Thank you for the opportunity to present our ideas to the Republican Tax Teams. I urge you to go beyond electioneering with this exercise. While it could be used should the party retain the House and retake the Senate to design a purely partisan tax bill, possibly even an extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, I urge you to develop a position that can lead to bipartisan compromise. This is essential for passage of any permanent tax policy in the next Congress, especially if the Democrats are the majority party at that time. The scenario for how this can and likely will happen is contained in the final attachment.
Offering realistic proposals, rather than those based on the usual bad economic theory that mistakes the funding of speculation through tax cuts for investment in plant and equipment - which only comes from household consumption stimulated by government and contractor salaries, transfer payments and from second order private sector spending and government purchases. Regardless of ideology, these are the determinants which define what economic growth is under the law. Anything else is considered savings/speculation and will never be counted as or lead to economic growth - again, by definition.
Attachment - GOP Prospects in November and beyond
The reality is that in many states, Democrats are winning the money race. The sad reality is that too many Republican members were involved in both the 2018 Protect the House PAC which was funded by Messrs. Fruman and Parnas and that this funding was likely part of a quid pro quo regarding favorable treatment of Russia by then President Trump, with support for Trump’s attempts to retain power related to this fund. Had the fund never been created, all of the support of Russia over Ukraine was an official act.
If there is evidence that a quid pro quo existed, or if there is a provable link between the effort to disrupt the vote count with violence and to reject the electoral votes submitted, it will be revealed with the publication of the evidence in Mr. Trump’s upcoming trial sometime this month, unless Trump’s counsel comes up with a better set of strategies to suppress publication, say to not contaminate the jury pool, than his usual petulant responses.
Should Mr. Trump make a deal in this case, the evidence will be suppressed for now, although it may eventually come out in the trials of any co-conspirators, especially those who were members of the Congress in 2021. Any such evidence that is released will likely be used by the other party in campaign materials. That Mr. Trump’s co-conspirators followed procedures to not link the legislative side and the riot is as likely as the result of the overall scheme working.
Even if the electoral votes submitted were disallowed on January 7th, the Twelfth Amendment specifies that the electoral vote majority be determined by the total votes retained, not the constitutional allocation. The geniuses who planned the entire effort misread the Amendment. There was never going to be a state-based count and had the disputed votes been removed, President Biden still had a majority of the remainder.
Had the efforts to breach the Speaker’s Lobby succeeded and the Oath Keepers stack joined the fight, whatever their plan to convince members to vote according to Trump’s wishes and prevent those who would not from participating in the count - such as the Democratic majority - the rule of law would have still held, as no civil servant, military officer or federal judge or justice would have accepted such a tragic farce.
To drive this point home, the faulty legal reasoning employed in the plot was likely carried over in any effort to assure deniability of the political and violent sides or prevent the evidence of such a conspiracy from coming out in the present moment,
Again, I urge you to make the results of this exercise as bipartisan as possible - to build in common points that demand respect, even if the Republicans lose the majority in the same way as they did in 1974. Even if the election leads to a bicameral Republican majority, Jack Smith will take action that will force the Ethics Committee to act accordingly in a way that may change the majority, or at least its flavor in the wake of any special elections to replace members.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home