The GOP tax plan does more damage than you think

Max Schulman | Opinion Editor | [email protected]

By Max Schulman, Opinion Editor

Dec 2, 2017

Senate Republicans just approved a package, with near unanimity, that does more harm and is more unpopular than any major legislative bill in modern American history.

The Trump tax plan was rushed through the Senate as ZBTennessee was winding down. Senators received a copy of the bill only five hours before the floor vote. The only people awake to see the vote were insomniacs and partying college students. When legislation isn’t good enough to be held up to the light in front of the American people, the right vote is not ‘yes.’

Because no one was able to comb through the bill, Republicans hid some wishlist items in the details. For instance, the bill repeals the Obamacare insurance mandate, rocketing up prices for consumers on the private market. All told, 13 million Americans are estimated to lose health coverage. That’s a tangible death toll: if one in every 1,000 people who lost health insurance died, 13,000 people would die. Among those may be my father, who is currently unemployed and suffering from Parkinson’s Disease.

This is all very bleak. But there’s still time to act.

There are other booby traps. The bill repeals a ban on drilling in Arctic Wildlife refuges. It allows rich bankers to hide their money in tax-free offshore bank accounts. It undemocratically expands the federal courts to allow Trump-appointed hacks to fill our judiciary.

This is all very bleak. But there’s still time to act. The Senate bill must be reconciled with the version that the House passed in mid-November before it makes it to the president’s desk. This means that our representatives must renegotiate the contents of the bill.

We have to utilize this time. Contact Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander and inform him of the personal damage he’s inflicting upon you by signing this bill. Send a sob story–humanize the 13 million victims. Call Tennessee Senator Bob Corker and congratulate him for breaking ranks with his party and voting against this bill. Ask him to keep fighting against the legislation.

If you care about the safety of wildlife, the independence of our courts, and the personal health of 13 million Americans, then you care about this bill. Make sure that your representatives know that you care. And if they don’t get the message then, let them hear it at the ballot box.

About the Contributor

Max Schulman, Former Opinion Editor

Max Schulman (‘21) majored in political science in the College of Arts and Science. He previously served as Opinion Editor and Editorial Director for The Hustler. In his spare time, Max enjoys prominently wearing Obama-themed apparel, reluctantly defending Kanye's Twitter and arguing about politics.

Comments (2)

The Vanderbilt Hustler welcomes and encourages readers to engage with content and express opinions through the comment sections on our website and social media platforms. The Hustler reserves the right to remove comments that contain vulgarity, hate speech, personal attacks or that appear to be spam, commercial promotion or impersonation. The comment sections are moderated by our Editor-in-Chief, Barrie Barto, and the rest of our editorial team. You can reach Barrie at [email protected].

Share your thoughts...

All The Vanderbilt Hustler picks Reader picks Sort: Newest

2 Comments

Newest

Oldest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Edward Crockett

7 years ago

This a very partisan opinion piece. The tax proposals are intended to benefit the economy and create jobs. If you have observed the stock market growth in value since the 2016 election you see evidence of confidence in the President’s proposals. It is hard to fathom the Left’s objections to tax simplification and particularly the lowering of the corporate tax rates. US corporate tax rates are higher than almost all the “Democratic Socialist” countries who seem to understand better the need to keep their corporations active and headquartered in their nations. People raise questions about the effective vs. actual tax rates. Why shouldn’t the tax code be simpler so both rates are the same? The tax code has seemed incapable of simplification because every one has their own sacred deductions. The universities certainly play a part in this. With the universities wanting tax subsidies for graduate students this begs the question what percentage of graduate students are American. Instead of waving tuition why doesn’t the university pay a decent wage? It’s complicated and the universities like many others profit from an unfathomablly complicated tax code.
The judiciary has in many circuits fallen into the hands of leftist activists who overstep their bounds in effect legislating their agendas and applying their rulings at the national level instead of the traditional boundaries of their circuits. So far the President’s Court appointees would appear to exemplary undeserving of your hack label. I am extremely proud to be a graduate of Vanderbilt but increasingly find the news out of Vanderbilt from a political perspective to be highly partisan and troubling. Certainly as an opinion editor it’s your job to share your opinion intelligently but I see the same partisan direction in the comments of the Chancellor. This drift to the partisan left is likely to cause a wane in support from traditional supporters of our great university.

Man with the Axe

Repealing the individual mandate does not deprive anyone of insurance. Rather, it allows each person to purchase insurance or not, without having to pay a tax for deciding not to buy it. If those 13 million people simply decide they would rather not buy insurance how is that harming anyone? It sounds more like a benefit than a detriment.

You claim that the bill “…undemocratically expands the federal courts to allow Trump-appointed hacks to fill our judiciary.” Take a look at the US Constitution. It grants Congress the power to constitute the inferior federal courts. The people don’t get to vote on that. I don’t know how you can call this process undemocratic when it is the way the number of judges has always been determined since 1789.