadership doomed the bill just as critical common ground was found between conservatives and the White House.
“At the end of that process, we were already making good headway. We met with President Trump himself. He OK’d a lot of the regulatory pieces we wanted. Based on what he said, we thought we were at a yes. Then it got mulled around and kicked around on Capitol Hill and it turned into a no somehow,” said Brat.
He says House conservatives were also very receptive to some of Vice President Mike Pence’s ideas to decentralize the health care sector.
“It’s just to go the states route and let moderate or liberal states keep the elements of Obamacare they like, let conservative states take the legs out to lower prices the way they see fit that matches their population,” said Brat.
But despite the promises, many Freedom Caucus members couldn’t vote yes for a very simple reason.
“That hasn’t ever been delivered in print yet,” said Brat, noting the official language of the AHCA never reflected the changes Trump and conservative lawmakers agreed upon.
Brat says this has been a frustrating process since the AHCA is not what he says Republicans promised to voters in the past four election cycles.
“We thought we were going to end up in pretty good shape with some competition across state lines, HSA’s and private innovation, price discovery and transparency, so people could shop for health care products and know what they’re paying for,” said Brat.
“Then we got a bill put before us that is way too much federal government which is way too federal government-oriented for my taste and three weeks to deal with it,” said Brat.
Despite his disappointment in the AHCA, Brat says he’s trying to scratch his way to supporting the bill, with the right changes.
“Some of us weren’t so happy with that product, but we also want to keep the Trump agenda going on and realize you need tax revenues to do tax reform in short order. So we want to get to yes but we’ve got to be plausible and reasonable,” said Brat.
It’s a fine balancing act, says Brat, as conservatives faced intense pressure to back the health bill put forth by their own party.
“I’ve had very intelligent people say, ‘Just forget about it. Just vote yes on that bill and move on because we want tax reform.’ Are you serious? It’s one-sixth of the entire economy and just dispatch it?” said Brat.
He says Republicans have a chance to address this and other issues that may not come around again for a very long time.
“This is a once-in-a-century opportunity we have with the House and the Senate and the White House. So this isn’t really the time to do marginal, small little adjustments. This is the time to get your first principles right and set up an economy and a health care system that our kids will flourish under,” said Brat.
And for the record, Brat says moderates are much more responsible for the AHCA mess than the House Freedom Caucus.
“There was a certain number of House Freedom Caucus folks that were a no vote, but it wasn’t unanimous. There were way more moderates who were going to do a jail break once the [number of GOP no votes] got to 20. It wasn’t reported at all. It’s not a blame game. Let’s just tell the truth out there in public so we can get to a solution. You’ve got to know the truth before you can find good policy options,” said Brat.
Brat says the media, including the Wall Street Journal, are not telling the truth on policy either. He says stories of heartless Republican policy proposals are simply not matched by the facts.
“Not only are we OK with pre-existing conditions, we’re OK with a $120 billion pot for high-risk pools for pre-existing conditions. Then we’re OK with the main amendment language of (Ariz. Rep David) Schweikert, (Alabama Rep. Gary) Palmer and (Maryland Rep.) Andy Harris, which also helps pre-existing conditions. It’s kind of been applauded by everyone for reducing prices for health care and providing more coverage,” said Brat.
“The high-risk pool is the solution there, because five percent of the folks with pre-existing conditions of a serious nature are 50 percent of the health care costs of the country. They can’t get insurance. Obamacare’s failure was that it just focused on insurance coverage. It never focused on price. That’s why you had death spirals, because people’s premiums are going up 30 percent and insurance companies can’t stay in business,” said Brat.
Brat is confident House members can reach a consensus in the week or two after lawmakers return from recess. And he warns Senate Republicans not to tinker much with any legislation the House sends their way.
“The bill better come back very close to how we sent it over. So if there’s a major rewrite on the Senate side, then it’s business as usual, and we’ve got to do better,” said Brat.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America discuss Republicans forcing a runoff in Georgia’s sixth congressional district and recall the many highly-touted red state Democrats that never panned out. They’re also stunned that Fresno police do not consider a person who murdered people because of their race and shouted “Allahu Akbar” to be suspected of terrorism. And they react to reports that Bill O’Reilly is likely on his way out at Fox News.
