Embedded Files
Secret Memo
Heralds
Tax Increases
Contents
Introduction. 4
Chapter 1 – The Memo Body. 6
Chapter 2 - How These Changes Exacerbate Problems for Most Americans While Benefitting the Rich 86
Chapter 3 – Benefits Concentrated at the Top. 92
Chapter 4 – analysis of items that may draw money from necessary scientific endeavors, disadvantage vulnerable populations, or enrich special interests at the expense of the broader public good 97
Chapter 5 – Eliminating Medicare Coverage. 103
Chapter 6 – Eliminating Emergency Funds for Oil Spills. 104
Chapter 7 – Eliminating the Estate Tax. 108
Chapter 8 – Homeland Security Wants One Hundred Millions Dollars for Retention Bonuses 114
Chapter 9 – No Tax Tips and Hungry Children. 121
Chapter 10 – Two Different Tax Structures and Public Welfare Provisions 127
Chapter 11 – Tip Taxes and Universal School Meals. 133
Chapter 12 – Trash Talking About Slush Funds. 137
Chapter 13 – Ancient Money Interfering with Modern Life. 141
Chapter 14 – Twentieth Century Rejects. 145
Chapter 15 – Legacy of Undoing. 151
Chapter 16 – Secret Memo in Plain Talk. 154
Chapter 17 - SALT Note. 164
Chapter 18 - Life Without SALT – One of Many Worst Case Scenarios 166
Chapter 19 – Wholesale Passage and the Following Disaster. 171
Part 1. 171
Part 2. 176
Part 3. 185
Introduction
Introduction
Be clear that my stance on this mass of issues is based on principles, not party loyalty.
The title of the article says it all :
"Secret Memo Heralds Tax Increases"
When we see a political movement, or a small segment of some political party, consistently engaging in harmful behavior, then calling it out is not partisanship—it’s responsibility. In this case a small band of Republicans have gone off the rails of the Party's Public Position and have adopted, secretly, a series of ideas of their own that undermine the very people who voted them into office. Such a situation cannot go unnoticed or ignored by anyone.
Below please find a list of items that the present leadership of the Republican Party seems interested in. Please keep in mind this is not a list that represents the desires, needs and goals of the entire Republican Party – just a select few. I hope that you will take a look at them and contact your elected officials about those you agree with or disagree with – otherwise they will be left alone to decide or be encouraged by lobbyists.
As times goes on - it will be necessary to be aware of whom are responsible for these sorts of things, so that, they may be held accountable.
The American government should always have the goal to uphold integrity, accountability, and the public good. In light of that I would call my fellow Americans to take a look at the following document now being circulated in Washington, DC among Members of Congress, both the Senate and the House.
I want to ensure them that the truth is known and that those responsible for harmful actions are and will be held accountable for them.
In the following document you will find examples of taking funds away from some work and then, two pages later, suggesting they give it right back. Very strange.
Raising taxes across the board, with the exception of those making MORE than $350,000.
Electrification of Native American Indian Reservations will be shut off.
Preferential treatment is to be awarded to Electrical Vehicle manufacturers.
Money and support is to be withdrawn from the only organization that ensures giant banks do not dabble in stocks and that stock brokers do not mix their work with any banking arms they may have.
There is no intention of canonizing the ‘Department of Government Efficiency’. It is not mentioned at all, yet, some people are reportedly repeatedly raiding government offices with the intention of seizing sensitive and private information.
There are plans for Federal Land to be sold and Federal Buildings to be sold.
There is clear indication that lumbering will be permitted across Federal lands at an increased rate, yet, the perceived gain for the government would only be $2 Billion (USD). That’s a lot of money but no where near what the lumber is worth, nor the cost in water quality issues for the regions impacted.
Recently it was announced that oil would be added Petroleum Reserve, which will reportedly take 15 years to complete. According to the following document the votes are to be on intending to guarantee income from selling oil from that Petroleum Reserve.
The mass of material indicates that income for the Federal Government will rise, families will be further pressured with tax increases, drug prices will rise, school breakfast and lunch is to be cut, school operations are to be interfered with and more, including at least three major supportive notes made concerning a single industry – the Electric Vehicle industry.
Chapter 1 – The Memo Body
Chapter 1 – The Memo Body
WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE
Health
Limit Federal Health Program Eligibility Based on Citizenship Status
Up to $35 billion 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Currently, many non-citizens who entered the country illegally are eligible for federal health care programs including advance premium tax credits and Medicaid. This policy would remove specified categories of non-citizens from eligibility for federal health care programs.
Eliminate Medicare Coverage of Bad Debt
Up to $42 billion 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Medicare currently reimburses hospitals at 65 percent of bad debt (uncollected cost-sharing that beneficiaries fail to pay), while private payers do not typically reimburse providers for bad debt. This policy brings Medicare more in line with the private sector by gradually reducing the amount that Medicare reimburses providers for bad debt.
Medicare Site Neutrality
Up to $146 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Currently, Medicare and beneficiaries pay more for the SAME health care service furnished in hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) than in physician offices. The budget supports Medicare site neutral payments by equalizing Medicare payments for health care services that can be safely delivered in a physician’s office.
Improve Uncompensated Care
Up to $229 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Medicare currently provides additional financial support to hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients related to uncompensated care. These payments are limited to hospitals, which fails to acknowledge the amount of uncompensated care delivered in non-hospital settings. This policy reforms uncompensated care payments by removing the payment from the Medicare Trust Fund and establishing a new uncompensated care fund that will equitably distribute payments to providers based on their true share of charity care and non-Medicare bad debt.
Prevent Dual Classification for Hospitals Under Medicare
Up to $10 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Prevent dual reclassifications for hospitals under Medicare to eliminate double dipping of benefits.
Other Reforms to Obamacare Subsidies
Up to $5 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Reform Obamacare subsidies in the individual market to: lower premiums, lower out-of-pocket costs, direct subsidies to patients over health insurers, and target Premium Tax Credits to the most needy Americans.
Reform Graduate Medical Education (GME) Payments
Up to $10 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Reform Medicare graduate medical education (GME) payments. Enact H.R. 8235, Rural Physician Workforce Preservation Act reported out of the Ways and Means Committee on May 8, 2024. The bill would ensure that 10 percent of newly enacted GME slots would go to truly rural teaching hospitals. Also include a policy that would decrease excess GME payments to “efficient” teaching hospitals.
Geographic Integrity in Medicare Wage Index
Up to $15 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Enact geographic integrity in Medicare’s Wage Index calculations to reduce overpayments to urban hospitals.
Repeal DACA Obamacare Subsidies Final Rule
$6 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● In May 2024, the Biden Administration finalized a rule that would allow DACA recipients to enroll in subsidized marketplace and basic health program (BHP) plans. The rule expands eligibility by modifying the definition of “lawfully present” to include DACA recipients.
Codify Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangement (ICHRA) Rule
No budgetary effects
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Codify the Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangement (ICHRA)
Treasury rule to allow companies to offer their employees defined benefit contributions towards qualified health plans. Enact H.R. 3799, the Custom Health Option and Individual Care Expense Arrangement Act reported out of the Ways and Means Committee on June 7, 2023.
Second Chances for Rural Hospitals Act (H.R. 8246)
Up to $10 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Increase access to rural emergency care services and facilitate better discharges to post-acute care for patients. Ensure patients can expeditiously access emergency and post-hospital care in long-term care hospitals, nursing homes, and home health programs. Enact H.R. 8246, the Second Chances for Rural
Hospitals Act reported out of the Ways and Means Committee on May 8, 2024.
Eliminate Inpatient-only List
Up to $10 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Eliminate the inpatient-only list so more same-day surgeries and procedures can be performed in lower cost, outpatient settings. Improve Senior Access to Innovation and Telehealth
Up to $20 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Enact H.R. 8261, the Preserving Telehealth, Hospital, and Ambulance Access
Act reported out of the Ways and Means Committee on May 8, 2024. Enact H.R. 2407, the Nancy Gardner Sewell Medicare Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act (JCA bill), H.R. 8816, the American Medical Innovation and Investment Act, H.R. 1691, the Ensuring Patient Access to Critical Breakthrough Products Act of 2023, and H.R. 4818, the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act of 2023 reported out of the Ways and Means Committee on June 26, 2024.
Reform IRA’s Drug Policies
Up to $20 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Reform the Inflation Reduction Act’s prescription drug policies to discourage price setting on innovative drugs treating rare patient populations.
Reform Medicare Physician Payments
Up to $10 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Reform Medicare’s physician payment system to encourage more predictability and certainty.
Reform Obamacare Market Plan Design and Eligibility
Up to $10 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Reform Obamacare market plan design and eligibility rules such as actuarial value calculations and open enrollment periods.
Recapture excess Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies
Up to $46 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Currently, an individual can receive advance payments of the premium tax credit to coincide when health insurance premiums are due each month, based on an estimate of income. If the tax credit is paid in advance, the taxpayer must reconcile the advance credit payments with actual income filed on the tax return and repay any excess tax credits. For individuals with incomes below 400 percent of FPL, any repayment amount is capped. The budget removes limits on repayments of excess premium tax credit payments so any individual who was overpaid in tax credits would have to repay the entire excess amount, regardless of income.
Block Grant GME at CPI-M
Up to $75 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The Federal Government spends more than $20 billion annually in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to train medical residents with little accountability for outcomes. GME reform has been recommended by the independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and included in past presidential budgets. This policy streamlines GME payments to hospitals, while providing greater flexibility for teaching institutions and states to develop innovative and cost-effective approaches to better meet our nation’s medical workforce needs.
Repeal Obamacare Subsidies “Family Glitch” Final Rule
Up to $35 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The text of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) made it clear that individuals with affordable employer coverage (as defined in the law) are not eligible to receive Obamacare subsidies for ACA plans. The affordability standard in Obamacare specifically applied only to individuals and not to the cost of family coverage overall. The provision was written this way to reduce the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score for this provision. In October 2022, the Biden Administration illegally altered the ACA by creating a new affordability standard to both employees and their dependents, running afoul of the text and Congressional intent of the law, resulting in individuals leaving employer coverage and onto ACA plans.
Energy
Repeal Title I of IRA (Excluding: 45Q Carbon Sequestration, 45U Nuclear Power,
45Z Clean Fuels, and EV Tax Credit)
$404.7 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Reducing 45Q, 45U, and 45Z would streamline and reduce government intervention in the energy industry that props up the green energy sector and distorts market competition.
Close the EV credit leasing loophole
$50 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Closing the EV credit leasing loophole ensures that only EV buyers, not lessees, receive tax credits, preserving integrity of the program and preventing misuse of taxpayer dollars.
Tax
Repeal Green Energy Tax Credits
Up to $796 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would repeal credits created and expanded under the Inflation Reduction Act. These credits are related to clean vehicles, clean energy, efficient building and home energy, carbon sequestration, sustainable aviation fuels, environmental justice, biofuel, and more. The full cost of the IRA provisions is about $329 billion, which becomes about $800 billion when paired with the tailpipe emission rule designed to dramatically increase the uptake of EVs and EV credit use. Based on political will, there are several smaller reform options available (starting as low as $3 billion) that would repeal a smaller portion of these credits.
End Employee Retention Tax Credit
$70-75 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC) is a refundable tax credit aimed at encouraging employers to keep employees on payroll during economic hardships, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Ending the ERTC would extend the current moratorium on claims processing and eliminate the credit for claims submitted after January 31, 2024, along with introducing stricter penalties for fraud. These changes align with the House-passed Tax Relief for American
Families and Workers Act.
SSN Requirement for Child Tax Credit
$27.7 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would better ensure program integrity by requiring claimants (children and parents) to have a Social Security number to be eligible for the CTC. This change enforces a clear eligibility requirement based on Social Security numbers valid for employment, directly aligning these credits with the principle of supporting those who contribute to the economy through work. This measure not only streamlines administration, potentially reducing fraud, but also reinforces the idea that tax-based benefits should reward work and support families genuinely eligible under the law. TCJA included a provision that required a SSN for each child to claim the CTC which is expiring in 2025.
Endowment Tax Expansion to 14 Percent Rate
$10 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) imposed a new tax on a small group of private nonprofit colleges and universities. Institutions enrolling at least 500 students that have endowment assets exceeding $500,000 per student (other than those assets which are used directly in carrying out the institution’s exempt purpose) pay a tax of 1.4 percent on their net investment income. In 2022, the tax raised $244 million from 58 institutions. This would raise that rate to 14%.
H.R. 8913, Increase Applicability of Endowment Tax
$275 million in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● H.R. 8913 adjusts the criteria for which students are counted when determining whether a private college or university is subject to an excise tax on its net investment income. This bill incentivizes universities that receive generous U.S. federal tax benefits to either enroll more American students or spend more of their endowment funds on those students to avoid being subject to the endowment tax. This bill would subject roughly 10 to 12 additional schools to the Endowment Tax, all of which could avoid the tax by admitting more American students or spending down their endowments.
H.R. 8914, University Accountability Act
No budgetary effects
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● H.R. 8914, marked up by the Ways and Means Committee on July 9, 2024, would enact penalties for colleges and universities that violate students’ rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (which applies to educational institutions and protects against discrimination). It was ordered reported favorably by a vote of 24 yeas (you and 23 other Republicans) and 12 nays (all Democrats).
Repeal SALT Deduction
$1.0 trillion in 10-year savings relative to TCJA extension
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would eliminate both the individual and business State and Local Tax deduction. Currently, the cap is $10,000. After 2025, this limitation will expire.
Make $10k SALT Cap Permanent, but Double for Married Couples
$100-$200 billion cost relative to TCJA extension
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would extend the $10k SALT cap but double it for married couples.
$15k/$30k SALT Cap
$500 billion cost relative to TCJA extension
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would cap the SALT deduction at $15k for individuals and $30k for married couples.
Eliminate Income/Sales Tax Deduction Portion of SALT
$300 billion cost relative to TCJA extension
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would eliminate deductibility of state and local income or sales taxes from the SALT deduction, making only property taxes SALT deductible. The $10k SALT cap would expire as scheduled in current law.
Eliminate Business SALT Deduction
$310 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would eliminate the business SALT deduction. The individual SALT deduction would be unchanged from current law.
Eliminate the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction
About $1.0 trillion in 10-year savings relative to TCJA extension
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would fully repeal the deduction for mortgage interest on primary residences. This is a Tax Foundation score.
Lower Home Mortgage Interest Deduction Cap to $500k
About $50 billion in 10-year savings relative to TCJA extension
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would lower the cap on the home mortgage interest deduction from the TCJA level of $750k to $500k. This is a Tax Foundation score.
Eliminate Nonprofit Status for Hospitals
$260 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● More than half of all income by 501(c)(3) nonprofits is generated by nonprofit hospitals and healthcare firms. This option would tax hospitals as ordinary for-profit businesses. This is a CRFB score.
Eliminate Exclusion of Interest on State and Local Bonds
$250 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Interest earned on municipal bonds is currently excluded from taxable income. This option would end the exclusion, making income from municipal bond interest taxable.
End Tax Preferences for Other Bonds
$114 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would eliminate the exclusion of interest earned on private activity bonds, Build America bonds, and other non-municipal bonds.
Eliminate Head of Household Filing Status
$192 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The Head of Household filing status provides a larger standard deduction for unmarried individuals who have children. This option would eliminate the Head of Household filing status.
Eliminate the American Opportunity Credit
$59 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The American opportunity tax credit (AOTC) is a credit for qualified education expenses paid for an eligible student for the first four years of higher education.
Taxpayers can get a maximum annual credit of $2,500 per eligible student. This option would repeal the credit.
Eliminate the Lifetime Learning Credit
$26 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The Lifetime Learning Credit (“LLC”) provides a nonrefundable tax credit equal to 20 percent of qualified tuition and related expenses of the taxpayer that do not exceed $10,000. This option would repeal the credit.
Replace HSA’s with a $9,100 Roth-Style USA Indexed to Inflation
$110 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would replace Health Savings Accounts (HSA) with a $9,100 Universal Savings Account indexed to inflation. While it would raise revenue by $110 billion in the budget window, it would have a small cost outside of the budget window. This is a Tax Foundation score.
End Treatment of Meals and Lodging (Other than Military)
$87 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Employer-provided meals and lodging are generally excluded from taxable income if they are for the employer's convenience. This option would eliminate this exclusion for all employees except military personnel, making these benefits taxable and saving $87 billion over 10 years.
Eliminate Deduction for Charitable Contributions to Health Organizations
$83 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Taxpayers can deduct contributions to qualifying health organizations (patient advocacy groups, professional medical associations, and other U.S.-based charitable organizations with 501(c)(3) tax status) from their taxable income. This option would remove the deduction for contributions to health organizations, generating $83 billion in savings over 10 years.
Eliminate Credit for Child and Dependent Care
$55 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Taxpayers can claim a credit for a portion of their child and dependent care expenses (up to $2,100). This option would remove the child and dependent care credit, yielding $55 billion in savings over 10 years.
Eliminate Exclusion of Scholarship and Fellowship Income
$54 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Qualified scholarships and fellowships are generally excluded from taxable income if used for tuition and related expenses. This option would make all scholarship and fellowship income taxable, increasing revenue by $54 billion over 10 years.
Eliminate Employer Paid Transportation Benefits
$50 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Employer-provided transportation benefits (up to $315 per month), like transit passes and parking, are excluded from taxable income. This option would eliminate the tax exclusion for these benefits, generating $50 billion in savings over 10 years.
Eliminate Exemption of Credit Union Income
$30 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Credit unions are exempt from federal income taxes on their earnings. This option would subject credit unions to the federal income tax.
Eliminate Exclusion of Employer Provided On-Site Gyms
$20 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Employer-provided on-site gym facilities intended for employees and their families are excluded from taxable income. This option would make the value of on-site gyms taxable.
Eliminate Deduction of Interest on Student Loans
$30 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Taxpayers can deduct up to $2,500 of interest paid on student loans from their taxable income. This option would eliminate the deduction for student loan interest.
Federal Excise Tax on Federal Unions’ Non-Representation Spending
$7 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would impose a federal excise tax on non-representation spending by federal unions.
Make DEI Union Expenses Non-Deductible
Unknown savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Currently, federal unions are able to deduct all expenses on DEI training because they are “educational.” This proposal would impose new limits, likely raising some revenue.
Increase Electric Vehicle Fees
Unknown savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Electric vehicles do not currently contribute to the Highway Trust Fund, which is largely funded by the federal gas tax. This option would assess a new fee on electric vehicles.
Border Adjustment Tax
$1.2 trillion+ in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option creates a new tax on goods where they are consumed, not produced. This shift from an origin-based tax to a destination-based tax.
H.R. 5688, Improvements to Health Savings Accounts
$10 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● H.R. 5688 allows individuals who utilize key health services such as direct primary care arrangements and worksite health clinics to use their own resources to contribute to health savings account funds. The bill also eliminates a prohibition against an individual establishing an HSA if their spouse has an existing flexible spending arrangement and allows individuals to convert their own flexible spending or health reimbursement arrangement dollars into a health savings account.
Eliminate Tax on Tips
$106 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Tips received by employees are subject to income and payroll taxes. This option would eliminate the income tax on tips.
Eliminate Tax on Overtime
$750 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This blanket exemption would prevent overtime earnings from being taxed. This is a Tax Foundation score.
Exempt Americans Abroad from Income Tax
$100 billion 10-year cost
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Currently, the foreign earned income exclusion offers tax benefits to Americans residing overseas. Adjusted annually for inflation, the exclusion amount reached $126,500 for 2024. It is unclear whether this proposal intends to raise this limit or fully eliminate U.S. taxation on individual foreign income. This is a Tax Foundation score.
Auto Loan Interest Deduction
$61 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This would allow Americans to deduct their auto loan interest payments from their taxes. The specifics are unclear at the moment. This is a Tax Foundation score.
Repeal IRA’s Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax
$222 billion 10-year in costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) imposes a 15% corporate alternative minimum tax on adjusted financial statement income for corporations. This option would repeal the IRA's corporate AMT.
