With today’s Michael Flynn admission of lying to the FBI and willingness to cooperate with the investigation, suddenly this audio recording of Martha McSally is again relevant. In it, you can hear her say “it’s time to move on” after Flynn’s ouster. (Heaven forbid we actually look for wrongdoing.) Let’s hope Mueller is on it… Thanks to Connor Welton for sharing this recording with us!
Martha McSally endorses the tax bill, but does she know what’s in it?
Martha McSally was a teenager attending an all-girls Catholic school when Ronald Reagan first took office. The politics of that time had such an impact on her that 30 years later, she described her own political mission as “continuing the tradition of true Reagan conservatism.”
So maybe it’s nostalgia for the Reagan era that explains her current enthusiasm for the Republican tax cut bill. Certainly the Trump administration is relying heavily on ‘80s-era talking points, with chief economic adviser Gary Cohn literally referring to its “trickle-down” effect, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin trotting out the old canard that a big tax cut will “pay for itself” and “reduce the deficit.”
There are a number of problems with this sales pitch. First off, we’ve had 30-plus years of experience to teach us that “trickle-down” economic theory doesn’t work. Tax cuts for the wealthy don’t accelerate growth; or create jobs; or raise wages; or spur investment; or pay for themselves.
Second, Reagan wouldn’t recognize this bill. Consider the stark differences between the 1986 tax reform and 2017’s bill:
- 1986’s bill was “revenue neutral,” whereas the current bill would increase deficits by 1.5 trillion over the next ten years.
- 1986’s bill was the result of two years of protracted, bipartisan negotiations; Republicans are trying to rush the current bill through in less than 2 months, on a party-line vote.
- 1986’s bill was an across-the-board tax cut, which paid for corporate tax cuts by eliminating tax loopholes. The current House bill is targeted overwhelmingly toward the wealthy; half of its benefits would flow to the top 1%, and those tax cuts would be paid for by raising taxes on 28% of Americans.
It’s not clear whether McSally understands how wildly this bill veers away from “true Reagan conservatism.” At this point, based on her public statements, it’s not clear she knows what’s in the bill at all:
- She claims that a typical family of 4 earning $59,000 would see a tax cut of $1182 “every year.” This is false, as Politifact explains: that amount is only for the first year, and is reduced annually, until by 2024 it’s a tax increase of $500.
- She claims that the bill eliminates loopholes. In fact, as Bloomberg Politics points out, it is “littered with loopholes,” including a tax break for golf course owners.
- She claims it would simplify the tax code, but the chief of staff of the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation just testified that it would add more complications and require new rules – “almost certainly” a new book’s worth.
- She claims it will help families pay for college, when in reality it adds $71 billion in costs to college students and their families over the next decade.
- She claims it will help families pay for health care, but it actually eliminates the deduction for medical expenses – particularly important for people with serious health issues, and those in nursing homes.
- She spotlights a proposed benefit to small business owners, but that’s misleading. Josh Barro of Business Insider explains that “what is advertised as a tax break for ‘small business’ is actually a proposal to create a tax preference for wealthy people like Donald Trump.”
- She complains about jobs being sent overseas, apparently unaware that the bill contains incentives for corporations to offshore jobs.
- She boasts about the child tax credit; does she know that at least 40% of Arizona’s working families would not be able to claim the full $600 credit? “The poorest children… qualify for only a very small CTC or none at all.”
For more information on how the bill would impact Arizonans, click here.
To contact Rep. McSally with your thoughts on her vote:
(520) 881-3588 in Tucson
(520) 459-3115 in Sierra Vista
Fax: (520) 322-9490
4400 E. Broadway Blvd. Suite 510
Tucson, AZ 85711
77 Calle Portal Suite B-160
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
By Carol Fiore
I have always looked up—at clouds, at birds, at airplanes. I climb to the tops of hills and hotels and relish the feeling of being high, embracing the world below. As a child, my most prized possession was a cheap, vinyl bag with the words Pan Am emblazoned on the side—a reminder of an adventure in the sky.
When I was 13, I saw a documentary about Amelia Earhart. While everyone else was enthralled with the mystery surrounding her disappearance, I was drawn to her freckles, and her quick smile, and her eyes that screamed, “Flying is the most amazing thing you could ever do.” That was the day I began my journey to the sky.
I was determined to become a pilot.
Along the way there were many obstacles—beginning with my parents. “Be a stewardess,” they advised. “That’s a proper career for a girl.” When I persisted in reading aviation books and “wasting” my money on airplane models, my mother became nasty. “Only rich kids fly airplanes.”
