by Political Editors: When catering to a political ideology matters more than seeking after objective truth, then the credibility of one’s findings is properly questioned. The Tax Policy Center (TPC) issued and then retracted its analysis of the House Republicans’ Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) this week, stating, “TPC staff found an error in the preliminary distributional analysis of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act that we released today. This error involved the additional child tax credit component of the proposed legislation.” The TPC had recently produced an analysis of the Republicans’ plan in which it claimed “at least 12% of taxpayers would pay higher taxes … in 2018 and at least 28% … would pay more in 2027.” Now the TPC is saying, oops, uh, never mind. The truth is that the TPC has a leftist anti-Republican bias. As Chris Edwards, a tax policy expert at the Cato Institute, explained, “The real issue is that the Tax Policy Center tilts to the left in the assumptions it uses in simulations of tax plans, and in the way it presents findings. The Tax Policy Center undercounts the dynamic efforts of economic growth from tax reform, and it presents study results in ways that appear to show high-earners do the best under Republican tax reform plans.”
In early October after the TPC claimed that 50% of the GOP’s tax plan would benefit the top 1%, The Wall Street Journal in calling out the center’s leftist bias wrote, “The Tax Policy Center is a joint project of the left-leaning Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute that the media routinely labels ‘nonpartisan.’ Its record of hostility to any GOP tax reform that cuts tax rates shows the opposite. And the latest evidence of bias is its willingness to jump to conclusions about the GOP plan before crucial details are known.” Like former FBI chief James Comey, and his mysteriously edited decision to exonerate liar-Hillary Clinton, it seems the TPC had already decided the TCJA plan was bad simply based on the fact that Republicans were creating it.
Furthermore, like the Congressional Budget Office and its static analysis practices, the TPC seems to view taxes as government-created revenue, to which the only way to create more revenue is by raising taxes, rather than tax cuts that have been proven to grow revenue by growing the economy. The White House defended the GOP’s tax plan by pointing to a Tax Foundation study that found the Republican plan would spur GDP growth by 3.9%, eventually reaching 4.4% annual economic growth, while creating 975,000 full-time jobs.
If tax cuts lead to more people working and earning more money, then that equals more people paying taxes, which in turn means more money going to the government. And theoretically, if more people are working, then there would be fewer people in need of welfare, costing the government less money. But then that would mean fewer people dependent upon the government. A bridge too far for Democrats? ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52315
by Jordan Candler: Well this is certainly an interesting development. Suffice to say, something just doesn’t sit right when it comes to liar-Hillary Clinton’s consequence-free application of an unsecure email server — hence the GOP’s recent decision to dig deeper into why no charges were issued. It’s simply a question of putting together the pieces. And another clue may have just been revealed. According to a report in The Hill, last year then-FBI Director James Comey, who claimed that charges against liar-Clinton were unnecessary, initially felt otherwise. New evidence shows that in early May 2016, Comey drafted a memo in which he stated, “There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary liar-Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information.”
Contrast this with what Comey ultimately declared two months later: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary liar-Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
As The Hill explains, “The change [to extremely careless] is significant, since federal law states that gross negligence in handling the nation’s intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines.” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) responded, “Apparently … Comey and other FBI officials believed the facts fit that gross negligence standard until later edits were made.”
According to The Hill, “The documents turned over to Congress do not indicate who recommended the key wording changes. … Memos show that at least three top FBI officials were involved in helping Comey fashion and edit the statement, including Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, General Counsel James Baker and chief of staff Jim Rybicki.”
The name McCabe should raise red flags. As we recently reported, McCabe was assistant FBI director under liar-nObama. His wife, who last year ran for the state senate in Virginia, received a massive $675,000 campaign contribution from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe — former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and prolific fundraiser for the liar-Clintons. Both McCabe and McAuliffe are being investigated for the suspicious transaction. Moreover, according to Judicial Watch, “We uncovered Justice Department records showing that McCabe did not recuse himself from the investigation into former Secretary of State liar-Hillary Clinton’s unsecure, non-government email server until Tuesday, November 1, 2016, just one week prior to the presidential election!” Coincidence?
McCabe’s name coming up again could all be happenstance, but someone clearly edited Comey’s initial words and cleared liar-Hillary’s name. Is McCabe that person? Heck, it could have been Comey himself who changed the term. Either way, it really probably goes even further up the chain. We’ve stated before that Comey was following Barack liar-nObama’s cue in exonerating liar-Clinton. But it was no doubt accomplished with the help of Comey’s close colleagues in addition to growing pressure. Don’t forget that Attorney General Loretta Lynch was also implicated when she met with liar-Bill Clinton on a tarmac. Bottom line: Whatever concerns Comey had were tempered his superiors.
Finally, The Hill notes, “While Comey told Congress last year that he would never have prosecuted liar-Clinton without proof she intended to violate a law, the editing of his statement suggests there might have been dissent within the FBI about that decision.” There certainly was not much dissent among underlings at the FBI and DOJ, where agents were highly frustrated over the outcome of the investigation. But there was always dissent in the Democrat Party leadership. What the new memos offer is more proof that it wasn’t just liar-Clinton who was grossly negligent. As even Comey initially implied, she should be in jail. But someone higher up ensured that wouldn’t happen. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/52283
Comments