As Americans sprinted to the mailbox or their computer to file their income taxes Tuesday, the leader of the nation’s largest grassroots taxpayers organization says major tax reform is necessary, is still doable and there’s no better time than now.
National Taxpayers Union President Pete Sepp says Republicans may well have the best political opportunity to tackle tax reform in this lifetime.
“We have an opportunity here that may not come in another several decades to do something more comprehensive with the tax system. And we can’t afford to pass it up, not because of the politics but because of many other situations, a perfect storm if you will, that has both opportunity and peril,” said Sepp.
He says American must realize that if major reforms don’t happen, Americans will be much more burdened by the system in the years to come.
“Standing still on tax reform means falling behind. It does not mean more of the status quo. It means something worse, and lawmakers need to remember that,” said Sepp.
How will it get worse?
“Otherwise, we’re going to get into a situation where we have a small cut in tax rates, the overall tax burden shifts only slightly, and the horrible burdens of having to comply with the system remain and actually worsen,” said Sepp.
In addition to wanting to see individual and business tax rates drop, Sepp says aggressively simplifying the system needs to be a huge priority, after Americans suffered through seven billion hours of compliance headaches this year, plus an addition billion hours on paperwork to comply with the tax code.
“For most families, that would mean increasing the standard deduction and personal exemption so that most households don’t really find it attractive or worthwhile to itemize all of those deductions. That cuts down the time and effort spent on the filing process. For businesses, it means simplifying the reporting of expenses,” said Sepp.
“Right now, all of the depreciation schedules and the clawbacks and the exceptions to the rule require tremendous amounts of calculation and record-keeping,” said Sepp.
Many experts believe the approach and scope of the tax reform effort was kneecapped by the failure of Congress to address health care reform in March. Sepp says there’s an argument to be made that repealing and replacing Obamacare would have made tax reform easier, and that the effort now is complicated by weak political momentum and the many Obamacare taxes that are still standing.
Nonetheless, Sepp believes a bill can still get done, with congressional committees crafting bills in the fall and sending a final version to President Trump early next year.
While Republicans do have the votes to pass reform without help from the Democrats, the legislation would be more effective if the Senate could find 60 votes to pass the eventual plan. With 60 votes or more, the tax reforms are made permanent unless Congress acts again in the future. Without 60 votes, the provisions would sunset after 10 years and return to the rates and policies in existence now.
Sepp thinks it may be possible to win over some Democrats.
“If Republicans try hard enough to involve Democrats in the process, especially on the Senate side, they might very well be surprised by the cooperation they’ll get. Ron Wyden, for example, the ranking minority on the Senate Finance Committee, has long supported revisions and simplifications to the tax system,” said Sepp.
“It won’t be easy. There’ll be a lot of arguments along the way, but engaging both parties in this effort will produce a stronger bill and a longer-lasting one,” said Sepp.
But how badly do lawmakers want to simplify the system? Politicians created the current maze and various interests benefit from it, so is there really enough will power to get this done? Sepp says it’s up to the people.
“What we need to do it harness the power of the grassroots to say to politicians, ‘Look, all these favors you have attempted to extend to us in the name of providing us constituents with relief is not worth the distortions to the economy, the long run costs to us as families and business owners. It’s got to stop,” said Sepp.
Given the current political climate, Sepp believes ideas like a flat tax or a national consumption, or Fair Tax will struggle to find their way into a final bill, but he reiterates this is the best chance to get this right in a long time.
“It’s going to be difficult to convince Congress to go whole hog on this effort, but that’s why groups like National Taxpayers Union exist, to make sure that we push the art of the possible to its maximum, so that we can get the best, strongest bill that will help the economy, that will makes taxes simpler and will stand the test of time,” said Sepp.
He says the simple rule of thumb ought to be for reform to benefit the greatest number of people possible.
