Pizzuto

CBO score: Comprehensive Tax Reform Act What are the talking points of this budget: 1) A huge decrease in folks who will itemize deductions. Projections are we could see as many as 30 million fewer filers will be filing itemized. 2) Slight increase in % of revenue that will be paid by the "rich" because of the lowest income tax bracket. On a macro level the poor like this a lot, but conservatives are very concerned that this bill will actually move the electorate to the left. Why? Because, without these folks having skin the game, fewer people are going to care where taxes come from, and what they go to. Why? Because it isn't their money being wasted anymore. 3) Corporations are ecstatic in some ways. The net result here will be strong economic growth as businesses expand, businesses come back home, and more people become employed. It would NOT be fair to say the growth will necessarily compensate for lost revenue, but projections say it is very likely that it will happen within the next decade. However, the income gap will increase as more of the money rises to the top. So while growth will help everyone (there's little doubt there), it WILL help those at the top disproportionately. 4) Corporations are pissed in other ways. Corporations are nervous about trade wars and taxes used against other nations (read: which become a burden on multi-nationals), because they don't like any unpredictability and instability. Section 8 is a big curve-ball in that way. It is hard to know which nations will be pressured to change their policy, which nations will retaliate, and which nations will simply be unmotivated to change at all. Lastly, to the degree ANY taxes are taken at all, the general consumer will see an increase in prices. We expect that prices will increase in some tangible way. Impossible to say how much, but it will be a noticeable amount for very little benefit in terms of corporations changing behavior and bringing jobs back to America. The great deal of growth will come from the tax bracket change. Lastly, Section 10 has corporations irate. Outsourcing is how companies expand and keep prices low, so expect to see growth (which should be solid) hampered by this section, and prices to rise on a whole host of good for the American people. 5) Section 6 is very popular, will bring in some change into the government coffers and there is very little to no downside. 6) The gist is this: -Economic growth should increase -The gap between rich and poor will grow -Everyday Americans will be happy about increase in jobs, generally lower taxes for the working class, and all the things that come with solid growth; they will be very upset at the increase in prices. -Many businesses will be motivated to bring their plants back to America, though they will do it very begrudgingly. The bill COULD have been a huge boon for corporate America and their special interests, but unfortunately this will be seen as a smaller win because of the tax rates. Wall St. will call this a missed opportunity. -At THIS point, pre-spin, this bill will be seen generally as a net positive. Aggressively good in many ways, unnecessarily bad in other ways, but the growth from the bill at this point eeks out as a net positive. Republicans would be wise to spin: Lowest tax bracket rate, increased economic growth (including lower unemployment), repatriation section, Democrats would be wise to spin: Higher consumer prices, higher wealth gap between rich and poor, possibility for trade wars and instability in world reaction to section 8, mega-corporations not paying their fair share

Hi guys, I will be working on the latest CBO request for the economic bill hitting Congress. Given the nature of what is being asked and how long it usually takes a typical CBO to grade something this vast, I'm considering an alternate grading style that focuses more on broad brush strokes and gives you guys enough ammo to have a political debate, without getting bogged down in hyper-specific numbers and decimal points. Before I do that, I want to run this idea by my fellow admins. If they like the idea, I will give the current bill requested my "new" score. If a wide cross section of players don't like it (the style, not the score), then Ill go back to the old way, though I think it's inferior for the system we run. I'm hoping to hear back from folks in the next day or so and I'll have my score after I hear back. If you have concerns you can obviously IM me on Telegram. Thanks for your patience. If this new style works it should help you get scores back faster with most of the brushstrokes you need to make decisions for your character.

Ok guys, So, you can buy affinity points at a 4:1 ratio game points to affinity points. This means that that for every 4 points you do NOT spent, you get to add 1 point to an affinity rating for your party of any demographic. We round down.

The debate here wasn't much of a debate and that is owed mostly to Republicans not fully engaging the fight. Rep. Nicholson fires the first shot, and it was a solid shot in terms of laying groundwork for further argumentation. However, he is met with two Democratic responses that do an excellent job refuting both the facts and the philosophy (the eminient domain argument was particularly interesting to libertarians with no alternative argument presented by the GOP). Had Nicholson responded I imagine he could have laid out his case and fought this to a draw. Had his party backed up his play, they very well could have made a realistic case for their position. As it was, however, the general trend here is that the public feels that supporting this legislation is the wrong thing for their Congressman and Senator to do. It is always hard to quantify how much any single debate moves the needle, but it is fair to say that changing the general will has to start somewhere, and one-sided debates like this are doing so for this legislation. This debate was a big win for the DNC and if I were the GOP I wouldn't minimize or discount debate. It IS important, and it is important not only in the cumulative, but issue by issue.