Eliminate the Death Tax
$370 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Estates exceeding a certain value are subject to federal tax. The TCJA doubled the estate tax exclusion. The 2023 exclusion amount is $12.9 million per person ($25.8 million for married couples). This option would eliminate the federal estate tax.
Cancel Amortization of R&D Expenses
$169 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Prior to TCJA, research and development (R&D) costs could be immediately expensed. TCJA replaced R&D expensing with amortization. This option would return to the pre-TCJA treatment of R&D.
Implement Neutral Cost Recovery for Structures
$10 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● While TCJA improved the tax treatment of short-term investments with the temporary 100 percent Bonus Depreciation provision, it did not improve the treatment of long-term investments in buildings and structures. This policy would allow businesses to index the value of deductions to inflation and a real rate of return (to address the time value of money). Experts believe this would preserve the economic benefits of full expensing for long-term structures at a fraction of the cost. Has a large cost outside of the budget window. This is a Tax Foundation score.
Lower the Corporate Rate to 15 Percent
$522 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● TCJA permanently lowered the corporate income tax rate from a globally uncompetitive 35 percent to 21 percent. This option would further lower the corporate rate to 15 percent.
Lower the Corporate Rate to 20 Percent
$73 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● TCJA permanently lowered the corporate income tax rate from a globally uncompetitive 35 percent to 21 percent. This option would further lower the corporate rate to 20 percent.
Repeal IRA’s IRS Enforcement Funding
$46.6 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Over the FY25-FY34 period, that rescission is estimated to reduce outlays by $20 billion, reduce revenues by $66.6 billion, and as result increase the deficit by $46.6 billion. This estimate is relative to the 2024 baseline.
Restructure the EITC to Reduce Improper Payments
Unknown savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● In 2023, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) had an estimated improper payment rate of 33.5 percent, totalling $22 billion dollars. This policy option would simplify the EITC by breaking it out into a “worker credit” and a “child credit,” allowing for more accurate eligibility verifications and reducing improper payments.
Trade
Codify and Increase 301 Tariffs on China
$100 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The current 301 tariffs bring in approximately $40 billion per year. This option would codify the 301 tariffs in addition to increasing the tariffs on products already subject to 301.
10 Percent Tariff
$1.9 trillion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would create a 10% across the board tariff on all imports.
H.R. 7679, End China’s De Minimis Abuse Act
$24 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Legislation requiring de minimis value shipments to also pay any existing 301 tariffs would reduce the volume of de minimis shipments from China by half.
Welfare
Codify the Chained CPI-U for Poverty Programs
$5 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Codifying the Chained CPI-U will limit the Executive Branch’s ability to change the federal poverty line, which determines eligibility and funding allocations to states for federal means-tested welfare programs. Using just the CPI-U overstates inflation, contributing to a larger welfare system and a culture of government dependency.
Eliminate Social Services Block Grant
$15 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) is an annually appropriated capped entitlement to states to support a range of social service activities. However, most of these activities are funded by other federal programs, including TANF, the Community Services Block Grant, the Child Care and Development Fund, and more. Furthermore, the SSBG provides excessive state discretion over $1.7 billion annually with no accountability. Presidents Bush and Trump proposed eliminating the SSBG in their budgets and the House has proposed its elimination in budget resolutions in the 112th, 113th, 114th, and 115th Congresses. This block grant is duplicative of other programs, lacks effective oversight, and should be eliminated.
Eliminate TANF Contingency Fund
$6 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The TANF Contingency Fund provides additional funding to states experiencing economic hardship. However, it is essentially a slush fund, providing states with excessive discretion over federal funds, and is duplicative to other federal programs. This policy option would eliminate the TANF Contingency Fund.
Improve SSI Income and Asset Verification
Unknown savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● SSI provides cash assistance to aged, blind, and disabled individuals with little or no income. Under current law, SSA is not required to verify financial accounts of SSI applicants and recipients who allege ownership of resources valued at less than $400. A recent SSA-OIG report concluded that this practice led to incorrect resource determinations, resulting in 198,960 recipients receiving $718 million in SSI payments for which they were not eligible. This policy option would lower the $400 resource-level tolerance to $0 and require SSA to validate the financial accounts of all SSI applicants and recipients, strengthening program integrity and reducing improper payments.
TANF Work Requirements
$7 million in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Adult TANF recipients, with some exceptions, must participate in work activities to receive benefits. Under current law, HHS has the authority to reduce or waive penalties to states that do not meet TANF work participation requirements. This policy option would take away HHS’s ability to do so with the intent to incentivize work as a pathway to self-sufficiency, reducing direct spending by $7 million.
Require School Attendance for SSI Benefits
$640 million in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Children under 18 may qualify for SSI if they are disabled and their household has limited income and resources. This policy option would condition SSI benefits for qualified children under the age of 18 on school attendance.
Sliding Scale for SSI Benefits
$5 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● SSI, unlike other welfare programs, does not pay benefits on a sliding scale. Recognizing household economies of scale, this reform (based on a CBO budget option) converts SSI payments to a sliding scale. The sliding scale formula would be (as per the CBO budget option and proposed by the 1995 National Commission on Childhood Disability): SSI federal payment rate multiplied by the number of child recipients in the family and raised to the power of 0.7.
Deny SSI to Those with Felony Arrest Warrants
$3 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● In addition to being an important program integrity measure, this policy option would help restore the original intent of PRWORA to discontinue SSI benefits for individuals who are ‘‘the subject of an arrest warrant’’ compared to the previous language of ‘‘fleeing to avoid’’ arrest. It would also have the added benefit of helping law enforcement find criminals who have been evading the law.
Reduce TANF by 10 Percent
$15 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The TANF block grant provides fixed funding to the 50 states, DC, and territories, for a range of benefits and services to assist low-income families with children. Current law allows states to carry over unspent TANF funds indefinitely. At the end of 2022, $9 billion TANF dollars remained unspent – over half the size of the $16.5 billion block grant. This policy option would reduce the TANF block grant by 10 percent.
ENERGY & COMMERCE COMMITTEE
Health
Reverse Executive Expansion of State-Directed Payments in Medicaid
Up to $25 billion in 10-year savings (Informal Estimate)
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The Biden Administration finalized regulations effectively removing limits on the levels of state-directed payments (SDPs) in Medicaid, which are used to artificially increase federal Medicaid matching funds. This policy would impose limits on SDPs.
Medicaid FMAP Penalty for covering Illegal Aliens with State-Only Money
TBD on Savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would impose a reduction in a state’s FMAP if the state uses state-only funding to provide coverage to illegal aliens through the state’s Medicaid program. States currently offering Medicaid coverage for illegal aliens include California and New York.
Repeal CMS Nursing Home Minimum Staffing Final Rule
Up to $22 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would repeal the final rule, “Minimum Staffing Standards for Long-Term Care Facilities and Medicaid Institutional Payment Transparency Reporting.” The rule was finalized in May 2024 and would impose minimum staffing standards on long-term care facilities, creating an unfunded mandate on critical health care facilities across the country, threatening provider facility closures and patient access to care.
Eliminate Prevention and Public Health Fund
$15 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Created under Obamacare, the Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF) is “the nation’s first mandatory funding stream dedicated to improving our nation’s public health system.” In reality, the PPHF has served as a slush fund for the HHS Secretary, who has full authority to spend funds in this account on any program or activity under the Public Health Service Act the Department chooses without further congressional action. There is currently authorized $1.3B for FY24-FY25, $1.8B for FY26-FY27, and $2B for FY28 and every fiscal year thereafter. This policy would repeal this fund but does not cut a specific program.
Equalize DC FMAP to What States Receive
$8 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This policy would base the District of Columbia's federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) on the standard formula rather than fixed at 70 percent by statute. Under the policy, the District's matching rate would fall from 70 percent to 50 percent.
Lower Medicaid Matching Rate Floor
Up to $387 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● There is currently a floor for states’ federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) set in statute at 50%. This option would lower the floor and allow all states’ FMAPs to be set according to the formula. This option would primarily impact high-income states, like California and New York.
Equalize FMAP for ACA Expansion Population
$561 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The Obamacare Medicaid expansion gives preferential treatment to able-bodied adults over children or individuals with disabilities with a set 90 percent Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) federal reimbursement for the Obamacare adult expansion population. This policy would end Obamacare’s preferential treatment for adults over children by equalizing federal reimbursement of expansion adults to the normal FMAP formula.
Establish Medicaid Work Requirements
$100 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The policy would restore the dignity of work by implementing work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents to qualify for Medicaid coverage, as included in the House-passed Limit, Save, Grow Act (H.R. 2811). Certain populations would be exempted, such as pregnant women, primary caregivers of dependents, individuals with disabilities or health-related barriers to employment, and full-time students.
Limit Medicaid Provider Taxes
$175 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● States increase the amount of federal Medicaid funding they receive by levying taxes on providers and then increasing their reimbursement rates. This policy would lower the Medicaid provider tax safe harbor from 6% under current law to 4% from 2026 to 2027 and 3% in 2028 and after.
Repeal Biden Administration Finalized Medicaid/CHIP ACCESS Rule
$121 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● In May 2024,the Biden Administration finalized a rule focused primarily on expanding access to Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) in both fee for service (FFS) Medicaid and in managed care plans, including by instituting worker compensation requirements.
Repeal Biden Administration Finalized Medicaid Eligibility Rule
$164 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● In September 2023 and April 2024, CMS finalized two parts of a rule that governs protocols for states verifying Medicaid and CHIP eligibility. Among other things, the proposed rule imposed a prohibition on conducting eligibility checks more frequently than once every 12 months, elimination of the requirement for in-person interviews for some populations, and minimum time allowances for enrollees to provide documentation needed.
Medicaid Per Capita Caps
Up to $900 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Currently, states receive open-ended Federal Medicaid matching funds based on the costs of providing services to enrollees. Under Medicaid today, for every dollar a state spends on Medicaid services, it gets $1 to $3 of Federal support (richer states get $1, poorer states get $3). States are guaranteed continued federal support for actual spending, even if those costs go up or do not achieve desired outcomes. With a per capita cap, the federal government makes a limited payment to the state based on a preset formula, which does not increase based on actual costs. States exceeding the “cap” for enrollees would thus need to find other revenues to maintain spending levels or explore innovative ways to reduce excessive costs. This policy would establish a per capita cap for each of the different enrollment populations set to grow at medical inflation.
Remove American Rescue Plan Temporary FMAP Increase
$18 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The American Rescue Plan included a provision that aimed to encourage non-expansion states to expand their Medicaid programs. In addition to the 90 percent FMAP available under Obamacare for the expansion population, states can also receive a 5 percent increase in their regular federal matching rate for 2 years after expansion takes effect. The additional incentive applies whenever a state newly expands Medicaid and does not expire. This policy rolls back this additional 5 percent FMAP incentive.
Standardize Medicaid Administrative Matching Rate
$69 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The federal government reimburses states at a different rate for some administrative activities. This policy option would standardize the Medicaid administrative matching rates at 50 percent for all administrative categories.
Medicare Site Neutrality
Up to $146 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Currently, Medicare and beneficiaries pay more for the SAME health care service furnished in hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) than in physician offices. The budget supports Medicare site neutral payments by equalizing Medicare payments for health care services that can be safely delivered in a physician’s office.
Unspecified Proposals to Address IRA Drug Pricing Policies
Unknown costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Energy and Commerce provided no details on this policy option, solely stating that the policy would mitigate the “worst of innovation killing parts of IRA.”
Unspecified Proposals to Reform CMMI
Unknown costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Energy and Commerce provided no details on this policy option, solely stating that the policy would reform CMMI and cost money.
Unspecified Proposals to Post-Acute Care
Unknown costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Energy and Commerce provided no details on this policy option, solely stating that the policy would “facilitate better discharges to post-acute care for patients” and cost money.
Unspecified Proposals to Medicare’s Physician Payment System
Unknown costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Energy and Commerce provided no details on this policy option, solely stating that the policy would include “reforms to Medicare’s physician payment system” and either cost money or be budget neutral.
Unspecified Proposals to ACA Subsidies in Individual Market
Unknown
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Energy and Commerce provided no details on this policy option, solely stating it would “lower premiums, lower out of pocket costs, direct subsidies to patients over health insurers, and counter the Democrats goal of subsidizing wealthy Americans premiums and further increasing ACA spending.”
Unspecified Proposals to Change FMAPs
Unknown
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Energy and Commerce provided no details on this policy option, solely stating it would “rebalance Federal Matching Rates to be more fair to states with more people with lower incomes.”
Energy
Inflation Reduction Act Repeals in Titles V and VI
$17.3 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Title V programs include ($12.69 billion):
o Home energy performance based and whole-house rebates ($2.8 billion)
o High efficiency electric home rebate program ($2 billion)
o State-based home energy efficiency contractor training and grants ($120
million)
o Assistance for latest and zero building energy code adoption ($600
million)
o Funding for Department of Energy, Loan Program Office ($3.9 billion)
o Advanced vehicle technology manufacturing ($1.6 billion)
o Transmission facility financing ($14 million)
o Interregional and offshore wind transmission planning and modeling ($73
million)
o Department of Energy administrative funding ($80 million)
o Federal Regulatory commission funding (($85 million)
o 1.42
o Grants for interstate electricity transmission lines ($337 million)
o Advanced industrial facilities deployment program ($2.3 million)
o Department of energy oversight ($59 million)
o Canal improvement project ($21 million)
o Domestic manufacturing conservation grants ($1 billion)
● Title VI Programs include ($4.64 billion):
o Clean heavy-duty vehicles ($621 million)
o Grants to reduce air pollution at ports ($1.8 billion)
o Diesel emissions reductions ($20 million)
o Funding to address air pollution ($40 million)
o Funding to address air pollution at schools ($4 million)
o Low emissions electricity program ($20 million)
o EPA production declaration assistance ($44 million)
o Methane emissions reduction grants ($698 million)
o Climate pollution reduction grants ($2 million)
o Low embodied carbon labeling for construction materials ($30 million)
o Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant ($1.4 billion)
H.R. 2811 Energy Leasing and Permitting Provisions
$7.5 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Division D, Title II and III of H.R. 2811, Limit, Save, Grow Act includes all of H.R. 2 , The Lower Energy Costs Act and Transparency, Accountability, Permitting, and Production of American Resources Act or the TAPP American Resources Act. CBO’s score of the LSG notes that these provisions reduce revenues by $6.4 billion. The HBC Energy team does not have any further information or detail on this provision.
Repeal EPA Tailpipe Emissions Rule and Department of Transportation CAFE
Standards Rule
$111.3 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The EPA Tailpipe and DOT CAFE Standard rules considerably increase the usages of the IRA’s EV tax credits. It is likely that these rules will be among the first repealed by Trump executive action.
Sell Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Can be Dialed Based on Need
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● SPR sales can be dialed based on need.
Other
Electromagnetic Spectrum Auction
$70 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● FCC auctioning certification and permitting for electromagnetic spectrum to provide wireless and broadcast services throughout the country.
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
Welfare
Reform 2021 Revaluation of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP)
Up to $274 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● In August 2021, President Biden expanded the TFP without cost constraints, leading to a 23 percent increase in SNAP benefits at the cost of $300 billion over ten years. At the request of congressional lawmakers, GAO conducted a legal review of Biden’s reevaluated TFP and found that USDA’s actions violated the 1996 Congressional Review Act, which requires government agencies to submit significant policy updates to Congress. This policy option could implement a range of reforms to the TFP, from limiting changes in the cost to the rate of inflation (saving $36 billion over ten years) to completely repealing the Biden Administration’s TFP expansion (saving $274 billion over ten years).
SNAP Work Requirements
$5 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) age 18 – 49 are supposed to meet work requirements to be eligible for SNAP benefits. The FRA temporarily increased the age limit for exemption from work requirements to 54 and created various exemptions for certain populations from work requirements. This policy implements work requirements from LSG to raise the age limit for exemption to 56 and restricts the ability for states to carry forward work requirement exemptions to future years.
End Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility
$10 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Current law allows states to provide SNAP benefits to individuals who would otherwise be ineligible through broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE), which allows individuals who receive welfare assistance from programs such as TANF to enroll in SNAP automatically. Because some TANF services are available to households with incomes higher than those that are eligible for SNAP, states can allow individuals to enroll in SNAP without meeting federal eligibility criteria for assets, income, or both. Ending BBCE would improve program integrity within SNAP and protect the program for the truly needy.
End SNAP-LIHEAP Linkage (“Heat and Eat”)
$7 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The amount of SNAP benefits a household receives is based on its countable income (income minus certain deductions). The “heat and eat” loophole allows states to provide minimal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) benefits to SNAP recipients to make them eligible for larger countable
income deductions, triggering higher SNAP benefits. Eliminating this loophole would encourage fiscal responsibility by closing misaligned incentives that game the system, emphasizing that government benefits should be for those who need them the most and simplifying program administration.
Cap SNAP Maximum Benefit
$2 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● SNAP benefit amounts are tied to the cost of USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan and determined by household size. Currently, the average monthly SNAP benefit increases for each additional household member. This policy option would cap the maximum household SNAP benefit equal to a family of six.
Repeal Provision Requiring USDA to Disregard Improper Payments Below $56
$70 million in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Under current law, USDA is required to tolerate and disregard improper payments below $56 when calculating payment error rates, contributing to a distorted portrayal of SNAP’s improper payments. This policy option would eliminate this “tolerance threshold” to provide a more comprehensive understanding of fraud, waste, and abuse within SNAP.
Expand the National Accuracy Clearinghouse
$658+ million in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This policy option would expand the use of the SNAP National Accuracy Clearinghouse (NAC), which is designed to prevent SNAP recipients from receiving benefits in multiple states.
Prohibit Retail Food Store Owners from Redeeming Benefits at Their Own Stores
and Disqualify Retailers Convicted of SNAP Benefit Trafficking
$5 million in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● One common type of fraud within SNAP involves owners of stores redeeming their own benefits for ineligible items or cash. This policy option would combat this fraud by prohibiting store owners from redeeming SNAP benefits at their own stores and disqualifying retailers convicted of SNAP benefit trafficking.
Require States to Suspend SNAP Account After 60 Days of Purchases Made
Exclusively Out of State
$1 million in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● While SNAP is federally-funded, states are responsible for providing SNAP benefits to their residents. Prolonged out-of-state SNAP activity may indicate a recipient has moved, and therefore should be receiving SNAP benefits from another state, or may be a sign of potential fraud. This policy option would
suspend SNAP accounts of recipients who make exclusively out-of-state transactions for 60 days to ensure the integrity of state SNAP programs and flag potential fraud.
EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE COMMITTEE
Higher Education
Repeal Biden’s “SAVE” plan, streamline income-driven repayment plans
$127.3 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Under this option, the Department of Education (ED) would offer borrowers two repayment plans for loans originated after June 30, 2024: the currently available 10-year repayment plan and a new income-driven repayment (IDR) plan.
● This option would eliminate all other plans, including the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan, which is the IDR plan that was created administratively in 2023.
Limit the ED’s regulatory authority
$30 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would limit the authority of the ED to issue regulations that would increase the cost of federal student loans or that would have economically significant effects (have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or that would adversely affect the economy in a material way).
Establish risk-sharing requirements for federal student loans, PROMISE grants
$18.1 billion 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Under this policy option, postsecondary institutions would be required to make annual payments, called risk-sharing payments, in order to participate in the federal student loan program.
● Those payments would be the main source of funding for the Promoting Real Opportunities to Maximize Investments and Savings in Education (PROMISE) grants, which would be made to eligible postsecondary education institutions to help improve affordability and promote success for students.
Reform Gainful Employment
TBD 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This policy option would establish minimum levels of performance (i.e. expanding Gainful Employment) for programs to participate in Title IV federal student aid programs.
Repeal Biden closed school discharge regulations
$4.9 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would repeal a Biden administration rule that established a standard process for discharging loans made to borrowers who attended schools that closed, thus increasing the likelihood of loan discharge for those borrowers.
Repeal Biden borrower defense to repayment discharge regulations
$9.7 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would partially repeal a Biden administration rule that made it easier for a borrower to discharge loans as a result of a school’s misconduct, including, for example, misrepresentation of student outcomes.