“This isn’t just about cutting rates for large businesses that have operations overseas. It’s about reducing rates and complexity for small businesses and allowing the filing process to be more transparent and less burdensome for families as well,” said Sepp.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America react to a new survey showing the vast majority of Trump voters are satisfied or pleasantly surprised by his performance thus far, despite news reports to the contrary. They also roll their eyes at suggestions that today’s special House election in Georgia is somehow a national referendum on Trump or the GOP. And they’re not at all surprised to learn that higher minimum wages in San Francisco are leading to more restaurant closures.
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America cheer Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly for stating that he will enforce immigration laws, that criminals such as drunk drivers will be deported, and that we do need to secure the southern border. They also sigh at reports that National Security Adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster reportedly wants tens of thousands of ground troops to finish the job in Iraq and Syria. And they discuss the Huffington Post column urging the disenfranchisement of white men for a time in order to advance the progressive agenda, only to have HuffPost pull the piece because they weren’t sure who wrote it.
As the deadline to file federal income tax returns approaches, multiple protests are planned, and while some critics of President Trump will take to the streets to demand he release his tax returns, another demonstration will urge him to drastically reform the tax system.
On Saturday, Americans for Fair Taxation will rally outside Trump Tower in New York City Saturday between 11 a.m.-1 p.m. ET, with a very simple message.
“The message is it’s time to actually do real tax reform,” said Americans for Fair Taxation President Steve Hayes.
The Fair Tax would scrap federal income taxes for individuals and businesses, along with payroll taxes and state sales taxes and replace it with a 23 percent national retail sales tax.
Hayes says there are multiple reasons for pursuing a simpler system like the Fair tax, starting with the need to curb deficits. He says paying taxes with each purchase makes tax evasion virtually impossible, which is not the case with the more traditional reforms currently being discussed in Congress.
“You’re going to continue to have legal evasion which, according to the study just released by Professor (Richard) Cebula using IRS and government numbers, (there will be) nine trillion dollars dollars of evasion over the next ten years,” said Hayes.
He says the alternative to the Fair Tax is a lot more audits.
“There’s less than 0.7 percent audits of which three-quarters are no longer face to face audits but through the mail. They’re going to have to do 10-15 times more actual audits than they are now to even start to put a dent in evasion,” said Hayes.
“The 80 percent who obey the law are going to get harassed, just like the 20 percent that are not following the law,” said Hayes.
Hayes says politicians and special interests benefit from the perpetuation of the current system, but the American people do not. He says a Fair tax would also help people see how big government is.
“Everything is funded through a retail sales tax. People, when they make purchases, will see the real cost of government at the time of a retail good or a retail service,” said Hayes.
He says that makes politicians nervous.
“If there’s anything that’s going to help reduce the urge of these guys to reduce the urge to spend and look for ways to cut, it’s going to be everybody watching them closely, because every time we make a purchase we see the cost of government,” said Hayes.
One of the most common arguments against the Fair Tax is that a sales tax is a heavier burden on lower income Americans. Hayes says that’s not true, noting that Americans living under the poverty line would get monthly assistance on top of any income, in essence lowering their effective tax rate from what it is now.
He also notes that the payroll tax system is far more regressive, since it starts taxing the very first dollar earned by an employee.
While getting the Fair Tax to be part of tax reform this year seems like a steep climb, Hayes is encouraged that President Trump seems eager to hear all ideas. And while he says the current framework of reform is an improvement, the Fair tax would make things far better.
“Anything is better than we have now. No question about it. The Brady plan is better than we have now, but it’s all temporary because the lobbyists will start changing it once it’s there. We need to make a fundamental change. We need to give our freedom back and put in a system that works for everybody,” said Hayes.
Ian Tuttle of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America enjoy waching Democrats snipe at each other, as liberals blame the national party for not doing more to win the special election in Kansas. They’re also a bit dizzy from President Trump appearing to shift positions on Chinese currency manipulation, the Export-Import Bank, Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen, the relevance of NATO and more – all on the same day. And they slam students at the University of Notre Dame for complaining it won’t be safe there when Vice President Mike Pence gives the commencement address next month.