Fact-check: McSally on the Tax Bill
On the same day House Republicans unveiled their new tax cut proposal, Martha McSally indicated her enthusiastic support, both in an official statement and a flurry of tweets.
How enthusiastic? Unlike with the health care bill, she managed to refrain from using f-bombs. But it’s clear she’s all in.
That’s not a surprise. McSally is hugely dependent for her campaign financing on House Speaker Paul Ryan and his political ally, New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer; it was a given they’d have her support on this, their top legislative priority.
Why are they so eager? It’s no mystery; the bill was written to benefit the donor class. Here’s a partial list of the bill’s provisions which impact mainly the wealthy and corporations, and the amount each would cost the Treasury over the next decade:
We started this Change.org campaign to ask the Editors of “Cosmopolitan” Magazine to:
“Tell your readers the truth about Martha McSally
Helen Gurley Brown, the long-time editor of “Cosmopolitan,” famously transformed it from a staid family magazine to a frank (sometimes brazen) advice manual for the modern, single career woman.
In 2014, then-editor Joanna Coles expanded Cosmo’s scope to politics, “researching political candidates so you don’t have to.” She announced that only politicians who support the best interests of Cosmo readers (including equal pay, access to abortion, gun control and affordable health care) would receive the magazine’s endorsement.
Based on that criteria, the only way you’d expect to see Rep. Martha McSally featured on the Cosmo’s web site is in a big red warning to steer clear. McSally has a long track record of opposing the very policies that Cosmo says are deal-breakers:
THE CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP FUND
Who runs it?
Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, and his hand-picked team (Executive Director Cory Bliss and Finance Director Mason Fink).
If you’re asking yourself, how can Martha McSally be an independent voice representing Southern Arizona, when the Speaker of the House is a major contributor to her campaign? — the answer is, she can’t. Ryan keeps her on a very short leash.
On June 30th, 2015 Martha McSally held her last advertised, open to the public event in Tucson at her office.
Rep. Martha McSally’s constituents have been calling her office repeatedly, imploring her to speak out and condemn the horrific acts of domestic violence visited on Charlottesville, VA this weekend by Neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
Her response: total silence.
Where is the woman who promised, over and over, she’d be “an independent voice” for Southern Arizonans?
Where is the woman who insisted she could provide leadership in Washington, D.C.?
Of the 30 members of the House Homeland Security Committee, only 4 have refused to condemn the despicable acts of terrorism visited on Charlottesville by Neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Three of the holdouts, unsurprisingly, come from safe red districts in the former Confederate South. Mike Rogers (AL), Clay Higgins (LA), John Rutherford (FL).
The last is Martha McSally.
Her timidity is inexplicable at a time when Americans across the nation are reacting with alarm to the surge of white supremacist attacks in recent months. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security issued a report in May warning of the increasing threat. Brutal hate crimes have claimed the lives of victims in Oregon, Maryland, New York, Kansas, California, and now Virginia. Through it all, McSally has stayed silent.
More than a third of her constituents are ethnic minorities, and the SPLC has identified two hate groups inside her district. And of course, Charlottesville showed us that hate groups are more than willing to travel far from home to demonize and terrorize innocent people.
Who’s going to stand up and fight for us? How can McSally claim to be an effective leader in combating a threat she won’t even acknowledge?
It’s long past time for her to step up – or step down.
McSally Dodges On Internet Privacy
It’s a challenge to get Rep. Martha McSally to answer questions about where she stands on important issues. But when we do get an answer, and it turns out to be no answer at all, then its easy to understand Southern Arizona voters’ growing frustration with her.
Take for example her vote to overturn Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations on internet privacy. This spring, McSally joined other Republicans in Congress to approve a bill that lets internet service providers such as Comcast, Cox, and Verizon gather highly personal information from you without your permission. That info includes what web pages you visit, what apps you use, and information about your finances. The companies can then use that data to bombard you with targeted ads, or they can sell the information to marketers, financial firms, and data brokers. The Center for Digital Democracy says the law means, “Americans will never be safe online from having their most personal details stealthily scrutinized and sold to the highest bidder.”When our fellow constituents wrote McSally for an explanation, it took over three months to get a reply. In the letter, McSally explained that her vote to gut internet privacy was actually an effort to protect the privacy of consumers. How did she explain that contradiction? McSally wrote that regulating online privacy belonged to a different agency, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and she didn’t want to interfere with that.