Repeal 90/10 rule
$1.6 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would repeal the requirement that for-profit institutions receive no more than 90 percent of their revenue from federal financial aid, including veterans’ education benefits.
Reform Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)
TBD 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would allow the Committee on Education and the Workforce to make much-needed reforms to the PSLF, including limiting eligibility for the program.
Sunset Grad and Parent Plus loans
TBD 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would eliminate parent PLUS loans, which are offered to parents of dependent undergraduate students, and grad PLUS loans, which are offered to graduate students and students enrolled in professional programs.
● This option would generally eliminate such loans to new borrowers beginning on July 1, 2025, and would eliminate the program altogether by 2028.
Establish new annual and aggregate loan limits for unsubsidized undergraduate
and graduate loans
TBD 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Accompanying the above option, beginning on July 1, 2025, this option would amend loan limits for unsubsidized graduate and undergraduate loans.
● In total, CBO estimates this and the former option would reduce direct spending by $18.7 billion.
Amend the need analysis formula used to calculate federal student aid eligibility
TBD 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would amend the need analysis formula to calculate federal student aid eligibility using the median cost of attendance of similar degree programs nationally instead of the cost of attendance of a student's individual program.
End in-school interest subsidy
TBD 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Currently, the government pays the interest that accrues on a student loan while the borrower is still enrolled in school full-time, essentially meaning the student does not have to pay interest on their loan while actively studying. This policy option would eliminate this arrangement.
Allow borrowers to rehabilitate their loans a second time
$138 million in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would allow borrowers who default on their loans to be eligible for a second rehabilitation loan, which allows borrowers to exit default by making nine one-time payments.
● Under current law, borrowers can rehabilitate their loans just once.
Eliminate interest capitalization
$3.8 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Interest capitalization is when unpaid interest is added to the principal balance of a federal student loan. This good governance option would eliminate interest capitalization.
Reform Pell Grants
TBD 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would allow the Committee on Education and the Workforce to make reforms to the Pell program, such as capping grants at the median cost of attendance and/or expanding Pell grant eligibility to short-term credential programs.
Health
Ban Telehealth and Other Facility Fees
$2.3 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● As hospitals expand ownership of outpatient and physician office settings, consumers are seeing an uptick in fees for more than just the care provided to them. These “facility fees” are increasingly a driver of healthcare costs in America, and are leading to consumers being charged as though they received
treatment in a hospital even if they never entered one. This proposal would prohibit hospitals from billing unwarranted facility fees for telehealth services and for certain other outpatient services.
Make It a Prohibited Transaction for Employer-Sponsored Health Plans to Pay for
340B Drugs Above the 340B Discounted Price
Unknown
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● 340B covered entities routinely charge commercial insurers full price for 340B discounted drugs. This policy would make it a prohibited transaction under ERISA for an employer-sponsored insurance plan to pay full price for a 340B discounted drug. Such a policy would require full transparency of 340B discounts.
Increase Penalties for Transparency Noncompliance
Unknown
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Penalties under the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act for noncompliance are dialable. Noncompliance penalties could be increased in order to generate increased budgetary savings, assuming the underlying transparency penalties are enacted into law.
Clarifying and Bolstering ERISA Preemption
Unknown/Savings Presumed
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The purpose of ERISA is to provide a uniform regulatory framework over employee benefit plans. However, the scope of ERISA preemption has been challenged numerous times in federal court. Strengthening the ERISA preemption could increase revenue by decreasing compliance costs for employer sponsored health insurance plans.
H.R. 2868 - Association Health Plans Act
$579 million in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Favorably reported by E&W June 6, 2023 24 - 18. Passed the House on June 21, 2023 as part of the CHOICE Arrangement Act (H.R. 3799) 220 - 209. This bill provides statutory authority for the treatment of association health plans (AHPs) as single, large employer health plans for purposes of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
H.R. 2813 - Self-Insurance Protection Act
No budgetary effects
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Favorably reported by E&W June 6, 2023 23 - 18. Passed the House on June 21, 2023 as part of the CHOICE Arrangement Act (H.R. 3799) 220 - 209. This bill specifies that stop-loss coverage is not health insurance coverage for purposes of regulation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The bill also preempts state laws that prevent employers from obtaining stop-loss coverage.
H.R. 824 - Telehealth Benefit Expansion for Workers Act of 2023
Unknown
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Favorably Reported by E&W July 19, 2023, 29 - 20. This bill allows employers to offer stand-alone telehealth benefits to all employees. This includes employees who are eligible for enrollment in their employer's group health plan.
Expanding Direct Contracts and Value-Based Care within Employer-Sponsored
Health Insurance
Unknown
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This would include legislation to expand the use of direct contracting and innovative, value-based care models among employer-sponsored insurance plans.
Telehealth-Only COBRA Coverage Option
Unknown
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The intent would be to provide both COBRA-enrollees and employers tasked with offering COBRA continuation coverage to offer a telehealth-only option, within the existing employer’s health plan.
Specialty Drug Coverage Under ERISA
Unknown
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The intent would be to bolster employer-sponsored insurance coverage of high cost specialty drugs, either through value-based arrangements, reinsurance models, or expanded risk pools through association health plans.
Other
Change Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) to 60 Percent
$3 billion 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) allows the nation’s highest-poverty schools and districts to serve breakfast and lunch at no cost to all enrolled students without collecting household applications. Instead, schools that adopt CEP are reimbursed using a formula based on participation in other specific means-tested programs, such as SNAP and TANF. Currently, schools can qualify if 40 percent of students receive these programs. This proposal would lift that to 60 percent.
Require Income Verification for School Breakfast Program (SBP) and National
School Lunch Program (NSLP)
$9 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would require all students who apply and are approved for free and reduced price meals to submit income verification documentation. This policy option would increase program integrity, ensuring those who receive benefits are in fact eligible, and would preserve the fiscal sustainability of the program for future generations.
FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
Financial Regulators
Eliminate the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) transfer abilities
TBD 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) currently has the ability to carry-over unspent funds into the next Fiscal Year. This ability is eliminated under this policy option.
Eliminate SEC Reserve Fund
$475 million in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The SEC’s so-called “Reserve Fund” is simply a slush fund created by Dodd-Frank, allowing regulators to spend without oversight by Congress.
● This policy option would eliminate this fund,—as was requested by President Trump.
Eliminate mandatory funding for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
$9 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a mandatory program that is not subject to Congress’ oversight through appropriations. This policy option would subject the CFPB to the annual appropriations process.
● Savings could depend on the appropriations process.
Eliminate mandatory funding for financial regulators
$47 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● With the exception of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), presently all federal financial regulators are mandatory programs and not subject to Congress’ oversight through appropriations. This policy option would revise the funding structure for the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, National Credit Administration, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Office of Financial Research so that industry assessments are re-routed directly to the Treasury, then Congress appropriates one year of funding.
● Savings could depend on the appropriations process.
Eliminate Office of Financial Research
$946 million in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This policy option would eliminate the Office of Financial Research (OFR). The Dodd-Frank Act grants the OFR broad powers to compel financial companies to produce sensitive, non-public information. While the Dodd-Frank Act describes the OFR as an “independent agency,” OFR reports to the Secretary of the Treasury who serves in the President’s cabinet and is arguably one of the most political financial regulators. Additionally, OFR funding is outside congressional appropriations and oversight.
Other
Repeal Orderly Liquidation Authority
$22 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Through the Orderly Liquidation Fund (OLF), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) now has the authority to access taxpayer dollars in order to bail out the creditors of large, “systemically significant” financial institutions. This increases moral hazard on Wall Street by explicitly guaranteeing future bailouts and is, thus, eliminated under this policy option.
Reduce Fed Dividend payment to big banks
$3 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● When a Federal Reserve bank accumulates a surplus fund, under the provisions of Section 7 of the Federal Reserve Act, it is required to pay out of such fund to its stockholding member banks dividends for a year in which the current earnings of the Federal reserve bank are insufficient for this purpose. This policy option would reduce these dividend payments to big banks (presumably directing savings to the Treasury).
Rescind remaining unobligated HAMP-to-HHF funds transferred in Omnibus
Unknown 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The savings from ending the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP; $2 billion) was transferred to the account of the Hardest Hit Fund (HHF) under Division O, Sec. 709 of the Omnibus. This policy option would rescind these funds.
Increase and extend the G-Fees charged to pay for 2011 Payroll Tax Bill
$14 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Government sponsored enterprise (GSE) guarantee fees are charged by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to lenders for bundling, selling, and guaranteeing the payment of principal and interest on their Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS).
G-Fees help GSEs manage their credit risk by covering projected credit losses from borrower defaults over the life of the loans, administrative costs, and a return on capital. This policy option would thus increase and extend G-Fees.
● Payroll tax could be a problem; extension CRFB option ($5 billion).
Reform Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac
At least $5 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Nearly 16 years after the 2008 financial crisis, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae remain under government conservatorship, with taxpayers standing behind their obligations. This policy option would reform these two government-sponsored enterprises with the goal of increasing their efficacy and accountability.
Move Fed employees to basic government pay and benefits scale
$1 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Currently, as an independent agency, the Fed has their own pay and benefit arrangements. This policy option would require the Fed to follow the G.S. payscale.
Eliminate all NFIP subsidies
$11 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Currently National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) subsidies are not based on need and fail to adequately assess risk. This policy option would eliminate all NFIP subsidies and divert revenue from the program to the Treasury.
SCIENCE, SPACE, and TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Inflation Reduction Act
Repeal IRA spending under jurisdiction
Up to $232 million in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This policy would repeal IRA Title IV measures under the jurisdiction of the Science, Space, and Technology committee.
● Title IV measures include:
o Alternative Fuel and Low-Emission Aviation Technology Program ($123 million)
o Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and Forecasting for Weather and Climate Budget Authority ($47 million)
o Computing Capacity and Research for Weather, Oceans, and Climate ($4 million)
o Acquisition of Hurricane Forecasting Aircraft ($22 million)
NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Leasing
Restore noncompetitive leasing
$160 million in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This policy restores noncompetitive leasing for oil and gas, streamlining the process and enhancing federal revenue through increased energy development.
Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Leasing
$4.2 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Expanding offshore leasing opportunities would boost federal revenue by opening new areas for oil and gas exploration, contributing significantly to savings over the next decade.
Reopen ANWR and require new lease sales
$45 million in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The Alaska’s Right to Produce Act (H.R. 6285) would reopen lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), generating revenue from oil and gas extraction, with additional contributions from offshore leasing.
Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing
$500 million in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Expanding onshore leasing for oil and gas would generate substantial federal savings, with estimates currently ranging from $500 million to potentially higher based on updated analyses.
Increased Geothermal Leasing
$20 million in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This policy would boost leasing for geothermal energy development, contributing additional revenue while promoting cleaner energy alternatives.
Increased Coal Leasing
Savings TBD
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Expands coal leasing; scores will likely be in the single digit millions.
H.R.7370, Permit Processing Reform for Geothermal
Savings TBD
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Streamlined the permit process for geothermal energy
IRA Funds
Rescind IRA Funds
$1.943 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Title IV savings include:
o Investing in Coastal Communities and Climate Resilience ($1.3 billion)
● Title V savings include:
o National Parks and Public Lands Conservation and Resilience ($132 million)
o US Geological Survey 3D Evaluation Program ($7 million)
o Bureau of Reclamation Domestic Water Supply Projects ($487 million)
o Department of Interior Oversight ($3 million)
o National Parks Service Employees ($267 million)
● Title VI savings:
o Endangered Species Act Recovery Plans ($50 million)
o Funding for USFWS to Address Weather Events ($40 million)
● Title VIII savings
o Tribal Climate Resilience ($195 million)
o Native Hawaiian Climate Resilience ($1 million)
o Tribal Electrification Program ($115 million)
o Emergency Drought Relief for Tribes ($11 million)
Rescind Presidio money from IRA
Up to $200 million in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife and Parks Assistant Secretary Shannon Estenoz directed the transfer of $200 million in funding provided in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to address deferred maintenance to the Presidio Trust, despite the fact that this was not consistent with standard agency practices for selecting priority deferred maintenance projects. This policy would revoke this $200 million transfer.
Other
Timber Sales
$1-2 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Increase Timber Sales. Can be dialed up or down.
Sell Federal Land
Savings TBD
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Increases sale of federal land
H.R. 4374, Chaco Canyon
$17 million in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● End the restriction on oil and gas leases in Chaco Canyon
OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE
Federal Workforce
Raise FERS Contribution Rate to 4.4 Percent
$44 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● In the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), employee contribution rates are tiered by year hired: 0.8 percent if hired in 2012 and earlier, 3.1 percent if hired in 2013, and 4.4 percent if hired in 2014 and after. This option would raise the contribution rate across-the-board to 4.4 percent.
Eliminate FERS Supplemental Retirement Payments
$5 - $13 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would eliminate the supplement to FERS employees who retire before they are eligible for Social Security. Under current law, if an employee retires before 62, a supplemental FERS payment is made to bridge the employee until they are eligible for Social Security. This change will align federal retirement policies more closely with the private sector and encourage longer service.
Base FERS Retiree Benefit on High-5 Instead of High-3 Salary
$4 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This policy option would change the FERS retirement formula to use the average of employees' earnings over the five consecutive highest earning years as opposed to the currently used calculation of the highest three consecutive years. This shift, which would reflect employees’ career earnings more accurately and be more in line with private sector plans, would reduce FERS spending to ensure the system’s long-term sustainability.
Enact Federal Employee Health Benefits Protection Act (H.R. 7868)
$2.1 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Under this Act, OPM must conduct a comprehensive audit of employee family members currently enrolled in the FEHB program and disenroll or remove from enrollment any ineligible individual found to be receiving FEHB benefits. This reform would reduce improper payments, saving $2.1 billion over 10 years.
Convert New Federal Workers to At-Will Employment Unless They Accept Higher
FERS Contribution
Unknown
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would require future federal employees to elect between two classification systems: the current system with merit-based civil service protections or a new at-will classification. If an employee elects to be classified as an at-will classification, they will maintain a lower FERS annuity contribution rate (4.4 percent or lower). However, for employees that elect to be classified under the current merit-based civil service system, their annuity employee contribution would be increased to a higher rate. Since a significant percentage of future civil service employees would elect to take advantage of the job protections of the current merit-based civil service system, this reform should yield mandatory savings due to the reduction in the federal agency’s FERS annuity contribution share.
Eliminate Official Time Unless Unions Compensate the Federal Government
Unknown savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This reform would charge federal labor organizations for their use of agency resources as well as any official time.
Charge a Fee for Federal Employee MSPB Appeals
Unknown savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Federal employees subject to adverse action by their agency, including dismissal, can appeal their case to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). In the majority of cases, MSPB upholds the ruling of the agency. This policy option would charge a fee for federal employee MSPB appeals, raising revenue while reducing the cost of frivolous MSPB filings.
Adjustment to Limit of Federal Employee Buy-Outs
Unknown savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This policy option would increase the federal employee buy-out threshold from the existing $25,000 maximum allowance for civilian employees to $40,000 (in parity with DOD’s current authority) and would establish a $2 billion Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment Fund within the U.S. Treasury to fund these buy-outs. It would also lower the 20-year Voluntary Early Retirement (VER) option to 15 years of service.
Move FEHB from a Premium-share Model to a Voucher Model
$16-18 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The FEHB program provides the federal workforce and annuitants (and their dependents and survivors) with health insurance coverage. The FEHB program also covers postal workers but beginning in 2025, those benefits will be provided through the Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) program. Under this option, the FEHB and PSHB programs would be reformed by replacing the current premium-sharing structure with a voucher, which would not be subject to income and payroll taxes. CBO classifies the federal share of premiums for most federal employees as discretionary but federal spending on premiums for annuitants and postal workers is classified as mandatory.
Other
Government Efficiency Commission
Unknown savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option creates a Government Efficiency Commission in support of the Administration’s efforts.
Federal Building Occupancy At Minimum of 80 Percent
Unknown savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This policy option requires agencies to meet a minimum 80 percent average occupancy in their buildings and leased spaces in the DC-VA-MD-WV area and to dispose of any surplus properties.
Renewing Efficiency in Government by Budgeting (REG Budgeting) Act
Unknown savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This policy option requires federal regulatory agencies to constrain unfunded newcosts imposed by federal regulators and requires OMB to set an annual, regulatory budget that restricts the amount of new, unfunded regulatory costs agencies can impose each year.
Full Responsibility and Expedited Enforcement (FREE) Act
Unknown savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The federal permitting process is often burdensome, inconsistent, and costly. This option streamlines the federal permitting process by expanding the use of “permits-by-rule” (PBR) rather than case-by-case application for and review of individual permit applications, creating a more efficient and consistent process.
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
The Secure the Border Act
$6.1 billion in 10-year costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Our signature border security package this Congress. CBO reports that it will decrease direct spending by approximately $21 billion over the window, decrease revenues by approximately $27.1 billion over the window, and decrease discretionary spending by approximately $32 billion over the window.
Immigration Fees
$5-20 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Judiciary is open to dialing up any and all immigration related fees in their jurisdiction to hit a desired reconciliation target.
Extend and Increase Customs User Fees
$25 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The Customs User Fees are collected by CBP for inspecting cargo and people. This option would extend the fees through the 10-year window and increase them by 25 percent.
Eliminate Diversity Visa Program
$3.2 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The Diversity Immigrant Visa program, provides up to 55,000 immigrant visas annually. It aims to attract applicants from countries with otherwise low immigration rates to the U.S. Unlike most visa programs, it requires no job offer or familial tie for entry. This option would eliminate the program.
Reinstate Public Charge Rule
$15 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The public charge rule reduces the number of people eligible for green cards or visas by redefining what made them dependent on government benefits. This policy was expanded under the Trump Administration with two proposed rules in 2019. Neither are in effect. This policy would prevent people who are unable to take care of themselves from benefiting from long-term care at the government’s expense.
Reclaim Certain Funding
No score; possible deficit reduction
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Leadership requested the reclamation of funding for certain offices and programs included in the list below. We are not sure how much funding remains in these accounts.
o US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP)
o United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR)
o International Organization for Migration (IOM)
o Safe Mobility
o Funding for the Executive Office for Immigration Review
o EOIR Language Access Plan
o Stab-Serv and Case Management Pilot Program
o Welcome Corps
o Housing Programs for illegal migrants (HUD)
o Non-Government Organizations participating in aiding illegal migration
Visa Overstay Fee
No score; possible deficit reduction
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would increase the fee on visa overstays and make such fees non-waivable.
Ongoing Immigration Fees
No score; possible deficit reduction
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This suite of options would impose ongoing fees (monthly) for the duration of parole, ongoing fee for asylee until case is adjudicated, ongoing work authorization fees (monthly) for asylees and parolees, and additional fee on work applications.
Increased Penalties for Employing Illegal Immigrants
No score; possible deficit reduction
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Leadership did not provide any further detail on this option.
Rescind DOJ Asset Forfeiture Account
$1 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This was private option on the FY25 budget resolution
Bonus to Law Enforcement Agencies that honor ICE Detainers
No score; deficit increase
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Program not detailed by leadership. Would likely need to be a mandatory account with a grant program to pass Byrd Rule.
REINS Act
No budgetary effects
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Restrains the administrative state by amending the Congressional Review Act (CRA) of 1996, by requiring the Legislative Branch’s approval on major rules and regulations proposed by the Executive Branch.
HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE
Border and Immigration
Border wall funding appropriation
No score yet; deficit increase
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The Homeland Committee would like funds to build border barriers, including the “Trump Wall” (a 33 ft high concrete barrier) along 700+ miles of the border. ● The Homeland Committee estimates $18 billion for 734 miles of new wall, $7.8 billion to replace legacy fencing/vehicle barriers, and another $10 billion for additional secondary barriers.
● Leadership stated the need for Rio Grande River buoys but no specifics were provided.
State Reimbursement for Border Security Initiatives
No score yet ($11-13 billion); deficit increase
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This option would focus on reimbursing Texas for Operation Lone Star and Stonegarden. The provision would need to be written broadly so as to “affect multiple entities” or it will trigger Byrd Rule.