Reuters 60 Minutes Around the Globe: Europe -Teresa May ousted by Tory Party during Brexit row. May's "my-way-or-the-highway" soft Brexit split the Conservative party in two. May's plan was the softest of soft Brexits that was characterized by some as the "total, and utter, selling out of Britain to the EU". While the EU simply threw their hands up, with a smirk for those paying attention, the Conservatives rallied around Boris Johnson and his new right hand man, Jacob Rees-Mogg. Much to the dismay of Remainers a VERY hard Brexit appears to be in the office and public support seems to be building for it...even if some of the support is simply from the "get-this-silliness-over-with-already" crowd. -Italy appears to be on the ropes financially and culturally as mass migration appears to show no end in sight. Lots of popularity for what may be a populist leaning coalition between the League and the Five Star Movement. England first, is Italy next? -Finland begins debate on joining NATO, and starts talk about a Scandinavian Regional Alliance. Asia -Kim Jong-Un, who reality TV star Donald Trump calls, "The Fat Freak", has authorized increased nuclear testing near Japan. -17-year-old boy is at the center of a diplomatic row over Australian deportations of New Zealanders on “character” grounds, with reports of separated families, prolonged detentions and mistreatment of minors. -European Union leaders are in Tokyo signing the group's largest free-trade agreement ever, removing tariffs to boost economic growth and job creation. Mr. Abe also gets Japanese firms back onto a more equal footing in Europe with their rivals from South Korea, who have had the benefit of a free-trade deal with the EU since 2015. Mexico -Pemex discovers 2nd largest shale reserve in history, just behind China, just waiting to be tapped. -2 years out, Yeidckol Polevnsky Gurwitz appears to be frontrunner to be next Mexican President. -Sinaloa Cartel completely in control of the Mexican state of Sonora.

Here is how this will work, and please note that each round both parties will act Round 1: Each choice will impact affinity ratings, in a blanket way, for each player in the DNC and GOP. GOP- President will narrow their SCOTUS choice down the 3 individuals. They will then take their nominee to 5 Senators of their choice to determine their commitment to ensuring consent. DNC- Will choose general strategy from a list of choices only they will see at first, but that will be posted upon giving me their choice. Each choice has a point value associated with it. Admin- Will give a momentum update regarding public will and popularity. Round 2: Each choice will impact affinity ratings, in a blanket way, for each player in the DNC and GOP. GOP- President will select one individual to nominate and choose their general strategy from a list of choices only they will see at first, but that will be posted upon giving me their choice. Each choice has a point value associated with it. DNC- Will choose their Senate procedural strategy from a list of choices only they will see at first, but that will be posted upon giving me their choice. Each choice has a point value associated with it. They will also consult 5 Senators of their choice to determine their commitment to voting to confirm, or not. Admin- Will give a momentum update regarding public will and popularity based on Round 1 choices. Round 3: Each choice will impact affinity ratings, in a blanket way, for each player in the DNC and GOP. GOP- Will choose pressure strategy to ensure passage from a list of choices only they will see at first, but that will be posted upon giving me their choice. Each choice has a point value associated with it. DNC- Will choose pressure strategy to ensure passage from a list of choices only they will see at first, but that will be posted upon giving me their choice. Each choice has a point value associated with it. Admin- Will give a momentum update regarding public will and popularity based on Round 2 choices. Round 4: Each choice will impact affinity ratings, in a blanket way, for each player in the DNC and GOP. GOP- Will choose question strategy to be used during hearings from a list of choices only they will see at first, but that will be posted upon giving me their choice. Each choice has a point value associated with it. DNC- Will choose question strategy to be used during hearings from a list of choices only they will see at first, but that will be posted upon giving me their choice. Each choice has a point value associated with it. Admin- Will give a momentum update regarding public will and popularity based on Round 3 choices. Round 5: Each choice will impact affinity ratings, in a blanket way, for each player in the DNC and GOP. GOP- Will decide on one last pressure strategy with, GOP Senators, to ensure consent, from a list of choices only they will see at first, but that will be posted upon giving me their choice. Each choice has a point value associated with it. DNC- Will decide on one last pressure strategy with, DNC Senators, to ensure consent, from a list of choices only they will see at first, but that will be posted upon giving me their choice. Each choice has a point value associated with it Admin- Will tally Senate votes and alert the players about confirmation. Any left over points will be given to the party to apply to affinity ratings So what exactly is happening here: -The GOP is deciding how controversial their nominee is going to be, and what tactics they want to use to get this person over the finish line. This will impact how many points they probably have to spend to get their nominee over the hump, and it will determine how the public views their process for filling the vacancy. The less controversial the choice, the more points will probably be left over to add to their affinity rating. In other words, if you go along to get along, people will see you as being able to govern and your affinity rating will be higher due to left over points.....but watch out for your base! -The DNC is deciding exactly how much they want to invest in either stopping this nominee, or letting this nominee pass. If they invest in stopping the nominee their base may be happy, but if the nominee is uncontroversial, it will not only use up tons of points, but could brand you as obstructionist. How will that play to the moderates?