Border Security Personnel Investments
No score yet; deficit increase
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Homeland would like to surge funding to hire 3,000 additional Border Patrol Agents, 5,000 more Office of Field Operations Agents (CBP), and 200 more Air and Marine Operations Agents. The estimate the cost of this surge to be $12.6 billion over 10 years.
● Homeland is also requesting $100 million for retention bonuses.
Technology Improvements at the Border
No score yet; deficit increase
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Homeland estimates around $2 billion is necessary to update technology at and between ports of entry.
Destruction of Invasive Plant Species along the Southwest Border
No score yet; deficit increase
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Carrizo cane and salt cedar hinder detection of illicit activity along the Rio Grande. Homeland estimates a cost of $250 million.
Extend TSA Security Passenger Fees
Up to $25 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
Option 1: Extend the deficit reduction portion through 2034 at the level currently specified for 2027
● On a preliminary basis, enacting option 1 would reduce direct spending by about $11.8 billion over the 2025-2034 period.
Option 2: (a) Extend the deficit reduction portion through 2034 at the level currently specified for 2027 and (b) increase the passenger security fee by 25 percent, effective upon enactment, and deposit those amounts in Treasury as receipts
● On a preliminary basis, enacting option 2 would reduce direct spending by about
$24.7 billion over the 2025-2034 period.
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Modify Eligibility to Certain IIJA Programs
Unknown costs or savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Given that a rescission of IIJA advance appropriation funds would retain its emergency designation and therefore be unable to offset new spending in a reconciliation bill, this proposal would impose ‘restrictions’ or ‘limitations’ on certain IIJA advanced appropriations of duplicative programs that are eligible for several competitive grant programs (bike paths, EV charging stations, Amtrak, etc.) which can crowd out more traditional infrastructure projects. A restriction or limitation would be scored with regular outlay savings if it is significant enough to create a budgetary effect, according to CBO.
Modify Treatment of Overflight Fees
$3 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This proposal would repeal mandatory subsidies/overflight fees for the Essential Air Service (EAS) program, subjecting the funding to future appropriations.
Sell Federal Buildings
Unknown costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This proposal is designed to realize savings through consolidations and sales of Federal real estate by directing the General Services Administration to identify vacant Federal real estate and require GSA to move agencies out of underutilized space into smaller, lower cost options and sell the vacated buildings.
Savings would be booked as a mandatory saver, but depend heavily on what/how specific properties would be sold, how clear incentives are for agencies to sell properties, and how properties are exempt from federal laws that impede/discourage sales.
Electric Vehicle Inclusion to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF)
Unknown savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Incorporate electric vehicles into the HTF’s revenue stream to contribute toward constructing and improving the nation’s infrastructure.
H.R. 1152, Water Quality Certification and Energy Project Improvement Act
No budgetary effects
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This legislation fixes the Clean Water Act’s (CWA) permitting provision to promote infrastructure development by streamlining the permitting process under section 401 of the CWA and clarifying section 401’s focus on CWA water quality. CBO’s preliminary estimate projected no effect on direct spending or revenues, T&I staff is assessing additional changes in the legislation that may affect direct spending or revenues
H.R. 7023, Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act
No budgetary effects
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● The bill would provide regulatory and judicial certainty for regulated entities and communities, increase transparency, and promote water quality, among other provisions. CBO did not produce an estimate, but they continue to work with T&I staff on an estimate of direct spending and revenues; however, they anticipate either no budgetary effect or a relatively small score.
H.R. 5089, Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act
No budgetary effects
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This proposal would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency and states authorized to issue permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System from requiring a permit for some discharges of pesticides. While CBO estimated no effect on direct spending or revenues, T&I staff is looking at ways to create some sort of scorable effect for this proposal to be appropriate for reconciliation.
Appropriations for Polar Security Cutters
No score yet; deficit increase
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This proposal would provide mandatory appropriations for long lead materials for polar security cutters number three and four. T&I anticipates any appropriations would be significant and will need to work with CBO on a preliminary estimate to ensure any spending does not fall beyond the ten-year budget window.
Increase Vessel Tonnage Duty
Up to $600 million in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● Vessel tonnage duties are imposed on the cargo-carrying capacity of vessels which enter the United States from a foreign port or place or depart from and return to a United States port or place on a ‘voyage to nowhere.’ In 1990, these rates were raised to nine cents per ton, not to exceed 45 cents per ton in a single year, and 27 cents per ton, not to exceed $1.35 cents per ton in a single year. In 1997, the higher duties were extended through 2002 but once they expired, they returned to the 1990 levels. If these levels are increased, offsetting receipts would go up; T&I staff is still exploring options in this space.
Redirect Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to deficit reduction
Up to $5 billion in 10-year savings
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This proposal would transfer a portion of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund’s balance for deficit reduction. T&I is contemplating $2 billion transfers in each of the first two years and dropping the transfer to $1 billion in the subsequent three years. T&I is working with CBO to determine a magnitude, but T&I believes that a transfer could potentially achieve outlay savings.
Container Casualty Vessel Act
Unknown costs
VIABILITY: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
● This proposal establishes the responsibility of container vessels for response costs and damages related to container vessel casualties. It would limit per incident liability, except in the case of negligence. It also would establish a Container Vessel Marine Casualty Liability Trust Fund (funded with a per container fee) which pays for response and damages until reimbursement can be received, for amounts above the liability limits, and for amounts where the responsible cannot be found or is unable to pay. T&I will require feedback from CBO on any such proposal.
Chapter 2 - How These Changes Exacerbate Problems for Most Americans While Benefitting the Rich
Chapter 2 - How These Changes Exacerbate Problems for Most Americans While Benefitting the Rich
This document outlines a series of proposed changes primarily focused on reducing federal spending, with a significant emphasis on healthcare, tax policy, and welfare programs. Here's a breakdown of the items that raise concerns regarding potential negative impacts on science, disadvantaged populations, and the concentration of wealth:
Healthcare:
Limit Federal Health Program Eligibility Based on Citizenship Status (Up to $35 billion 10-year savings):
This directly disadvantages non-citizens, including those who may be working and contributing to the economy. It also increases the risk of untreated illnesses, which can have broader public health consequences.
Improve Uncompensated Care (Up to $229 billion in 10-year savings):
While aiming for equitable distribution, changing the funding structure of uncompensated care could lead to reduced support for hospitals and clinics that serve a high proportion of low-income patients, potentially limiting their access to care.
Other Reforms to Obamacare Subsidies (Up to $5 billion in 10-year savings):
Reforming subsidies could lead to higher out-of-pocket costs and reduced access to healthcare, especially for low-income individuals.
Reform Graduate Medical Education (GME) Payments (Up to $10 billion in 10-year savings):
While aiming to increase rural access, decreasing "excess GME payments" to efficient teaching hospitals could harm training programs and limit the development of medical professionals, which indirectly harms scientific medical advancement.
Repeal DACA Obamacare Subsidies Final Rule ($6 billion in 10-year savings):
This removes healthcare access from DACA recipients.
Recapture excess Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies (Up to $46 billion in 10-year savings):
Removing limits on repayments could create significant financial hardship for low-income individuals who received slightly more assistance than calculated.
Block Grant GME at CPI-M (Up to $75 billion in 10-year savings):
This may reduce needed funding for medical training, and therefore hurt the future of the medical profession.
Reform IRA’s Drug Policies (Up to $20 billion in 10-year costs):
The aim to remove price setting on rare disease drugs, can greatly increase the cost of those drugs, making them unavailable to many.
Tax Policy:
Repeal Green Energy Tax Credits (Up to $796 billion in 10-year savings):
This would significantly hinder the development and deployment of clean energy technologies, which are vital for addressing climate change and promoting scientific innovation.
Endowment Tax Expansion to 14 Percent Rate ($10 billion in 10-year savings) and H.R. 8913, Increase Applicability of Endowment Tax ($275 million in 10-year savings):
While aiming for accountability, these measures could reduce funding for research, scholarships, and other educational programs at universities.
Repeal SALT Deduction ($1.0 trillion in 10-year savings relative to TCJA extension):
This would disproportionately affect individuals in high-tax states, potentially leading to increased financial burdens on middle-class families.
Eliminate Nonprofit Status for Hospitals ($260 billion in 10-year savings):
This could significantly increase the cost of healthcare, as hospitals would be taxed as for-profit businesses.
Eliminate the American Opportunity Credit ($59 billion in 10-year savings) and Eliminate the Lifetime Learning Credit ($26 billion in 10-year savings):
These measures would reduce access to higher education, particularly for low and middle-income individuals.
Eliminate Deduction for Charitable Contributions to Health Organizations ($83 billion in 10-year savings):
This would likely reduce funding for vital health-related charities.
Eliminate Credit for Child and Dependent Care ($55 billion in 10-year savings):
This would create additional financial hardship for working families, especially single parents.
Eliminate Exclusion of Scholarship and Fellowship Income ($54 billion in 10-year savings):
This would make education more expensive, and therefore less available to many.
Eliminate the Death Tax ($370 billion in 10-year costs):
This would primarily benefit wealthy families, further concentrating wealth.
Cancel Amortization of R&D Expenses ($169 billion in 10-year costs):
This would harm scientific and technological development by making R&D more expensive for businesses.
Lower the Corporate Rate to 15 Percent ($522 billion in 10-year costs):
This would primarily benefit large corporations and their shareholders, further concentrating wealth.
Welfare:
Codify the Chained CPI-U for Poverty Programs ($5 billion in 10-year savings):
This could result in lower benefits for low-income individuals and families, as the Chained CPI-U typically shows lower inflation rates than the traditional CPI-U.
Eliminate Social Services Block Grant ($15 billion in 10-year savings), Eliminate TANF Contingency Fund ($6 billion in 10-year savings), Reduce TANF by 10 Percent ($15 billion in 10-year savings):
These measures would reduce support for vulnerable populations, including low-income families and children.
Require School Attendance for SSI Benefits ($640 million in 10-year savings):
While aiming to promote education, this could negatively impact disabled children who may have legitimate reasons for missing school.
Sliding Scale for SSI Benefits ($5 billion in 10-year savings):
Although this aims to reduce costs, it can also reduce the amount of aid given to those who need it.
Deny SSI to Those with Felony Arrest Warrants ($3 billion in 10-year savings):
This could further marginalize individuals who may already face significant challenges.
Overall:
Many of these proposals prioritize cost savings over social welfare and scientific advancement.
The document demonstrates a trend of shifting financial burdens onto lower and middle-income individuals and families.
Several proposals appear to disproportionately benefit wealthy individuals and corporations.
Chapter 3 – Benefits Concentrated at the Top
Chapter 3 – Benefits Concentrated at the Top
a detailed analysis of how the previously mentioned policies could disadvantage middle-class and poor families while enriching the wealthy, and how they could impact various aspects of life. Let's break it down:
1. Healthcare Disparities and Disease:
Reduced Access:
Limiting healthcare eligibility based on citizenship, cutting ACA subsidies, and reforming Medicare/Medicaid can lead to more uninsured individuals.
This results in delayed or forgone medical care, leading to worsened health outcomes and increased disease prevalence, especially among the poor and middle class.
Preventive care suffers, increasing the likelihood of costly, advanced illnesses.
Increased Costs:
Higher out-of-pocket costs and reduced coverage force families to make difficult choices, potentially sacrificing essential care.
The removal of drug price controls, especially for rare diseases, creates situations where life saving medication becomes only available to the wealthy.
Impact on Public Health:
Reduced access to care and preventive measures can lead to outbreaks of infectious diseases, impacting entire communities.
2. Nutrition and Food Security:
Welfare Cuts:
Reductions in TANF and other welfare programs can directly impact food security, leading to increased hunger and malnutrition, particularly among children.
This has long-term consequences for physical and cognitive development.
Healthcare and Nutrition Link:
Poor health outcomes due to lack of healthcare can exacerbate nutritional deficiencies, creating a vicious cycle.
3. Air Quality and Environmental Degradation:
Repeal of Green Energy Tax Credits:
This slows the transition to clean energy, perpetuating reliance on fossil fuels.
Increased pollution leads to respiratory illnesses, particularly in low-income communities located near industrial areas.
Climate change impacts, such as extreme weather events, disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.
Reduced Environmental Regulation:
When corporations are given more freedom, environmental standards are often lowered, causing more pollution.
4. Work Standards and Job Availability:
Weakened Worker Protections:
Policies that favor corporations can lead to weakened worker protections, including lower wages, reduced benefits, and unsafe working conditions.
The elimination of overtime taxes could be seen as beneficial, but it also opens the door to corporations forcing longer hours without additional compensation.
Job Displacement:
Shifts in economic policy can lead to job displacement in certain sectors, particularly manufacturing.
This can create long-term unemployment and economic hardship for middle-class and poor families.
Union impact:
Actions taken against unions, weaken the worker's ability to negotiate for better conditions.
5. Impacts on Basic Freedoms:
Education:
Cuts to education funding and tax policies that discourage higher education limit opportunities for social mobility.
This can perpetuate cycles of poverty and inequality.
Attacks on public education, and support for private education, funnels tax payer money away from public schools, which are used by the poor and middle class.
Speech:
While not directly addressed in the document, policies that concentrate wealth and power can indirectly limit freedom of speech.
Powerful corporations and wealthy individuals can exert undue influence on media and political discourse.
Air and Water:
Environmental deregulation can lead to increased pollution of air and water, impacting public health and quality of life.
Low-income communities are often disproportionately affected by environmental hazards.
Earth:
The repeal of green energy tax credits, and the relaxing of environmental laws, will accelerate climate change, which will negatively impact the entire planet, and especially the poor.
Freedom of Healthcare choice:
By limiting access to healthcare, the government is limiting an individuals freedom to choose their own healthcare providers and treatments.
Enriching the Wealthy:
Tax Cuts:
Tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals, such as the elimination of the estate tax and lower corporate tax rates, directly benefit the rich.
These policies often result in increased income inequality.
Deregulation:
Deregulation of industries, including finance and energy, allows corporations to maximize profits, often at the expense of workers, consumers, and the environment.
Government Contracts:
When government services are privatized, wealthy corporations are able to profit from services that were once handled by the public sector.
In essence, these policies create a system where the benefits are concentrated at the top, while the costs are borne by the majority of the population.
Chapter 4 – analysis of items that may draw money from necessary scientific endeavors, disadvantage vulnerable populations, or enrich special interests at the expense of the broader public good
Chapter 4 – analysis of items that may draw money from necessary scientific endeavors, disadvantage vulnerable populations, or enrich special interests at the expense of the broader public good
1. Policies That May Draw Money from Science and Innovation
Repeal IRA’s Drug Policies (Health):
Impact: Proposes reforms to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that discourage price setting on innovative drugs, particularly those treating rare diseases. This could stifle pharmaceutical innovation by reducing incentives for research and development, potentially harming patients who rely on breakthrough treatments.
Savings: Up to $20 billion in 10-year costs.
Repeal Title I of IRA (Energy):
Impact: Eliminates funding for clean energy programs, including grants for renewable energy, electric vehicle rebates, and energy efficiency initiatives. This could slow the transition to a green economy and undermine efforts to combat climate change.
Savings: $404.7 billion in 10-year savings.
Repeal Green Energy Tax Credits (Tax):
Impact: Repeals tax credits for clean energy, sustainable aviation fuels, and carbon sequestration. This could hinder progress in renewable energy adoption and climate mitigation efforts.
Savings: Up to $796 billion in 10-year savings.
Repeal IRA Spending Under Jurisdiction (Science, Space, and Technology):
Impact: Cuts funding for alternative fuel and low-emission aviation technology, oceanic and atmospheric research, and computing capacity for weather and climate forecasting. These cuts could weaken U.S. leadership in scientific research and climate resilience.
Savings: Up to $232 million in 10-year savings.
2. Policies That May Disadvantage Vulnerable Populations
Limit Federal Health Program Eligibility Based on Citizenship Status (Health):
Impact: Removes eligibility for federal health programs (e.g., Medicaid, premium tax credits) for certain categories of non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants. This could leave millions without access to healthcare, exacerbating public health disparities.
Savings: Up to $35 billion in 10-year savings.
Repeal DACA Obamacare Subsidies Final Rule (Health):
Impact: Prevents DACA recipients from accessing subsidized healthcare plans, leaving a vulnerable population without affordable healthcare options.
Savings: $6 billion in 10-year savings.
Reform 2021 Revaluation of the Thrifty Food Plan (Agriculture):
Impact: Reduces Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits by reverting to a lower-cost food plan, potentially increasing food insecurity for low-income families.
Savings: Up to $274 billion in 10-year savings.
End Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (Agriculture):
Impact: Restricts SNAP eligibility by eliminating automatic enrollment for individuals receiving other welfare benefits, potentially excluding needy families from food assistance.
Savings: $10 billion in 10-year savings.
Repeal Biden’s “SAVE” Plan (Education and Workforce):
Impact: Eliminates an income-driven repayment plan for student loans, making it harder for low-income borrowers to manage debt and potentially increasing defaults.
Savings: $127.3 billion in 10-year savings.
Reinstate Public Charge Rule (Judiciary):
Impact: Denies green cards or visas to immigrants who may use public benefits, discouraging vulnerable populations from accessing essential services like healthcare and food assistance.
Savings: $15 billion in 10-year savings.
3. Policies That May Enrich Special Interests at the Expense of the Public
Repeal IRA’s Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (Tax):
Impact: Eliminates a 15% minimum tax on large corporations, allowing profitable companies to pay lower effective tax rates. This could shift the tax burden to individuals and small businesses.
Cost: $222 billion in 10-year costs.
Lower the Corporate Rate to 15 Percent (Tax):
Impact: Reduces the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%, disproportionately benefiting large corporations and reducing federal revenue that could fund public services.
Cost: $522 billion in 10-year costs.
Eliminate Nonprofit Status for Hospitals (Tax):
Impact: Taxes nonprofit hospitals as for-profit entities, potentially increasing healthcare costs for patients while generating revenue for the government.
Savings: $260 billion in 10-year savings.
Repeal EPA Tailpipe Emissions Rule and DOT CAFE Standards (Energy):
Impact: Rolls back regulations aimed at reducing vehicle emissions, benefiting fossil fuel industries at the expense of public health and environmental sustainability.
Savings: $111.3 billion in 10-year savings.
Repeal Orderly Liquidation Authority (Financial Services):
Impact: Eliminates a mechanism for resolving failing financial institutions, potentially enabling future taxpayer-funded bailouts of large banks.
Savings: $22 billion in 10-year savings.
4. Policies That May Undermine Public Services and Equity
Medicaid Per Capita Caps (Health):
Impact: Limits federal Medicaid funding to states based on a preset formula, potentially reducing access to healthcare for low-income populations.
Savings: Up to $900 billion in 10-year savings.
Eliminate the American Opportunity Credit (Tax):
Impact: Repeals a tax credit for higher education expenses, making college less affordable for low- and middle-income families.
Savings: $59 billion in 10-year savings.
Eliminate the Lifetime Learning Credit (Tax):
Impact: Removes a tax credit for lifelong learning and skill development, disproportionately affecting non-traditional students and workers seeking retraining.
Savings: $26 billion in 10-year savings.
Eliminate the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction (Tax):
Impact: Repeals a tax deduction for mortgage interest, increasing the cost of homeownership for middle-class families.
Savings: About $1.0 trillion in 10-year savings.
Eliminate the Child and Dependent Care Credit (Tax):
Impact: Removes a tax credit for childcare expenses, disproportionately affecting working families with young children.
Savings: $55 billion in 10-year savings.
Chapter 5 – Eliminating Medicare Coverage
Chapter 5 – Eliminating Medicare Coverage
Eliminating Medicare Coverage
Eliminating Medicare coverage of bad debt would increase financial pressure on hospitals, leading to higher healthcare costs and reduced services, disproportionately impacting seniors, low-income individuals, and those with chronic conditions. This could result in decreased access to necessary care, delayed treatments, and increased financial hardship. Estimating the exact rise in disability and death rates would require detailed modeling, but historically, reduced access to healthcare correlates with higher mortality rates, particularly among vulnerable populations. Studies suggest that lack of affordable care can lead to a measurable increase in preventable deaths.
Chapter 6 – Eliminating Emergency Funds for Oil Spills
Chapter 6 – Eliminating Emergency Funds for Oil Spills
Eliminating Emergency Funds for Oil Spills
If a major oil spill, such as the Exxon Valdez incident, were to occur at the Port of Portland, Maine, with the responsibility to address the spill left largely to local and state resources that may not be sufficiently equipped, the potential impacts could be devastating. Here's a detailed breakdown of what could happen:
1. Insufficient Response Capacity at the Local and State Levels
Resource Limitations: Local and state agencies often lack the resources to effectively manage and respond to large-scale oil spills. Unlike the federal government, which has access to substantial resources and expertise, state and local agencies in Maine may only have limited equipment, personnel, and financial capacity.
Delayed Response: Due to the lack of specialized equipment (such as skimmers, booms, and oil dispersants), and trained personnel, the response time would likely be delayed. The longer an oil spill remains uncontrolled, the greater the damage to the environment, wildlife, and local communities.
2. Environmental Impact
Marine Ecosystems: The Fore River, which flows into Casco Bay, is home to diverse marine species, including fish, birds, and shellfish. An oil spill here would threaten the delicate balance of these ecosystems. Oil spills can coat the feathers of birds, leading to hypothermia and death, and poison fish and other marine life, affecting their reproduction and survival.
Intertidal Zones: The Fore River and surrounding coastline contain valuable intertidal zones, which are highly productive environments that support a wide variety of species. These areas are particularly vulnerable to oil contamination, which can smother organisms and disrupt local food chains.
Long-Term Recovery: In the case of a significant spill, the recovery of these ecosystems could take years, or even decades, depending on the type of oil spilled and the effectiveness of the response. For example, the Exxon Valdez spill took over 20 years for some ecosystems to recover. Local communities relying on these resources, such as the shellfish industry, would face long-term economic hardships.
3. Economic Consequences
Local Fishing Industry: Maine’s fishing industry, particularly lobster and shellfish harvesting, could face catastrophic losses. An oil spill would contaminate seafood, making it unsafe for consumption and leading to widespread closures of fishing areas. The economic fallout could extend beyond the immediate region as businesses that depend on clean, unpolluted waters would suffer.
Tourism: Maine’s coastal communities, including Portland, are popular tourist destinations, particularly in the summer. An oil spill would likely discourage tourists, leading to revenue losses for hotels, restaurants, and recreational businesses. Tourists might avoid the area due to concerns over environmental degradation and safety risks.
Clean-Up Costs: The long-term costs associated with the cleanup would be overwhelming for state and local governments without federal support. Oil spills are expensive to clean up, and the costs often rise significantly as the size of the spill increases. Without federal assistance, the state might not be able to afford a full recovery, further delaying economic recovery.
4. Public Health and Safety
Air and Water Quality: Oil spills release harmful chemicals into the air and water, which can have immediate and long-term effects on public health. People living near the coast might experience respiratory issues, headaches, or nausea due to exposure to toxic fumes. Contaminated water supplies could pose a risk to both humans and animals.
Evacuations and Displacement: Depending on the scale of the spill, evacuation orders could be issued, especially for those living near the coast or in areas that might experience water contamination. This would disrupt the local community and create additional burdens on local services.
5. Compounding Challenges
Limited Coordination: In the absence of federal oversight, coordination among various state, local, and private agencies would be difficult. The lack of a centralized and coordinated response could lead to inefficiencies in containment and cleanup operations. Different agencies may have competing priorities, resulting in fragmented efforts that delay the overall response.
Lack of Training: Local and state agencies may lack the specialized training required for handling large oil spills, such as assessing the full extent of the spill, using advanced technology, and effectively applying appropriate containment methods. This would result in suboptimal cleanup efforts.
6. Long-Term Environmental and Social Consequences
Decline in Biodiversity: As seen in the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill, the long-term effects on biodiversity are profound. In addition to killing wildlife outright, oil spills can cause chronic disruptions to ecosystems that linger for decades, making it harder for species to recover and threatening the overall health of the marine environment.
Impact on Indigenous Communities: In areas like Maine, where Indigenous communities may rely on coastal resources for traditional subsistence activities, an oil spill could undermine their cultural practices, way of life, and food sources.
Conclusion
A major oil spill in the Fore River, Maine, if left to local and state resources without federal assistance, would likely result in an overwhelming crisis with severe environmental, economic, and public health impacts. The local response would be hampered by a lack of adequate resources, personnel, and equipment, leading to prolonged recovery times and long-lasting damage to both the environment and the local economy. The experience of past disasters, such as the Exxon Valdez spill, illustrates the importance of federal involvement in oil spill response and cleanup, as state and local resources alone are insufficient to handle such large-scale emergencies effectively.
Chapter 7 – Eliminating the Estate Tax
Chapter 7 – Eliminating the Estate Tax
Eliminating the Estate Tax (also known as the Death Tax) would have significant social and economic implications, and could indeed contribute to a growing plutocratic drift in American society. Here’s a breakdown of the potential consequences:
1. The Social Impact: Cementing a Plutocratic Drift
Wealth Concentration: The Estate Tax is one of the primary tools in reducing the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few families over generations. By taxing large estates upon inheritance, the government helps to redistribute wealth, thereby curbing the creation of dynastic wealth (wealth that remains within a small group of families for generations).
Without the Estate Tax, wealth could accumulate at a much faster rate in a few hands. Large fortunes could be passed down without interruption, and the descendants of wealthy individuals could maintain their status across generations without having to "earn" it through entrepreneurship or work.
Plutocratic Society: This could reinforce a plutocratic system where a small group of families and individuals hold significant power, wealth, and influence, while the majority of the population sees limited opportunities for upward mobility. The wealthiest could exert disproportionate influence on politics, policy, and the economy, undermining democracy and contributing to social stratification.
Intergenerational Inequality: The elimination of the Estate Tax could accelerate the gap between the rich and everyone else. It allows for the continued concentration of wealth in the hands of those who already have vast resources. This could lead to even more generational inequality, where the descendants of the wealthy have far greater access to capital, education, and opportunities, perpetuating a cycle of privilege.
2. The Sequestration of Funds: Reduced Circulation in the Economy
Wealth That Doesn’t Circulate: One of the key arguments in favor of the Estate Tax is that it helps prevent wealth from being "sequestered" in private hands, where it is often invested in non-productive assets like large estates, luxury goods, and offshore tax havens. When these assets remain within the hands of a few individuals or families, it does little to stimulate economic growth or promote job creation.
Limited Reinvestment in the Economy: When the Estate Tax is in place, inherited wealth is often used for productive investments—such as opening businesses, hiring employees, and spending money in ways that stimulate the economy. Without the tax, heirs may choose to simply maintain or accumulate their wealth rather than using it to invest in new enterprises or products.
Capital Flight: The wealthy may also choose to move large sums of money to tax havens or invest in global markets, keeping money out of circulation in the U.S. economy. This reduces the availability of capital for local businesses and startups, particularly those in lower-income or middle-class communities.
3. Impact on the “American Dream” of Owning a Home or Business
The Myth of Upward Mobility: The idea of the American Dream, which includes the promise that anyone—regardless of their background—can achieve success through hard work and dedication, could become even more elusive if the Estate Tax is eliminated. Without policies that redistribute wealth, the reality is that for many Americans, wealth is increasingly out of reach. Instead of an individual having the opportunity to move up the economic ladder, wealth becomes more likely to be passed down within the same wealthy families.
Homeownership and Small Business Ownership: Homeownership and small business ownership are often seen as markers of success in the U.S. In theory, the American Dream is supposed to be accessible through hard work and persistence. However, if wealth is passed down untaxed, it creates an unlevel playing field where individuals born into wealth can use their inherited capital to purchase property or fund businesses, while those without inherited wealth face enormous obstacles.
More Barriers to Entry: In the housing market, for instance, families with generational wealth can more easily afford higher-priced properties, while working-class families struggle with rising home prices and rent. Similarly, aspiring entrepreneurs from lower-income backgrounds are at a disadvantage compared to those with access to inherited wealth, making it harder for them to launch businesses or invest in new ventures.
4. The Upper Middle Class and Middle Class: The False Hope of Access
Selling a Dream: The American Dream is often marketed to the Upper Middle Class, Middle Class, and Poor as a path to prosperity through hard work, saving, and sacrificing. However, when the estate tax is eliminated, it can give the false impression that anyone can amass significant wealth through hard work alone—when in fact, wealth accumulation on a large scale is often due to inheritance, not entrepreneurial achievement.
Wealth Disparity: The elimination of the estate tax would create a situation where the dream of owning property or starting a business becomes increasingly difficult for middle- and working-class families, especially with the soaring costs of housing and education. The reality is that for many, the only way to "move up" is through inherited wealth. This could lead to a disillusionment with the idea of the American Dream, as upward mobility becomes even more tied to family wealth than individual effort.
More Economic Segregation: The gap between those with generational wealth and those without would continue to grow, pushing the U.S. further towards an oligarchic structure where the economy and opportunities are controlled by a few wealthy families, further diminishing social mobility for everyone else.
5. Political and Social Implications
Political Influence: Large, inherited fortunes can allow a select few to wield considerable political influence. The elimination of the Estate Tax would lead to the perpetuation of this influence, as wealthy families could more easily pass down their political power and maintain control over the mechanisms of the state.
Policy Impact: Wealthy families could use their influence to shape public policies to their advantage, including tax policies, labor laws, and public spending, ensuring that they continue to benefit from the status quo while the rest of society sees limited benefits. This could further solidify the entrenched inequality within American society.
Conclusion: A Growing Plutocratic Society
Eliminating the Estate Tax would likely lead to a plutocratic drift in American society, where wealth and power are increasingly concentrated among the top few percent, diminishing social mobility and exacerbating inequality. While the promise of the American Dream remains a motivating ideal, the reality of access to wealth, property, and business ownership is increasingly limited to those who inherit their fortunes, not those who build them from the ground up. The loss of the Estate Tax would allow inherited wealth to flow more freely, contributing to economic stagnation for the vast majority while reinforcing the power of the wealthy elite. This could make the dream of owning a home or starting a business—a dream grounded in hard work and perseverance—more elusive for future generations, particularly for those without access to inherited wealth.
Chapter 8 – Homeland Security Wants One Hundred Millions Dollars for Retention Bonuses
Chapter 8 – Homeland Security Wants One Hundred Millions Dollars for Retention Bonuses
Discrepancies from a Business Perspective
From a business point of view, the situation where Homeland Security (DHS) is struggling to hire workers while simultaneously requesting $100 million for retention bonuses highlights several key discrepancies and inefficiencies:
Resource Allocation:
Retention Bonuses vs. Recruitment Efforts: The decision to allocate $100 million in retention bonuses to workers while struggling to hire new employees raises questions about the efficiency of resource allocation. In a business environment, if there is a shortage of staff, it’s often more effective to focus on attracting new talent through competitive compensation packages, hiring incentives, or streamlined recruitment processes, rather than simply rewarding those who are already on board.
Long-Term Solutions vs. Short-Term Fixes: Retention bonuses are generally short-term solutions that do little to address underlying issues in workplace culture, job satisfaction, or recruitment processes. Instead of focusing primarily on retaining employees, which may be due to poor morale or work conditions, a business would typically focus on building a sustainable, scalable workforce model by improving hiring practices, offering training, and addressing reasons why employees may be leaving in the first place.
Operational Efficiency:
Management vs. Field Work: Businesses often examine how resources can be spent most effectively. If retention bonuses are being issued to existing staff, one would expect a clear and measurable outcome, such as improved retention rates and higher job satisfaction. If the bonuses are being used to prevent mass attrition in the face of poor working conditions, this suggests underlying operational inefficiencies that need to be addressed. DHS could consider investing in improving worker safety, mental health support, and job satisfaction to reduce turnover, rather than relying on bonuses as a patch.
Employee Morale:
Resentment Between Frontline and Administrative Workers: In a business, there’s often a divide between corporate-level employees (management, HR, etc.) and frontline workers (those who are directly involved in the day-to-day work). Offering retention bonuses might lead to resentment among frontline employees who may feel that resources could be better spent improving their working conditions, addressing staffing shortages, or offering meaningful career advancement opportunities, rather than rewarding the same employees who are already at risk of burnout.
Physical Toll on Homeland Security Workers at the Southern Border
Homeland Security officers stationed at the southern border face a much higher physical and psychological toll compared to those working in more routine or cushy roles, such as at airports. Here are some specific challenges:
Exposure to Disease:
Health Risks: Officers at the southern border often interact with large numbers of migrants from areas where diseases such as tuberculosis, COVID-19, and other infectious diseases may be prevalent. The risk of exposure to these diseases is heightened by close quarters with migrants in holding areas and crowded detention facilities. This exposure can have serious consequences for their health, especially without adequate protective gear and protocols.
Constant Health Concerns: Unlike workers in relatively controlled environments, such as airports, those stationed at the border are constantly at risk of contracting diseases that could potentially spread across regions, adding a layer of uncertainty and stress to their work environment.
Physical Danger and Assault:
High-Risk Environment: Border patrol officers regularly face the threat of physical harm. They deal with potentially hostile individuals, smugglers, or traffickers who may resist or retaliate against enforcement actions. The physical toll includes the possibility of being assaulted, injured, or even killed in the line of duty.
Risk of Permanent Injury: Workers on the border are often engaged in physically demanding tasks, such as pursuing individuals on foot, handling dangerous situations, and operating in challenging, remote terrains. These officers face not only the possibility of death but also the risk of permanent disability from injuries sustained while on duty, such as back injuries, heatstroke, or traumatic injuries from physical confrontations.
Mental Strain and Stress:
Constant Vigilance: The nature of border security requires constant vigilance, with officers regularly dealing with stressful and unpredictable situations. The mental toll includes high levels of stress, anxiety, and even post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from handling violent situations or witnessing human suffering. The mental and emotional demands are compounded by long hours in challenging environments, contributing to burnout.
Comparison: Homeland Security Officer at Kinston Airport, NC vs. Nogales Border
The day-to-day experiences of a Homeland Security officer at Kinston Airport in North Carolina versus an officer working at the border in Nogales, Arizona differ vastly in terms of atmosphere, danger, and type of work.
Kinston Airport, NC (Less Dangerous Environment):
Routine Security Work: Officers at Kinston Airport primarily focus on screening passengers, checking bags, ensuring airport safety, and responding to any immediate security concerns (such as potential threats). The work environment is relatively controlled and predictable.
Lower Risk of Physical Harm: The physical danger in an airport setting is minimal compared to the border. Officers are primarily dealing with passengers, which, though stressful, is not physically dangerous in the same way as confrontations at the border.
More Stable and Structured Environment: Airports have security protocols in place, with established rules and guidelines, and officers work in well-defined shifts, with regular breaks, structured environments, and support systems. The risk of disease is lower due to controlled and regulated environments.
Nogales Border, AZ (High-Risk, High-Stress Environment):
Dangerous and Unpredictable Situations: Officers at the Nogales border face more dangerous and unpredictable situations, such as pursuing suspects through difficult terrain, encountering armed smugglers, and handling large crowds of migrants. The immediate threat of physical violence is much higher than in airport settings.
Health and Environmental Risks: Officers at the border are at higher risk for disease, as noted earlier, and also face environmental challenges such as extreme heat, rough terrain, and isolation. These conditions not only take a physical toll but also put their overall safety at risk.
Mental and Emotional Stress: Border officers deal with the emotional and psychological stress of seeing human suffering firsthand. They may encounter traumatized individuals, including children and families, which can lead to emotional burnout. Additionally, dealing with the constant potential for conflict and violence can contribute to long-term mental health issues like PTSD.
Conclusion
The work of Homeland Security officers at the southern border and in airport settings reflects a dramatic contrast in terms of danger, stress, and overall work environment. While airport security workers may experience relatively stable and predictable conditions, those at the border face significant physical and emotional risks, from disease exposure to the threat of assault and injury. The federal request for retention bonuses in this context makes sense for maintaining a workforce, but it doesn’t address the underlying causes of worker attrition, which include poor working conditions, mental health challenges, and the physical dangers inherent in border security work. From a business standpoint, the reliance on retention bonuses, rather than addressing systemic operational inefficiencies and improving work conditions, reflects a short-term fix rather than a long-term solution.
Chapter 9 – No Tax Tips and Hungry Children
Chapter 9 – No Tax Tips and Hungry Children
Comparing these two scenarios involves weighing the economic and social impacts of taxing tips versus providing free school meals for all families. Below is a detailed analysis of both situations:
Scenario 1: Tips Are Taxed, but All Families’ Children Receive Breakfast and Lunch at School
Key Features:
- Taxation of Tips: Tips are treated as taxable income, meaning workers in tipped industries (e.g., waitstaff, bartenders) must report their tips and pay income and payroll taxes on them.
- Universal Free School Meals: All children, regardless of family income, receive free breakfast and lunch at school.
Advantages:
1. Revenue Generation:
- Taxing tips generates significant federal revenue ($106 billion over 10 years, according to the document).
- This revenue can be used to fund public services, including education, healthcare, and infrastructure.
2. Equity in Taxation:
- Ensures that tipped workers contribute their fair share to the tax system, reducing the tax burden on other taxpayers.
3. Universal Free School Meals:
- Reduces Food Insecurity: Ensures all children have access to nutritious meals, regardless of family income.
- Improves Academic Performance: Studies show that children who eat breakfast and lunch at school perform better academically and have improved attendance and behavior.
- Reduces Stigma: Universal programs eliminate the stigma associated with means-tested free or reduced-price meal programs, encouraging greater participation.
4. Economic Benefits:
- Free school meals reduce financial strain on low- and middle-income families, freeing up household budgets for other necessities.
- Schools benefit from streamlined meal programs, reducing administrative costs associated with verifying eligibility.
Disadvantages:
1. Impact on Tipped Workers:
- Taxing tips reduces the take-home pay of workers in tipped industries, who often rely on tips as a significant portion of their income.
- This could exacerbate financial stress for low-wage workers, particularly in high-cost areas.
2. Cost of Universal School Meals:
- Providing free meals to all students, regardless of income, requires significant federal funding. This could strain budgets or require reallocation of resources from other programs.
Scenario 2: Tips Are Not Taxed, but All Families No Longer Receive Breakfast and Lunch at School
Key Features:
- No Taxation of Tips: Tips are excluded from taxable income, allowing tipped workers to keep more of their earnings.
- Elimination of Universal Free School Meals: Families must pay for school meals or rely on means-tested programs (e.g., free or reduced-price meals for low-income families).
Advantages:
1. Increased Take-Home Pay for Tipped Workers:
- Workers in tipped industries benefit from higher disposable income, which could improve their quality of life and reduce financial stress.
2. Reduced Administrative Burden:
- Eliminating universal free school meals reduces the administrative costs associated with running large-scale meal programs.
3. Potential Cost Savings:
- The government saves money by no longer funding universal free meals, which could be redirected to other priorities or used to reduce deficits.
Disadvantages:
1. Increased Food Insecurity:
- Eliminating free school meals could leave many children without reliable access to nutritious food, particularly in low-income families.
- Food insecurity is linked to poor health outcomes, lower academic performance, and behavioral issues.
2. Stigma and Reduced Participation:
- Means-tested meal programs often carry stigma, leading to lower participation rates among eligible families.
- Families just above the income threshold may struggle to afford school meals, creating a "benefits cliff."
3. Economic Strain on Families:
- Paying for school meals out of pocket increases financial pressure on families, particularly those with multiple children.
- This could lead to difficult trade-offs, such as cutting back on other essentials like healthcare or housing.
4. Impact on Schools:
- Schools may see a decline in academic performance and attendance due to hunger and malnutrition.
- Reduced participation in meal programs could also lead to inefficiencies in school operations.
5. Lost Revenue from Taxing Tips:
- Exempting tips from taxation reduces federal revenue, potentially limiting funding for other critical programs or increasing the deficit.