Ok team, so the issue with the CBO report was that the source data I was using strangely had 2 different sets of numbers that varied wildly. I've decided to essentially combine the disparate numbers into something holistic while also using some common sense and secret sauce. The cost will stay the same, and this cost is YEARLY. But for the impact on GDP, rather than break it down by short and long term, and rather than put a %, I will instead put it as a dollar amount added to GDP for ease of use. Dynamic CBO Score for Working Class Tax Relief Act:  Section 2. Revenue lost per year: $127.44Bil  Positive impact on GDP: Year 1: $43.26Bil Year 2: $78.77Bil Year 3: $99.28Bil Year 4: $108.61Bil Year 5: $120.58Bil Year 6: $167.09Bil Year 7: $201.33Bil Year 8: $239.88Bil The gist here is that this section will be a net loser in the short term, but as that money sloshes around the private sector we do see some decent growth. Ill note that we could see numbers that come in much higher or lower than these numbers depending on what the economy overall does. That's how I'll sim and make some sense of the wild discrepancy in numbers I saw.

Dynamic CBO Score for Working Class Tax Relief Act: Section 2. Revenue lost: $127.44Bil Impact on short term GDP: 0% Impact on long term GDP: +.008% (in other words GDP will rise 8/100ths of a % because of this piece of legislation)

LilMac chooses NSA and Dep. Sec DHS. Sandra Leon at DHS; expert with gizmos some question her loyalty to LilMac. Wei-Tzu Lin at NSA; superduper smart, but also questions about whether he can fix years of broken beurocracy left over from Obama. GOP insiders fear he won't be strong enough to purge the Obamaites. We'll see. #teamset #LilMac

Official Twitter Account Foreign Policy Expert and Analyst

On occasion the admins will honor CBO scoring requests and give general feedback on bills that are passing or about the pass Congress. Sometimes these "scores" will be very specific in nature, and sometimes they will give broad brush strokes related to the potential ramifications of particular legislation. The admins do NOT have the resources to score every single piece of legislation, so please don't bombard us with requests. It may be good policy to let your party leadership make your request for you so they can pre-screen what is being asked to see if it really is of particular party value. Anyhow, results of requests will be posted here.

In general, for those that pay attention, corporate taxes are a pretty polarizing issue in America. Typically, Republicans are very supportive of low rates as an engine to economic success; typically Democrats see it as a tool to spread out prosperity and to take money from those who can afford it. Historically, Independents have evolved from the Dem. point of view, towards the Republican point of view- we know this because corp. tax rates have steadily fallen since the early 1900's, and that only happens if the decrease becomes a non-issue to a majority of Americans. This debate had the makings of a true philosophical argument between Rep. Vinick and Rep. Swanner. Leaving aside the "Trinkle-Trickle-Triangle" misstatements, the potential debate never happened in a true sense and it was a missed opportunity for both sides. Mr. Vinick could have absolutely mentioned how destabilizing it is to have such a top down economy, and while Mr. Swanner did mention the Reagan cuts, he didn't really make the philosophical case that I think could have moved the zeitgiest. Other party members chimed in, but not in a particularly bold or thoughtful way. That isn't to say it was meaningless, but at the end of the day what the folks back home want to know is: Why are YOU voting the way you're voting, and how is going to help YOUR district? Some of that is a practical argument, sure, and some of that is to reveal the philosophical underpinnings of what drives you in office. On that score, the folks-back-home didn't see as much of that as they hoped. Neither side won or lost this particular debate, but the general feeling is that the current trajectory towards smaller corp. taxes will continue.

Please see Bruce's note above about fluxuations in some character numbers this week. So one thing I'm going to try to accomplish this round is giving some targeted feedback with regard to how debate went on particular bills and Amendments. It's going to work like this: I'm going to read debate in Congress on particular bills. I'm going to try to come at the debate from the lens of both highly partisan and independent minded citizens and media. And once debate is over I'm going to try to give feedback on which side (or which member), was particularly convincing in the debate. Most of the time it's going to break down along party lines: "Democrats did a fantastic job providing the argument as to why this form of gun control is effective.", sometimes it's going to break down ideologically, "The populist fire breathing attacking corporate CEO salaries was unconvincing because it never addressed X", and sometimes I'll single out particular members of Congress, "Representative Pizzuto really led the charge on getting rid of Obamacare and laid out a pretty devastating case as to why it needs to happen." This will have a VERY small impact on general popular opinion. This will have a VERY small impact on how the Senate might view a particular issue. This will have a VERY small impact on, say, the popularity polls for a particular Representative. And before you ask, no, you can not ask me to comment on particular debates. I will choose them on my own without any player involvement because sometimes the zeitgiest picks up on things in a way that feels like it has little rhyme or reason (even if we all know better!).

Congress is open and the Speaker can gavel us in whenever they're ready.

Most definitely. Public polling support overall has risen 2% for current abortion laws since 2016. However, opposition against is solidifying, that is to say, fewer people are on the fence about it and the people against are REALLY against. Their main argument is that making it easy to have abortions means there are less Jews in Israel, which makes for concerns that eventually Arabs will outnumber Israelis in Israel, which they believe will be the death knell for a stable and "jewish" state. These are arguments are seen as highly alarmist as only 22% of Israel is made up of Arab citizens. Still, the fear persists.