Comparison and Trade-Offs
Aspect
Scenario 1: Tips Taxed, Free Meals
Scenario 2: Tips Not Taxed, No Free Meals
Revenue
Generates $106 billion over 10 years
Loses $106 billion over 10 years
Tipped Workers
Lower take-home pay
Higher take-home pay
Food Insecurity
Reduced
Increased
Academic Performance
Improved
Potentially worsened
Family Financial Strain
Reduced (free meals)
Increased (pay for meals)
Stigma
Eliminated
Increased (means-tested programs)
Administrative Costs
Higher (universal program)
Lower (means-tested program)
Conclusion
- Scenario 1 (Tips Taxed, Free Meals) prioritizes equity, public health, and education by ensuring all children have access to nutritious meals and generating revenue to fund public services. However, it places a financial burden on tipped workers.
- Scenario 2 (Tips Not Taxed, No Free Meals) benefits tipped workers by increasing their take-home pay but risks increased food insecurity, poorer academic outcomes, and greater financial strain on families.
The choice between these scenarios depends on societal values and priorities. If the goal is to reduce inequality and invest in the well-being of children, Scenario 1 is preferable. If the focus is on supporting low-wage workers and reducing government spending, Scenario 2 may be favored. However, the long-term costs of increased food insecurity and poorer educational outcomes in Scenario 2 could outweigh the short-term benefits.
Chapter 10 – Two Different Tax Structures and Public Welfare Provisions
Chapter 10 – Two Different Tax Structures and Public Welfare Provisions
In the United States the two major parties spar mostly over two different tax structures and public welfare provisions—specifically the taxation of tips and access to school meal programs—and how these affect families, particularly those with children. Here's a comparison between the two scenarios:
1. Present Situation: Tips Are Taxed, but All Families Receive Breakfast and Lunch at School
In this scenario, tips are taxed, and all families have access to free breakfast and lunch for their children at school. Here's how this would impact various stakeholders:
Economic and Financial Impact on Families:
Income from Tips: The taxation of tips means that service industry workers (such as waiters, bartenders, and other tipped employees) would pay taxes on their tips, potentially leading to a lower disposable income after taxes. This could reduce the amount of money available to families for other needs, such as housing, healthcare, and savings.
Free School Meals: On the positive side, the provision of free breakfast and lunch for all families (regardless of income) significantly reduces financial strain for families, especially those with multiple children. This program directly supports food security, ensuring that children receive nutritious meals even if their families face economic challenges. For many working families, this is a crucial benefit, allowing them to allocate funds to other essentials.
Social Impact:
Health and Education Benefits: Free meals at school can improve children's nutrition, leading to better physical and cognitive development. Healthy students are more likely to perform well academically and behave positively in school. Ensuring access to meals reduces the likelihood of hunger-related issues that can impair focus and learning.
Social Safety Net: Providing free school meals helps to address food insecurity, especially in families with lower incomes. It also fosters social cohesion by reducing the stigma around receiving assistance, as all families—regardless of income—have access to these benefits.
Challenges:
Administrative and Financial Costs: The funding of universal breakfast and lunch programs can be expensive for the government and may require higher taxes or reallocation of public funds. While beneficial for families, it represents a cost burden on the state or federal budget.
2. Alternate Situation: Tips Are Not Taxed, but All Families No Longer Receive Breakfast and Lunch at School
In this alternate scenario, tips are not taxed, and families no longer receive free breakfast and lunch for their children at school. Here's how this scenario would play out:
Economic and Financial Impact on Families:
No Tax on Tips: The non-taxation of tips could mean an increase in disposable income for service workers, especially those who rely heavily on tips as a portion of their income. Families with workers in tipped jobs may experience financial relief, as they would be able to keep all of their earned income without paying taxes on tips. This would particularly benefit lower-income service industry workers who may depend on tips to make ends meet.
Loss of School Meals: The elimination of free breakfast and lunch at school would create an immediate financial burden for families, especially those already struggling with low wages or limited household budgets. Families would need to allocate additional funds to provide meals for their children during the school day, potentially forcing them to make difficult choices between food, rent, healthcare, and other essentials.
Social Impact:
Increased Food Insecurity: Without school meal programs, families may face an increase in food insecurity. Children may go without enough nutritious meals, which can negatively impact their health, cognitive development, and academic performance. In some cases, families may be unable to provide enough food for their children, leading to hunger during the school day.
Widening Inequality: The non-taxation of tips may benefit service workers in the short term, but the loss of school meals disproportionately affects lower-income families who are more reliant on these government-provided services. Families in poverty or working multiple jobs may struggle to provide sufficient meals for their children. This exacerbates inequality in education, health, and overall wellbeing, as children in these households may be at a greater risk of poor health and academic struggles.
Challenges:
Higher Costs for Families: While eliminating the tax on tips increases income for some families, the added expense of paying for school meals may offset these gains. For many families, especially those already living paycheck to paycheck, the cost of school meals could be a major financial strain.
Impact on Public Health and Education: The absence of free meals may lead to poorer student health, absenteeism, and lower academic achievement, which could have long-term negative effects on the broader economy and workforce.
Comparing the Two Scenarios:
Financial Relief vs. Financial Strain:
Present Situation (Taxed Tips, Free School Meals): The financial strain caused by taxes on tips is offset by the provision of free meals, which directly helps families reduce food costs and improves their children's health and academic performance. The state or federal government bears the cost of providing meals, but it helps address inequality and food insecurity.
Alternate Scenario (No Tax on Tips, No School Meals): While the non-taxation of tips provides immediate financial relief for service workers, the lack of school meals places a substantial financial burden on families, potentially leading to higher levels of food insecurity. This creates a dilemma where service workers might have slightly more income, but it is largely negated by the extra costs of feeding their children at school.
Social Welfare and Inequality:
Present Situation: The current setup helps to promote equity, ensuring that all children—regardless of their family’s income—have access to nutritious meals. This reduces social divides and helps create a healthier, better-educated future generation. While some families may still be burdened by the taxation of tips, the school meal program provides significant public support.
Alternate Scenario: The loss of school meals would exacerbate social divides, especially for families in poverty or lower-income brackets. Though service workers may enjoy a boost in income due to tips not being taxed, this doesn't fully compensate for the lack of government-provided meals. This situation would likely lead to increased inequality and food insecurity, particularly among vulnerable children.
Long-Term Impact:
Present Situation: In the long term, providing free meals to all families can have a positive societal impact, including better health outcomes, reduced absenteeism in schools, and higher educational achievement. These long-term benefits can contribute to a more productive workforce and a healthier society.
Alternate Scenario: In contrast, the loss of free meals could have long-term negative effects on public health, education, and social mobility. Children who do not receive adequate nutrition may experience developmental delays and academic struggles, which can affect their future opportunities.
Conclusion
While the non-taxation of tips might provide some immediate financial relief for certain workers, the elimination of school meals would likely create greater social and economic challenges, particularly for lower-income families. The first scenario, where tips are taxed but school meals are provided, strikes a balance between maintaining tax revenue (important for public services) and providing essential welfare support to families. The second scenario, with untaxed tips but no school meals, benefits some workers in the short term but increases financial burdens and food insecurity for many families, particularly those in poverty. The first situation is likely the more equitable and sustainable option, as it provides critical social benefits that directly support children’s health and education.
Chapter 11 – Tip Taxes and Universal School Meals
Chapter 11 – Tip Taxes and Universal School Meals
Scenario 1: Tips Taxed, Universal School Meals Provided
Pros:
Food Security: Ensures all children have access to nutritious meals, regardless of family income. This can improve concentration, academic performance, and overall health.
Reduced Stigma: Eliminates the social stigma associated with free or reduced-price meals, promoting inclusivity.
Potential for Healthier Choices: Schools can implement nutritional guidelines, promoting healthier eating habits.
Revenue Generation: Taxing tips generates revenue that can help fund the universal meal program.
Redistribution of wealth: Taxing tips, mainly from the service industry, and then using that money to feed children, is a form of wealth redistribution.
Cons:
Burden on Service Workers: Taxing tips can reduce the take-home pay of service workers, who often rely on tips to supplement their income.
Increased Administrative Costs: Implementing and managing a universal meal program requires administrative resources.
Potential for Waste: Universal programs may lead to some food waste if not carefully managed.
Scenario 2: Tips Not Taxed, No Universal School Meals
Pros:
Increased Take-Home Pay for Service Workers: Service workers retain a larger portion of their earnings.
Reduced Government Spending: Eliminating the school meal program reduces government expenditures.
Cons:
Food Insecurity: Many children, especially from low-income families, may go hungry or lack access to nutritious meals.
Negative Impact on Education: Hunger can impair concentration and academic performance, widening the achievement gap.
Health Disparities: Children from low-income families are more likely to experience health problems due to poor nutrition.
Increased Social Inequality: The lack of universal meals exacerbates existing social and economic inequalities.
Increased burden on already strained families: Families that are already struggling financially, now have the added burden of supplying two meals per day for their children.
Potential for increased healthcare costs: Malnutrition can lead to increased healthcare costs down the line.
Comparison:
Social Impact:
Scenario 1 promotes social equity and food security, while Scenario 2 exacerbates inequalities and increases the risk of hunger.
Economic Impact:
Scenario 1 involves redistribution of wealth and increased government spending on a social program.
Scenario 2 reduces government spending but may lead to increased healthcare costs and decreased productivity due to poor nutrition.
Impact on Service Workers:
Scenario 1 places a financial burden on service workers, while Scenario 2 benefits them.
Impact on Children:
Scenario 1 greatly benefits children, and especially children from poor and middle class families.
Scenario 2 greatly harms children from poor and middle class families.
Conclusion:
While the immediate impact of not taxing tips might seem beneficial to service workers, the long-term consequences of food insecurity and health disparities are likely to outweigh the short-term gains. A universal school meal program, even if funded by taxing tips, offers significant social and economic benefits, particularly for vulnerable populations.
Chapter 12 – Trash Talking About Slush Funds
Chapter 12 – Trash Talking About Slush Funds
In the text of the Secret Memo "slush funds" is used in the text as an insult to dismiss an important set of business rules laid down over centuries. We will discuss that and then look over the real dangers, already experienced in the past one hundred and fifty years, of re-deregulation in the financial industry.
"Slush Funds" in the Text
The document you provided uses the term "slush fund" in a derogatory way to describe certain government funding mechanisms, specifically:
TANF Contingency Fund: The text argues that this fund "provides states with excessive discretion over federal funds" and is "duplicative to other federal programs."
In this context, "slush fund" implies:
Lack of Oversight: The funds are perceived as being distributed with insufficient control or accountability.
Potential for Misuse: There's an implication that the funds could be used for purposes other than those intended or for political gain.
Duplication: The funds are seen as redundant, overlapping with other existing funding streams.
Existing Provisions and Their Purpose
To understand why these funds or the regulations surrounding them exist, it's crucial to consider the original intent:
TANF Contingency Fund:
This fund is designed to provide additional support to states during times of economic hardship.
The idea is to offer a safety net for vulnerable families when economic conditions worsen and the need for assistance increases.
It allows states to respond flexibly to unexpected increases in demand for welfare assistance.
The argument for these provisions often rests on:
Flexibility: Allowing states or agencies some discretion enables them to tailor programs to specific local needs.
Responsiveness: Contingency funds allow for quick action in emergencies or during economic downturns.
Social Safety Net: These funds are intended to provide a basic level of support to individuals and families in need.
Deregulation and Financial Instability
Now, let's connect this to your point about special interests, particularly banks and stockbrokers, and the dangers of deregulation:
Breaking Down Barriers:
Historically, there have been regulations separating different parts of the financial industry (e.g., commercial banking, investment banking).
These separations were put in place to prevent certain types of risky behavior that could destabilize the entire financial system.
Potential for Abuse:
If these barriers are removed, it can create opportunities for abuse and excessive risk-taking.
As you mentioned, if banks can directly back stock prices with loans, it can create an artificial inflation of stock values.
The Upward Spiral:
Companies can then use these inflated stock prices to raise more capital, further fueling the cycle.
This creates a bubble that is unsustainable and can eventually burst, leading to a financial crisis.
Consequences:
When the bubble bursts, the losses are often widespread, impacting not only the wealthy but also ordinary people through job losses, reduced savings, and economic recession.
This is precisely what happened during the 2008 financial crisis, which was partly caused by the deregulation of the financial industry.
Special Interests and Deregulation
Profit Motive:
Special interests, such as large banks and financial institutions, often lobby for deregulation because it can increase their profits in the short term.
They may argue that deregulation promotes competition and innovation, but it can also lead to excessive risk-taking and instability.
Externalizing Costs:
The problem is that the risks associated with deregulation are often "externalized," meaning that the costs of a financial crisis are borne by the public, while the profits are concentrated in the hands of a few.
In Summary
The concept of "slush funds" in the text is used to criticize government funding mechanisms, implying a lack of accountability. However, these mechanisms often serve important social safety net functions. Deregulation in the financial industry can create opportunities for special interests to engage in risky behavior that can lead to financial instability, with devastating consequences for the broader economy.
Chapter 13 – Ancient Money Interfering with Modern Life
Chapter 13 – Ancient Money Interfering with Modern Life
For this last section of this document we are going to focus on the potential origins of the ‘Secret Memo’ which is made up almost entirely by long-standing, often rejected, policy proposals, and to discuss the potential motivations of those who continue to champion them. Let's break this down:
A Hodgepodge of Rejected Ideas:
Many of the proposals in the document reflect recurring themes that have been debated and often rejected for decades. These include:
Cuts to Social Programs: Proposals to reduce funding for programs like TANF, SSI, and Medicaid have been a staple of conservative policy platforms since the 1960s. These cuts are often framed as necessary to reduce government spending and promote individual responsibility, but critics argue that they disproportionately harm vulnerable populations.
Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Proposals to eliminate the estate tax, lower corporate tax rates, and repeal the SALT deduction have been advocated by conservative think tanks and wealthy individuals for decades. These proposals are often justified by the argument that they stimulate economic growth, but critics argue that they exacerbate income inequality.
Deregulation: Proposals to weaken regulations on the financial industry and other sectors have been a recurring theme in conservative policy debates. These proposals are often framed as necessary to promote economic efficiency, but critics argue that they increase the risk of financial crises and environmental damage.
Restrictions on Healthcare Access: Limiting access to healthcare based on citizenship status, and other restrictions, have been pushed for many years.
Attacks on Public Education: Actions that reduce funding to public education, and divert those funds to private education, have been pushed for many decades.
Origins in Decades-Old Ideologies:
It's true that many of these ideas can be traced back to conservative thinkers and organizations that emerged in the mid-20th century.
1960s-1970s: The rise of the New Right and the emergence of conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute laid the groundwork for many of these policy proposals.
1980s-1990s: The Reagan and Gingrich eras saw the implementation of many of these ideas, including tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of certain industries.
2000s-Present: Despite the negative consequences of some of these policies, such as the 2008 financial crisis, they continue to be advocated by certain groups.
The Role of Aging Proponents and Family Wealth:
It's also true that many of the leading proponents of these ideas are individuals who have been involved in conservative politics for decades.
Some of these individuals may be motivated by a sincere belief in their ideology, while others may be driven by a desire to protect their own wealth and privilege.
Family wealth can play a significant role in enabling these individuals to continue advocating for their ideas, even as they age.
Often, these people are surrounded by like minded individuals, and think tanks, that reinforce their beliefs.
There is also a component of these individuals having spent their entire lives working towards these goals, and they therefore have a very hard time letting them go.
The fact that some of the original proponents are deceased, and that current proponents are late in their years, highlights the potential for ideological rigidity and a disconnect from the realities of contemporary society.
Illogic and Cruelty:
As you pointed out, many of these proposals are seen by critics as illogical and cruel.
The focus on cutting social programs and reducing taxes for the wealthy, while ignoring the needs of vulnerable populations, can be seen as a form of social Darwinism.
The disregard for the environmental consequences of deregulation can be seen as a form of reckless disregard for the future.
In conclusion:
The document reflects a collection of long-standing policy proposals that have been advocated by certain groups for decades. The continued advocacy for these proposals, despite their potential negative consequences, can be attributed to a combination of ideological commitment, self-interest, and the influence of family wealth.
Chapter 14 – Twentieth Century Rejects
Chapter 14 – Twentieth Century Rejects
Taking another look at the Secret Memo we see a century’s worth of the repetition of failed ideas mixed with cruel ideals.
The memo includes numerous proposals that have been rejected multiple times by Congress, the public, or both. For example:
Repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA): Efforts to dismantle the ACA have been ongoing since its passage in 2010, but repeated attempts have failed due to public support for its provisions, such as protections for pre-existing conditions and Medicaid expansion.
Medicaid Work Requirements: These were attempted during the Trump administration but were struck down by courts or abandoned due to public backlash and evidence that they harmed vulnerable populations.
Privatizing Social Security: This idea has been floated since the Reagan era but has never gained enough traction due to widespread public opposition.
Eliminating the Estate Tax: Proposals to repeal the "death tax" have been a staple of conservative tax policy for decades but have consistently failed to pass because they primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans.
These ideas are often repackaged and reintroduced under new names or as part of broader legislative efforts, but their core objectives remain the same: reducing government revenue, shrinking social programs, and deregulating industries.
2. Origins in the 1960s and Beyond
Many of the proposals in the document can be traced back to ideological movements that gained prominence in the mid-20th century. Key figures and organizations include:
Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics: Friedman's advocacy for free-market policies, deregulation, and privatization in the 1960s and 1970s laid the groundwork for many of the ideas in the document. His influence is evident in proposals to privatize education, healthcare, and Social Security.
The Powell Memo (1971): Written by Lewis Powell (later a Supreme Court Justice), this memo called for corporate America to take a more active role in shaping public policy to counter what Powell saw as anti-business sentiment. It led to the creation of influential think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, which have championed many of the ideas in the document.
The Reagan Revolution (1980s): Ronald Reagan's presidency marked a turning point in American politics, with a focus on tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, and reductions in social spending. Many of the proposals in the document, such as repealing the estate tax and cutting Medicaid, are direct descendants of Reagan-era policies.
Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America (1990s): Gingrich's conservative agenda in the 1990s included many of the same ideas, such as welfare reform, tax cuts, and reducing government spending. These ideas have been recycled and repackaged ever since.
3. The Role of Aging Proponents and Family Wealth
Many of the original architects of these ideas are now deceased or elderly, but their legacies live on through the organizations they founded and the wealth they accumulated. For example:
Charles and David Koch: The Koch brothers were among the most influential proponents of libertarian and conservative policies, funding think tanks, political campaigns, and advocacy groups that continue to push for tax cuts, deregulation, and reductions in social spending. David Koch passed away in 2019, but the Koch network remains a powerful force in American politics.
Richard Mellon Scaife: A billionaire heir to the Mellon fortune, Scaife funded conservative causes and think tanks for decades until his death in 2014. His wealth helped sustain the movement long after his passing.
The Mercer Family: Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah have been major donors to conservative causes, including the campaigns of Donald Trump and the Brexit movement. Their funding has kept many of these ideas alive in the political mainstream.
These individuals and their families have used their wealth to create a self-sustaining ecosystem of think tanks, media outlets, and political organizations that continue to promote the same ideas, even as their original proponents age or pass away.
4. Illogic and Cruelty of Proposed Solutions
Many of the proposals in the document are illogical or cruel when examined closely:
Cutting Social Safety Nets: Proposals to reduce Medicaid, SNAP, and other social programs disproportionately harm low-income families, children, and the elderly. These cuts are often justified as promoting "self-sufficiency," but they ignore the structural barriers that prevent many people from escaping poverty.
Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Repealing the estate tax or lowering corporate tax rates primarily benefits the wealthiest Americans, exacerbating income inequality without providing meaningful economic benefits to the broader population.
Deregulation: Rolling back environmental regulations or consumer protections may benefit corporations in the short term, but it often leads to long-term harm, such as pollution, financial crises, or public health disasters.
Privatization: Proposals to privatize education, healthcare, or Social Security often result in higher costs and reduced access for ordinary Americans, while enriching private companies and investors.
These policies are often justified using ideological rhetoric about "freedom," "personal responsibility," or "efficiency," but they frequently fail to deliver on these promises in practice.
5. The Persistence of Failed Ideas
Despite their repeated failures, these ideas persist because they serve the interests of a small but powerful group of wealthy individuals and corporations. The think tanks, advocacy groups, and political organizations they fund ensure that these ideas remain part of the political discourse, even when they are rejected by the public or proven ineffective. This persistence is driven by:
Ideological Commitment: Many of the proponents of these ideas are deeply committed to their ideological vision, regardless of evidence or public opinion.
Financial Incentives: Wealthy donors and corporations stand to benefit from tax cuts, deregulation, and privatization, creating a powerful incentive to keep pushing these policies.
Political Infrastructure: The network of organizations and media outlets funded by these individuals ensures that their ideas continue to influence policymakers and the public.
Conclusion
The document reflects a century-long effort by a small group of ideologically driven individuals and organizations to reshape American society according to their vision. Many of these ideas have been rejected or ignored for good reason: they are often illogical, cruel, or counterproductive. Yet, they persist because of the wealth and influence of their proponents, who have created a self-sustaining ecosystem to keep these ideas alive. As the original architects of these policies age or pass away, their legacies are carried on by a new generation of wealthy donors and political operatives, ensuring that these debates will continue for decades to come. However, the growing disconnect between these ideas and the needs of the broader population suggests that their relevance may eventually fade, especially as younger generations demand more equitable and sustainable solutions.
Chapter 15 – Legacy of Undoing
Chapter 15 – Legacy of Undoing
It’s striking how many of the policy proposals and agenda items in this document are neither new nor innovative but instead stale, old, rejected ideas—things that have been floated, debated, dismissed, and occasionally enacted only to be ignored or abandoned. These ideas have circulated for decades, reappearing in each political cycle, always advanced by the same ideological networks, often with little to no regard for whether they actually work.
A Legacy of Stale and Recycled Ideas
Tracing these proposals back through history, we see a clear pattern: they originated from small, insular groups of economic and political influencers, many of whom first formulated these policies in the 1960s and 1970s—an era of reactionary pushback against the social programs of the New Deal and the Great Society. Each decade since then, these same circles (or their ideological successors) have repackaged and reintroduced these ideas, sometimes with different rhetoric but always with the same underlying goal: the dismantling of public welfare, labor protections, and regulatory oversight in favor of policies that favor entrenched wealth and corporate control.
For instance:
1960s & 1970s: Opposition to social programs, first framed as a fight against "big government," fueled early attacks on welfare, public education funding, and progressive taxation.
1980s: The Reagan era mainstreamed tax cuts for the wealthy, union-busting, and deregulation, all justified by "trickle-down economics," a theory now widely discredited.
1990s: Neoliberalism pushed many of these same policies under the guise of "fiscal responsibility" and "personal responsibility," while expanding corporate-friendly policies like deregulation of financial markets.
2000s & 2010s: The same core ideas—gutting public programs, cutting taxes on wealth, undermining labor protections—continued to resurface, often as austerity measures or privatization schemes.
Pushed by a Dying Generation of Ideologues
One of the most telling aspects of this phenomenon is that many of the original architects of these policies are no longer alive, and those who remain are themselves well into their twilight years. Their worldview was shaped decades ago, and despite overwhelming evidence that their policies have failed to deliver broad prosperity or long-term economic stability, they refuse to reconsider.
Even more telling is that many of the leading proponents today are not self-made experts or working-class representatives, but heirs to family fortunes—people who have never personally suffered the consequences of the policies they promote. They do not depend on wages, public services, or affordable housing, yet they are obsessed with reshaping policies that affect those who do. It appears that, with unlimited wealth insulating them from the real world, their sole mission is to ensure that their long-dead mentors' ideological visions are finally imposed, regardless of their cruelty, impracticality, or outright failures in the past.
Illogic and Cruelty Disguised as Policy
A closer look at these proposals reveals a fundamental disconnect from reality. The justifications for cutting social safety nets, privatizing public institutions, and shifting more economic power to the already wealthy are based on outdated or outright debunked economic theories. Despite decades of evidence showing that these policies harm working people, they persist—not because they make sense, but because the people pushing them have the financial power and time to keep trying.
This is the ultimate irony:
These policies have been tried and failed repeatedly.
The people pushing them have never suffered the consequences of their ideas.
Their political influence comes not from merit or public support, but from generational wealth and institutional entrenchment.
Conclusion
What we are witnessing is not a serious effort to craft effective policy but rather the final gasp of a dying ideological movement—one driven by aging billionaires and think tanks still clinging to the economic fantasies of a half-century ago. This document is less a plan for governance and more a museum of bad ideas, curated by people who have nothing left to do but try, one last time, to impose their outdated vision on a society that has already moved past them.
Chapter 16 – Secret Memo in Plain Talk
Chapter 16 – Secret Memo in Plain Talk
The Ways and Means Committee document isn’t just a budget proposal—it’s a time capsule of recycled ideas, many of which have been kicked around, rejected, implemented briefly, or sidelined over decades, only to resurface like fiscal zombies.
These aren’t fresh innovations; they’re echoes from a small cadre of ideologues whose intellectual lineage stretches back to the 1960s, with each decade layering on more of their pet projects. The originators—think tanks, libertarian economists, and conservative hardliners—often trace to a handful of names and their disciples, many now dead, their legacies propped up by aging heirs with family wealth and little else to occupy their twilight years.
What’s striking is how many of these “solutions” have been road-tested abroad—in places like Sweden, South Africa, England, China, and India—only to crash and burn, yet here they are again, dressed up as novel fixes despite their illogic and cruelty.
A History of Rejection and Resurrection
Let’s start with the vibe of this document: it’s a greatest-hits album of fiscal conservatism’s B-sides. Take Medicaid Per Capita Caps ($900B savings)—this isn’t new. It’s a reboot of block-granting ideas from the 1960s, when Milton Friedman and his Chicago School crew pushed for capped federal welfare spending to “free” states. Nixon flirted with it in the ’70s via his Family Assistance Plan, which tanked in Congress. Reagan revived it in the ’80s with block grant proposals—partially implemented, then diluted by pushback from governors who saw the chaos of underfunding. The ’90s saw Gingrich’s Contract with America try again, only to be vetoed by Clinton. Now it’s back, ignoring how states like Tennessee struggled with TennCare’s capped experiment in the ’90s, cutting care for the poor.
Or look at Eliminate the Death Tax ($370B cost). This estate tax repeal fetish kicked off in the ’60s with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and folks like William F. Buckley Jr., who saw it as “double taxation.” It gained steam in the ’80s under Reagan’s tax cuts, got partial traction in Bush’s 2001 cuts (phased out, then reinstated), and now it’s here again—despite decades of evidence that it only benefits the top 0.1%, as the Tax Policy Center keeps pointing out. Rejected or scaled back repeatedly, it’s a perennial darling of the wealthy.
Work Requirements (e.g., TANF, $7M; Medicaid, $100B savings) are another golden oldie. They stem from ’60s welfare critiques by George Gilder and Charles Murray, who argued aid breeds dependency. The ’80s saw pilot programs falter—states like California found administrative costs outweighed savings. Clinton’s 1996 welfare reform (PRWORA) codified TANF’s version, but studies (e.g., MDRC, 2000s) showed meager job gains and deeper poverty. England tried it with the 2010s Universal Credit—dropout rates soared, per the National Audit Office. Yet it’s back, oblivious to its track record.
The Same Old Gang, Decades in the Making
Who’s behind this? The ideas tie back to a tight clique that’s been at it since the ’60s:
1960s: Friedman, Buckley, and AEI laid the groundwork—cut government, boost markets. Barry Goldwater’s 1964 campaign was their megaphone, though he lost big.
1970s: The Heritage Foundation (founded ’73) and Cato Institute (’77) picked up the baton, with folks like Edwin Feulner and Murray Rothbard refining the anti-welfare, tax-cut gospel. Nixon’s crew (e.g., Dick Cheney, then a young congressman) tested bits of it.
1980s: Reagan’s revolution brought in James Buchanan’s public choice theory and supply-siders like Arthur Laffer—deregulate, slash taxes. The Moral Majority added cultural heft.
1990s: Gingrich and his “Freedom Caucus” ancestors (e.g., Dick Armey) pushed the Contract with America, recycling ’60s ideas with a ’90s sheen. Cato’s Ed Crane kept the flame alive.
2000s-Present: Bush-era players like Grover Norquist (Americans for Tax Reform) and the Koch brothers’ funding machine kept churning—Norquist’s “no new taxes” pledge is a direct ancestor of this document’s SALT repeal ($1T savings) and corporate rate cuts ($522B cost).
The originators? Mostly gone. Friedman died in 2006, Buckley in 2008, Rothbard in ’95, Feulner’s retired. Today’s torchbearers—Norquist (born ’56), Armey (born ’40), or think-tank heirs like Stephen Moore (born ’60)—are late in their careers, backed by family wealth or donor dynasties (Kochs, Waltons). They’ve got time, money, and no new ideas—just a dogged push to win battles they lost decades ago, logic be damned.
Tried and Failed Globally
Many of these “innovations” aren’t even American originals—they’ve flopped overseas:
Medicaid Per Capita Caps: Sweden’s 1990s healthcare decentralization capped regional budgets—rural areas saw doctor shortages, per a 2005 Lancet study. South Africa’s post-apartheid provincial caps (’90s) led to uneven care, with poorer regions collapsing, per World Bank reports.
Work Requirements: England’s 2013 Jobseeker’s Allowance tightened rules—claimants fell 30%, but poverty spiked, per the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. China’s 1980s rural labor mandates pushed productivity but left the sick and elderly behind, per UNDP data.
Eliminate Green Energy Credits ($796B savings): India’s 2000s rollback of solar subsidies stalled renewable growth—coal surged, air quality tanked, per a 2015 TERI study. Sweden’s brief ’80s cut to wind incentives delayed its green boom, per IEA.
Estate Tax Repeal: South Africa ditched its estate tax in the ’80s—wealth inequality soared, per a 2018 Stellenbosch study. England’s 1986 inheritance tax cuts enriched landed gentry, not the masses, per HMRC.
Privatize/Eliminate Subsidies (e.g., NFIP, $11B savings): China’s 1990s flood insurance shift to private markets left rural farmers uninsured during 1998 floods—millions displaced, per Xinhua. India’s 2000s crop insurance privatization saw premiums spike, coverage plummet, per ICRIER.
Cruelty and Illogic Baked In
The cruelty’s in the outcomes: SNAP cuts ($274B TFP reform) starve kids—USDA’s own data shows 1 in 7 households food-insecure in 2023. Medicaid caps ($900B) slash care for the disabled—Kaiser Family Foundation says 14M could lose coverage. The illogic? Corporate tax cuts ($522B) assume trickle-down works—decades of data (e.g., CBO, 2010s) show wages stagnate while execs pocket gains. Death tax repeal ($370B) ignores that only 0.2% of estates pay it (IRS, 2022)—it’s a billionaire’s tantrum, not a public fix.
These proponents—aging, rich, and relentless—seem driven by legacy, not reason. Their ideas, rejected or half-baked since the ’60s, keep rising because wealth buys megaphones, not because they work. Sweden’s caps failed rural patients, England’s work rules bred misery, China’s privatization drowned the poor—yet here we are, 2025, debating the same tired playbook. What’s next—dig into a specific flop or trace a proponent’s ghost?
Additional and Final :
If we continue to peel back the layers of this Ways and Means Committee document and dig deeper into its graveyard of resurrected ideas, the stubborn lineage of their proponents, and the global trail of failures that should’ve buried them long ago. This isn’t just a budget—it’s a museum of fiscal nostalgia, curated by a dwindling clique of ideologues whose roots stretch back to the 1960s, with each decade piling on more of their reheated schemes. Many of the original architects are dead, their torch passed to graying successors fueled by inherited wealth and an apparent allergy to fresh thinking. Worse, these “new” proposals often mirror experiments that flopped in places like Sweden, South Africa, England, China, and India—yet they’re trotted out again, indifferent to the illogic and cruelty they’ve already inflicted.
More Rejected Ideas, Revived from the Dead
The document’s littered with policies that have been debated, dismissed, or half-tried before, only to limp back into view:
Eliminate the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) (Agriculture, $15B savings): This one’s a ’70s relic—born in 1974 as Title XX of the Social Security Act, it was a flexible fund for states. Reagan’s 1981 budget cuts slashed it, and Bush Sr.’s ’90s budgets proposed killing it outright, citing overlap with other programs. Congress balked, keeping it alive for its versatility. Trump’s budgets (2017-2021) echoed the call—ignored again. Now it’s back, despite GAO reports (e.g., 2016) showing it’s a lifeline for rural child care and elder services. Rejected repeatedly, yet it won’t die.
Repeal Obamacare Subsidies “Family Glitch” Final Rule (Ways and Means, $35B savings): The glitch—where affordable individual employer coverage blocks family ACA subsidies—dates to the ACA’s 2010 drafting. Fixes were proposed in the ’90s under Clinton’s health reform push, sidelined by politics. Obama’s team knew it was a flaw but left it for cost reasons (CBO scoring). Biden’s 2022 fix closed it, and now this repeal rewinds to 2010’s inequity. It’s a decades-old argument, settled then unsettled.
Eliminate the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction (Ways and Means, $1T savings): This sacred cow’s been on the chopping block since the ’60s, when economists like Henry Aaron argued it skewed wealth upward. Reagan’s 1986 tax reform capped it, ’90s deficit hawks (e.g., Concord Coalition) pushed for repeal—shot down by real estate lobbies. Bush Jr.’s 2005 tax panel suggested it again; Congress yawned. Now it’s here, a 50-year-old lightning rod that never quite sticks.
Sell Federal Land (Natural Resources, TBD savings): Land disposal’s a ’70s libertarian fantasy—think James Watt under Reagan pushing BLM sales in the ’80s. Congress passed limited acts (e.g., FLPMA amendments), but big sell-offs stalled—public backlash and environmentalists killed it. Gingrich’s ’90s crew tried again; no dice. Trump floated it in 2018—quietly dropped. It’s a perennial pipe dream, dusted off anew.
These aren’t outliers. TANF cuts ($15B), SALT repeal ($1T), Medicare site neutrality ($146B)—all have doppelgangers in budgets from the ’70s (Nixon’s welfare trims), ’80s (Reagan’s tax overhaul), and ’90s (Gingrich’s Medicare tweaks). They’ve been proposed, piloted, rejected, or watered down, only to resurface like policy whack-a-moles, ignoring past flops or partial successes.
The Same Small Crew, Decades Deep
The intellectual DNA here traces to a tight knot of thinkers and their heirs, a saga spanning 60 years:
1960s Roots: It starts with Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Buckley’s National Review rants, and AEI’s founding (1962). Goldwater’s ’64 run was their beta test—crushed, but the seed was planted. Early players like Richard Viguerie (direct-mail guru) weaponized fundraising for the cause.
1970s Expansion: Heritage’s Feulner (born ’41) and Cato’s Rothbard (died ’95) built the infrastructure. Paul Weyrich (died 2008) fused it with social conservatism. Nixon’s aides—Cheney, Rumsfeld—dabbled in execution, though pragmatism restrained them.
1980s Boom: Reagan’s era was the golden age—Laffer (born ’40) drew curves on napkins, Buchanan (died 2013) preached small government. Think tanks swelled, backed by Coors and Koch cash. Watt (died 2023) and Stockman (born ’46) pushed land sales and budget cuts.
1990s Refinement: Gingrich (born ’43), Armey (retired), and Norquist (still kicking) turned it into a congressional playbook. The Club for Growth (founded ’99) and Cato’s Crane (died 2016) kept the flame. Dead or alive, their ideas stuck.
2000s-Now: Bush’s tax cuts leaned on Norquist and Moore (born ’60). Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity (2004) and FreedomWorks (Armey’s baby) churned out acolytes. Today’s leaders—Norquist, Moore, even Rand Paul (born ’63)—are late-career crusaders, their wealth (or donor wealth) fueling endless reruns.
The originals are mostly ghosts—Friedman, Buckley, Weyrich, Buchanan. Their successors? Aging fast. Norquist’s 68, Moore’s 65, Armey’s 84 if he’s still advising from the shadows. Family fortunes (Kochs, Waltons) or think-tank endowments keep them afloat. They’re not innovating—they’re imagined greatest hits, a retirement hobby with no expiration date, logic optional.
Global Graveyard of Failed Experiments
These ideas aren’t just old—they’ve been stress-tested abroad and flunked:
SSBG Elimination: Sweden’s 1980s social service decentralization cut block grants—rural care collapsed, per a 1992 Socialstyrelsen report. South Africa’s 1990s welfare consolidation left orphans unserviced, per UNICEF ’98. Flexibility’s nice until the money’s gone.
Home Mortgage Deduction Repeal: England’s 2000 MIRAS phase-out (mortgage interest relief) spiked housing costs for the middle class—homeownership dropped 5%, per ONS 2010. India’s 1990s interest deduction cuts fueled urban slums, per NCAER.
Sell Federal Land: China’s 1990s rural land sales enriched local elites but displaced farmers—riots followed, per a 2005 Asia Times piece. South Africa’s post-’94 land privatization botched redistribution—white landowners cashed out, per Land Reform Commission ’99.
Corporate Tax Cuts ($522B cost): Sweden’s 1991 rate slash to 30% boosted profits but not jobs—wage stagnation hit, per a 2000 LO study. India’s 2019 cut from 30% to 22% padded corporate coffers; rural investment flatlined, per RBI 2021.
Medicaid Work Requirements: England’s 2010s ESA work rules slashed disability rolls—suicides rose, per BMJ 2015. China’s 2000s urban labor mandates ignored rural realities—poverty deepened, per World Bank ’08.
Illogic and Cruelty, Baked In and Ignored
The illogic’s glaring: SALT repeal ($1T) assumes state tax burdens don’t crush middle-class families—IRS data (2022) says 11M filers claim it, not just the rich. SNAP caps ($2B) pretend larger families don’t need more food—USDA’s 2023 hunger stats beg to differ. The cruelty? ACA subsidy recapture ($46B) claws back cash from the poor for honest income misestimates—imagine a single mom repaying $5K. SSI felony warrant denial ($3B) assumes the disabled can outrun cops—many can’t, per SSA audits.
These aging proponents—wealthy, insulated, and late in life—don’t feel the sting. They’re not reinventing; they’re re-litigating. Sweden’s rural care cuts, England’s work-rule misery, China’s land-sale chaos—history’s littered with warnings they ignore. It’s not about solutions; it’s about winning a 60-year war in their own minds.
Chapter 17 - SALT Note
Chapter 17 - SALT Note
In the context of U.S. federal income tax, "SALT" stands for "state and local taxes." The SALT deduction allows taxpayers who itemize deductions on their federal income tax returns to deduct certain taxes they've paid to state and local governments. Here's a breakdown:
Key Points:
What it includes:
The deduction typically covers state and local income taxes, property taxes, and either state and local sales taxes or state and local general sales taxes.
Itemizing:
To claim the SALT deduction, taxpayers must itemize their deductions on their federal tax return, rather than taking the standard deduction.
The $10,000 cap:
Currently, there's a $10,000 limit on the SALT deduction. This limit was introduced by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017.
This cap is set to expire after 2025.
Purpose:
The SALT deduction has historically been intended to prevent a form of "double taxation," where taxpayers are taxed both by state/local governments and the federal government on the same income.
Controversy:
The SALT deduction, particularly the $10,000 cap, has been a source of significant political debate.
Those in high-tax states often argue that the cap unfairly burdens their residents.
Others argue that it helps to create a more equitable federal tax system.
In essence, the SALT deduction is a provision within the U.S. tax code that allows for the deduction of certain state and local tax payments from federal taxable income, with a current limit in place.
Chapter 18 - Life Without SALT – One of Many Worst Case Scenarios
Chapter 18 - Life Without SALT – One of Many Worst Case Scenarios
Let’s paint a worst-case scenario for a family of four—two adults, two kids, one working parent—facing the repeal of the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, as proposed in the Ways and Means Committee document ($1T savings over 10 years). This family’s already juggling tight finances and medical bills, and losing SALT could tip them into a financial abyss. I’ll ground this in realistic numbers, tax mechanics, and the ripple effects of healthcare costs, assuming they live in a high-tax state where SALT’s impact bites hardest.
The Setup: A Fragile Baseline
Meet the Johnsons: Mom works full-time earning $60,000 a year—say, as a nurse or teacher—in a state like New York or California, where state income and property taxes are steep. Dad stays home with their two kids, ages 8 and 12, one of whom has a chronic condition (e.g., asthma or diabetes) racking up $15,000 in annual medical bills—think specialist visits, meds, and an ER trip or two. They own a modest home with a $300,000 mortgage, paying $8,000 in property taxes yearly, and owe $5,000 in state income tax on Mom’s salary. Pre-repeal, they claim the SALT deduction, capped at $10,000 under the 2017 TCJA, to offset their $13,000 total state/local tax bill.
Their finances are tight:
Income: $60,000 (gross)
Federal Taxes (2025 rates, pre-repeal): With the standard deduction ($30,000 for married filing jointly, estimated for 2025), taxable income is $30,000. At 10% on the first $24,000 and 12% on the next $6,000, they owe $3,120, reduced by a $4,000 Child Tax Credit (CTC) to a net refund of $880.
Out-of-Pocket Costs: $5,000 after insurance (assuming a decent employer plan covers $10,000 of the $15,000 medical bills).
Living Expenses: Rent/mortgage, food, utilities eat up the rest—say, $45,000 annually, leaving little wiggle room.
They’re scraping by, relying on that $880 refund and the SALT cap to keep their tax burden manageable.
SALT Repeal Hits: The Tax Bomb
The TCJA’s $10,000 SALT cap expires in 2025, and this proposal kills the deduction entirely—no cap, no relief. Now, the Johnsons’ full $13,000 in state and local taxes (property + income) gets added back to their taxable income. Here’s the math:
New Taxable Income: $60,000 - $30,000 (standard deduction) + $13,000 (lost SALT) = $43,000.
New Federal Tax:
10% on $24,000 = $2,400
12% on $19,000 (up to $43,000) = $2,280
Total = $4,680
Minus $4,000 CTC = $680 owed (instead of an $880 refund).
Swing: They go from a $880 gain to a $680 loss—a $1,560 hit.
That’s $1,560 less in their pocket—over 2.5% of their gross income—gone overnight.
Medical Bills Compound the Crisis
Their kid’s condition doesn’t care about tax policy. Those $15,000 medical bills keep coming. With insurance covering $10,000, they’re still on the hook for $5,000 out-of-pocket—deductibles, copays, uncovered meds. Pre-repeal, they could stretch to cover this with tight budgeting and that refund. Now, with $1,560 less:
Immediate Shortfall: They’re $1,560 short of last year’s baseline. Add the $5,000 medical tab, and they need $6,560 just to break even on healthcare—over 10% of their income.
No Savings: At $60,000, they likely have no cushion—Pew (2023) says 60% of U.S. households under $75K can’t handle a $1,000 emergency. They’re tapped out.
Worst-Case Ripple Effects
Here’s where it spirals:
Debt Spiral: They charge the $5,000 medical bills to a credit card—average APR 20% (2025 projection). That’s $1,000 in interest year one, ballooning to $6,000 owed. With only $10,000 left after taxes and essentials ($60K - $45K - $5K), they can’t pay it down—minimum payments barely dent it.
State Tax Squeeze: High-tax states might hike rates to offset federal shifts (Tax Foundation, 2022, notes this trend post-TCJA). If New York bumps their $5,000 state tax to $6,000, taxable income rises to $44,000, federal tax to $4,800, and their bill jumps to $800—a $1,680 swing from the refund.
Healthcare Cuts: They skip the kid’s specialist ($500/visit) or meds ($200/month)—asthma flares, landing them in the ER again. Uninsured costs spike to $20,000 if insurance drops (job loss risk below). A 2021 KFF study says 1 in 10 skip care due to cost—here, it’s life-or-death.
Job Loss Risk: Mom’s stretched thin—sick kid, no spousal income. If she misses work (unpaid leave), income drops to $50,000. Taxable income falls to $33,000 ($50K - $30K + $13K), tax to $3,480, CTC cuts it to zero—but they’re still $5,000 short on medical bills, now with less to live on.
Housing Threat: That $8,000 property tax? If they miss payments (prioritizing healthcare), late fees pile up—$500, then $1,000. Foreclosure looms—median U.S. home loss takes 18 months (ATTOM, 2023), but stress accelerates it. Renting’s no better—$1,500/month in their area eats $18,000 yearly.
The Bottom Falls Out
Worst case: Mom loses her job from absences ($0 income). They default on medical debt ($20,000+ with ER visits), lose the house ($8,500 tax lien), and face eviction. No SALT relief means no tax buffer—$13,000 in state/local taxes still haunts their $0 income via penalties. Bankruptcy’s their out, but with one earner and chronic illness, recovery’s a pipe dream. Food insecurity hits—SNAP ($274B cut elsewhere in the doc) won’t stretch far. They’re homeless, sick, and broke within a year.
Why It’s Brutal
SALT repeal’s $1,560 initial hit seems small—2.5% of income—but for a family on the edge, it’s a match to dry tinder. High-tax states amplify it (NY’s average SALT claim: $20K, per IRS 2022, though capped at $10K). Medical bills—10-20% of income here—aren’t rare; 41% of adults have healthcare debt (KFF, 2022). Without SALT, every dollar shifts from survival to tax, and chronic illness turns a tax hike into a death spiral. This isn’t hypothetical—multiply it by millions in similar boats, and it’s a policy-made catastrophe.
Chapter 19 – Wholesale Passage and the Following Disaster
Chapter 19 – Wholesale Passage and the Following Disaster
Part 1
Part 1
A Worst-Case Scenario: The Full Implementation of This Policy Document
If every single recommendation in this document were passed and fully implemented, the United States would undergo an economic, social, and environmental transformation that benefits the wealthiest few at the direct expense of everyone else. This scenario would result in widespread hardship, the collapse of small businesses and farms, massive income inequality, and the entrenchment of corporate-controlled monopolies that reduce worker rights to near-servitude levels. Scientific and social progress would stagnate, while environmental disasters and global instability accelerate.
1. The Immediate Fallout: Individuals and Families
Higher Taxes for the Middle and Working Classes: With the repeal of the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, the loss of childcare credits, education credits, and homeownership incentives, families would face higher federal tax burdens while the wealthy see their taxes cut.
Massive Increases in Healthcare Costs: The elimination of safety net programs means millions of families would no longer afford basic healthcare, life-saving medications, or emergency treatments. Medical bankruptcies would skyrocket.
Housing Instability and Homelessness: With homeownership out of reach for most Americans and rental prices spiking due to local budget cuts and privatization of housing, evictions would become common. Homelessness, even among working families, would rise to levels unseen since the Great Depression.
Food Insecurity and Malnutrition: The elimination of school meal programs and other food assistance means millions of children would go hungry, impairing their health and cognitive development, leading to a generational decline in productivity and innovation.
2. The Collapse of State and Local Governments
Underfunded Schools, Roads, and Emergency Services: Without federal support, states would be forced to cut public education, infrastructure maintenance, and emergency services. Rural areas and small towns, already underfunded, would suffer the most.
Increased Property Taxes and Local Fees: To make up for lost funding, local governments would raise taxes on residents, while also selling off public assets (water, power, transportation) to private corporations that would raise prices further.
Privatization of Public Safety: Fire and police departments would see budget cuts, leading to more reliance on private security forces, worsening inequality in safety and justice.
3. Small Businesses and Family Farms Crushed
Corporate Trusts and Monopolies Dominate Markets: With major corporations consolidating into de facto trusts, small businesses would be driven out through predatory pricing, anti-competitive practices, and outright acquisitions.
Family Farms Disappear: Without subsidies or fair market protections, corporate agribusinesses would absorb independent farms, turning them into low-wage labor camps and erasing the tradition of family farming.
Worker Exploitation and Near-Slavery Conditions: Without worker protections, minimum wages, or bargaining rights, employees at Amazon-style corporate conglomerates would face long hours, dangerous conditions, and poverty wages—unable to leave or demand better treatment.
4. The Long-Term Consequences on National Security and Prosperity
Massive Wealth Inequality Becomes Permanent: As wages stagnate and worker rights disappear, a permanent class of working poor emerges, unable to accumulate savings or wealth. Social mobility dies.
Scientific Advancement Stalls: Without public research funding, major scientific progress in medicine, space exploration, and technology halts. Private corporations would control research, prioritizing profit over innovation.
The Death of the American Dream: Homeownership, small business creation, and higher education—once the pathways to success—would become luxuries reserved only for the elite. The majority of Americans would be locked in permanent economic servitude.
5. The Environmental Apocalypse: Unchecked Disasters and Toxic Air & Water
Oil Spills and Industrial Accidents Go Unchecked: With environmental regulations stripped away, companies cut safety measures to maximize profits. Massive oil spills, chemical leaks, and groundwater contamination events would devastate ecosystems and public health.
Extreme Weather and Climate Change Acceleration: With no federal action on climate change, the country would see more devastating hurricanes, wildfires, and floods, displacing millions and collapsing economies in vulnerable regions.
Air and Water Pollution Hits Unprecedented Levels: Cities would be choked with smog, rivers poisoned, and drinking water contaminated—as corporate interests deregulate themselves into maximizing short-term profit at the expense of public health.
6. The Hidden Military Costs: A Looming and Unseen Burden
Massive Military Spending Continues, but Social Services Are Cut: While education, healthcare, and public infrastructure budgets shrink to nothing, military spending remains untouched—siphoning trillions into private defense contractors.
Private Military Forces Replace Public Defense: With a deregulated defense industry, private military companies would increasingly be used for domestic policing and corporate interests, rather than national defense.
Endless Wars and Foreign Conflicts: The United States, driven by defense contractor profits, remains perpetually engaged in foreign wars, sending young people to fight while their own families suffer economic ruin at home.
Final Conclusion: The Death of American Prosperity
If every recommendation in this document were enacted, the United States would revert to a corporate-controlled, oligarchic society where a handful of elites control nearly all wealth and resources. The vast majority of Americans would experience financial hardship, lack of healthcare, no worker protections, environmental devastation, and political powerlessness.
America’s promise—the belief that hard work leads to success—would become a cruel myth, reserved only for the ultra-wealthy.
Part 2
Part 2
If every single recommendation in the document were passed and implemented, the consequences would be catastrophic for individuals, families, states, local governments, small businesses, farms, and the long-term security, prosperity, and advancement of the United States. Below is a detailed extrapolation of the worst-case scenario across these dimensions, including the environmental, military, and societal impacts:
---
1. Individuals and Families
- Increased Financial Strain:
- The repeal of deductions like SALT, medical expenses, and student loan interest would increase tax burdens on middle- and lower-income families, reducing disposable income.
- Cuts to social safety nets (e.g., Medicaid, SNAP, Social Security) would leave vulnerable populations—children, the elderly, and the disabled—without essential support.
- Families would face higher healthcare costs due to the repeal of ACA subsidies, Medicare reforms, and reduced Medicaid funding.
- Food Insecurity:
- Reforms to SNAP and school meal programs would lead to increased hunger and malnutrition, particularly among children and low-income families.
- Housing Instability:
- The elimination of the mortgage interest deduction and cuts to housing assistance programs would make homeownership and rental housing less affordable, exacerbating homelessness and housing insecurity.
- Education and Opportunity:
- Cuts to Pell Grants, student loan forgiveness programs, and public education funding would limit access to higher education and job training, trapping individuals in low-wage jobs with no upward mobility.
---
2. States and Local Governments
- Revenue Shortfalls:
- The repeal of the SALT deduction would increase the tax burden on residents of high-tax states, forcing states to either raise taxes or cut services.
- Cuts to federal funding for Medicaid, infrastructure, and education would strain state and local budgets, leading to reduced public services.
- Service Cuts:
- States and localities would be forced to cut funding for schools, public safety, healthcare, and infrastructure, leading to deteriorating quality of life and economic decline.
- Economic Inequality:
- Wealthy states with robust tax bases might weather the cuts better, while poorer states would face deepening inequality and reduced capacity to provide essential services.
---
3. Small Businesses and Farms
- Increased Costs:
- The repeal of tax credits and deductions (e.g., R&D expensing, small business health insurance credits) would raise costs for small businesses and farms, reducing their competitiveness.
- Cuts to agricultural subsidies and rural development programs would harm small farms, particularly in already struggling rural areas.
- Reduced Access to Capital:
- Changes to banking regulations and the elimination of programs like the Community Reinvestment Act would limit access to credit for small businesses and farms, stifling growth and innovation.
- Market Consolidation:
- The continued consolidation of major corporations into de facto trusts would squeeze small businesses out of the market, reducing competition and consumer choice.
---
4. Long-Term Security, Prosperity, and Wealth Creation
- Economic Inequality:
- Tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, combined with cuts to social programs, would exacerbate income and wealth inequality, creating a society where opportunity is concentrated among the elite.
- Stagnant Wages:
- The erosion of workers' rights and the rise of corporate monopolies would lead to stagnant wages and poor working conditions, with little opportunity for upward mobility.
- Retirement Insecurity:
- Cuts to Social Security and Medicare would leave millions of Americans without a secure retirement, forcing them to work longer or rely on inadequate savings.
---
5. Scientific and Social Advancement
- Reduced Funding for Research:
- Cuts to federal funding for scientific research (e.g., NIH, NSF, DOE) would stifle innovation, slowing progress in medicine, technology, and environmental science.
- Brain Drain:
- The elimination of scholarships, fellowships, and student loan forgiveness programs would discourage talented individuals from pursuing higher education and research careers.
- Environmental Degradation:
- The repeal of environmental regulations and clean energy incentives would lead to increased pollution, climate change, and public health crises, undermining long-term sustainability.
---
6. Environmental Impacts
- Increased Pollution:
- The repeal of emissions standards, clean water protections, and renewable energy incentives would lead to higher levels of air and water pollution, harming public health and ecosystems.
- Climate Change:
- The retreat from climate initiatives would accelerate global warming, leading to more frequent and severe natural disasters, rising sea levels, and economic disruption.
- Resource Depletion:
- The expansion of fossil fuel extraction and deregulation of resource use would lead to overexploitation of natural resources, threatening long-term environmental and economic stability.
---
7. Military and Invisible Costs
- Increased Militarization:
- While the document does not explicitly address military spending, the invisible costs of militarization—such as the diversion of resources from social programs and the environmental impact of military operations—would pervade every aspect of society.
- Economic Distortion:
- The prioritization of military spending over domestic needs would distort the economy, diverting resources away from infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
- Global Instability:
- A focus on military solutions over diplomacy and development would increase global tensions and conflict, undermining long-term security.
---
8. Consolidation of Corporations and Erosion of Workers' Rights
- Corporate Monopolies:
- The continued consolidation of major corporations into de facto trusts would reduce competition, leading to higher prices, lower quality, and fewer choices for consumers.
- Erosion of Workers' Rights:
- The elimination of labor protections, the rise of at-will employment, and the weakening of unions would reduce workers to near-slavery conditions, with little job security, benefits, or opportunity for advancement.
- Economic Exploitation:
- Workers would be forced to accept low wages, long hours, and unsafe conditions, with no recourse for grievances or collective bargaining.
---
9. Societal Collapse
- Social Unrest:
- The combination of economic inequality, environmental degradation, and the erosion of workers' rights would lead to widespread social unrest, with protests, strikes, and potential violence.
- Loss of Trust in Institutions:
- The failure of government and corporations to address the needs of the people would lead to a loss of trust in institutions, undermining democracy and social cohesion.
- Decline of the Middle Class:
- The middle class would shrink or disappear, leaving a society divided between a wealthy elite and a struggling majority.
---
Conclusion
If every recommendation in the document were implemented, the United States would face a worst-case scenario of economic inequality, environmental degradation, social unrest, and the erosion of democracy. The consolidation of corporate power and the dismantling of workers' rights would reduce millions to near-slavery conditions, with little opportunity for upward mobility. The invisible costs of militarization and the retreat from environmental protections would further undermine long-term security and prosperity. This dystopian future would represent a betrayal of the American dream, leaving future generations to grapple with the consequences of short-sighted and cruel policies.
Part 3
Part 3
It's a sobering exercise to consider the far-reaching consequences if every single recommendation in that document were enacted. Let's extrapolate the worst-case scenario across various aspects of American society:
1. Individuals and Families:
Economic Devastation:
Increased tax burden on middle-class and low-income families due to the repeal of SALT and other deductions.
Cuts to social programs (TANF, SSI) lead to increased poverty, hunger, and homelessness.1
Higher healthcare costs due to reduced subsidies and potential loss of coverage, leading to medical debt and bankruptcies.
Social Breakdown:
Increased inequality and social unrest due to the widening gap between the rich and poor.
Limited access to education and opportunities for social mobility, perpetuating cycles of poverty.2
Increased stress and mental health issues due to financial hardship and lack of social support.3
2. States and Local Governments:
Fiscal Crisis:
Reduced federal funding for programs like Medicaid and Social Services Block Grants, forcing states to cut essential services or raise taxes.4
This leads to deterioration of infrastructure, underfunded schools, and inadequate public services.
Increased strain on local governments to provide support for struggling populations.
3. Small Businesses:
Economic Hardship:
Reduced consumer spending due to increased financial strain on families, leading to decreased revenue for small businesses.
Increased difficulty in accessing capital and competing with larger corporations.
Potential for increased business closures and job losses.
4. Farms:
Vulnerability:
Cuts to agricultural subsidies and support programs could harm family farms, increasing their vulnerability to market fluctuations and consolidation.5
Environmental deregulation could harm soil and water quality, affecting farm productivity.
5. Long-Term Security, Prosperity, Personal Wealth Creation:
Economic Stagnation:
Reduced investment in education, infrastructure, and clean energy hinders long-term economic growth and innovation.
Increased inequality and social instability create an unfavorable environment for economic activity.
Weakened consumer demand and reduced purchasing power stifle economic growth.
Reduced Wealth Creation:
Policies that favor the wealthy and corporations at the expense of workers and families concentrate wealth at the top, limiting opportunities for personal wealth creation for the majority of the population.
Limited access to education and affordable healthcare further restricts economic opportunities.6
6. Scientific and Social Advancement:
Innovation Stifled:
Cuts to research funding and the repeal of green energy tax credits hinder scientific and technological advancement.7
Reduced access to education and opportunities for intellectual development limit the potential for social progress.8
Social Regression:
Increased inequality and social unrest create divisions and undermine social cohesion.9
Attacks on civil rights and social programs erode social progress and create a less just society.10
7. Continued Consolidation of Major Corporations:
Monopolistic Power:
Weakened antitrust enforcement and deregulation allow major corporations to consolidate into defacto trusts, giving them excessive market power.
This leads to higher prices, reduced consumer choice, and stifled innovation.
Worker Exploitation:
Weakened worker protections and the decline of unions empower corporations to exploit workers, leading to:
Lower wages.
Reduced benefits.
Unsafe working conditions.
Limited opportunities for advancement.
Workers become increasingly vulnerable and have little power to negotiate for better conditions, approaching a state of near-slavery.
8. Environmental Impacts:
Ecological Disaster:
Shortsighted retreats from environmental protections lead to increased pollution of air and water.
Climate change accelerates, leading to more frequent and severe extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and ecological damage.
Reduced investment in clean energy infrastructure perpetuates reliance on fossil fuels.
Health Crisis:
Increased pollution and environmental hazards lead to a public health crisis, with rising rates of respiratory illnesses, cancer, and other health problems.
9. The Almost Invisible Costs Associated with the Military:
Resource Drain:
While not always directly visible in the document, the vast military budget pervades everything.
Resources that could be invested in education, healthcare, infrastructure, and other social needs are diverted to military spending.
This creates an opportunity cost, where the potential benefits of these alternative uses are foregone.
Global Instability:
An overemphasis on military spending can contribute to global instability and conflict, creating a less secure world.11
In Summary:
If all the recommendations in the document were implemented, the worst-case scenario would be a dystopian future characterized by:
Economic collapse.
Social breakdown.
Environmental devastation.
Extreme inequality.
Erosion of basic freedoms.
A society where the wealthy thrive at the expense of everyone else.
It's a scenario where the promise of the American Dream becomes a distant memory for the vast majority of citizens.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse