What does change in Washington mean for the change in your wallet? We’re about to find out! With April 18th still fresh in everyone’s minds, President Trump couldn’t have picked a better time to roll out his plan to slash taxes. Two weeks after the IRS took a big bite out of people’s wallets, the new administration is ready to sink its teeth into something else: the confusing tangle of the U.S. tax code.

For years, conservatives have wanted to tame the complicated system weighing down Americans — and with Republicans at the wheel, the Trump team will get a crack at doing exactly that. Wednesday, the White House got the conversation rolling with a simple one-page plan of the president’s vision for taking some of the sting out of the process. At a press conference headlined by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, the duo warned, “This isn’t going to be easy. Doing big things never is. We will be attacked from the Left, and we’ll be attacked from the right, but one thing is certain: I would never, ever bet against this president. He will get this done for the American people.”

For families, the relief can’t come soon enough. After eight punishing years under Barack Obama, Americans are ready to recoup some of their losses. Under the Trump proposal, they’d have the opportunity to do that, thanks to a streamlined system that shrinks the number of tax brackets from seven to three: 10 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent (down from 39.6 percent now). “The change would raise the deduction for couples from $12,700 to approximately $24,000 and raise the deduction for single filers from $6,300 to $12,600,” analysts explain. That’s a great development, since, as Cohn explains, it means a “married couple will not have to pay taxes on the first $24,000 it earns.”

Conservatives also had plenty to cheer in the child tax credit, which has been a consistent theme of this team since the campaign. Although details are vague, it’s obvious that this administration cares about giving parents the flexibility to decide what’s best for their children. The Obama economy has made it very difficult for parents, both for their finances and their ability to start and raise a family. Trump’s plan recognizes the importance of the family in society and the importance of children to future economic growth. Letting parents keep more of what they earn to provide for their kids’ well-being makes immediate and long-term sense.

Another high point of the plan is that it kills the death tax. Thanks to President Obama, the tax code never says die — even when the person it’s taxing does. When President Bush was in office, Americans got temporary relief from estate taxes like this one. That all changed under the Democrats’ control, and families with small businesses in particular paid the price. Even now, the government continues to take a slice of the money, income, or property when it’s transferred from a deceased family member to the beneficiary.

It’s especially outrageous when you consider that this is money that’s already been taxed when it’s earned! And while the Left is fond of saying the death tax only affects the rich, the reality is that family farms, ranches, and small businesses are hit hardest. If a family doesn’t have the means to pay the death tax on a family farm or business, they’re sometimes forced to sell a portion — if not all — of their estate in order to comply. In the words of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA), that’s “morally wrong.” So is the 3.8 percent tax on some investment income that was introduced as part of Obamacare, another target of Trump’s plan.

Both the GOP blueprint and Trump’s call for eliminating all individual deductions — except when it comes to charitable giving, mortgage interest and retirement savings. From a business perspective, companies will be glad to know that the corporate tax rate would drop to 15 percent, which would be a major change from the whopping 35 percent companies pay now.

Although there are plenty of particulars to iron out, White House officials were clear: “We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do something really big.” And House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) seemed to agree, telling reporters this outline would “serve as critical guideposts from Congress and the administration as we work together.” The last major tax overhaul was more than 30 years ago in 1986. Taxpayers are due — in more ways than one!

(Originally published here.)

A Split End for the Ninth Circuit?

Donald Trump is rarely at a loss for words. And the controversy over this week’s Ninth Circuit ruling was no exception. Astonished that Judge (and Obama shill) William Orrick put the brakes on an order that would force sanctuary cities to comply with the law regarding illegal immigration, the president and his team vowed to fight on — in more ways than one. Maybe, as Republicans have argued before, it’s time to split up the Ninth Circuit Court. Apart from being the most overturned bench in America (close to 80 percent of the time), the court is unabashedly liberal. And with a higher caseload than its counterparts, the combination has been disastrous. Asked if he’s thought of breaking up the court, Trump replied, “Absolutely, I have.”

And he wouldn’t be the first. Last year, two Republican senators — Steve Daines (MT) and Dan Sullivan (AK) — introduced a bill to do exactly that. “It’s 85 percent larger by population than the next circuit [and] it has three times more pending cases than the next closest circuit, which I think ought to be a call for adding additional capacity and adding this 12th Circuit Court,” Daines told the Washington Examiner. “We’re staying focused on the capacity; this is not meant to be some kind of a political or ideological debate.” Believe it or not, their decisions are binding for 40 percent of the U.S., “which makes the Ninth Circuit — long perceived as dominated by California liberals — particularly precious [to the Left].”

With 51 judges, Sullivan argued, “It is more of a legislature than a court… [T]hey don’t meet en banc on a regular basis. The judges don’t get to know each other, and therefore it is a court whose opinions are not certain and are not uniform, and it’s more like voting than judging.”

In instances like the sanctuary city controversy, there’s little to no accountability for judges like Orrick, who refuse to acknowledge the Executive Branch’s power in enforcing the law. Every president, especially Obama, has used federal funds to force states to comply with certain laws and regulations. Now, suddenly, because that president is Trump, the power of the purse no longer applies. “Sanctuary cities have been very, very dangerous, very, very bad. And, you know, we’ve done a great job on law enforcement, we’ve done a great job at the border,” Trump said. “And all of our most talented people say sanctuary cities are a disaster… [We] have people that are being enable to commit crime.” Cutting off federal dollars is one weapon the administration has to entice states to do something about it.

Unfortunately for this White House, it’s wasting time in court that could be spent on the problem. And thanks to Obama’s high-dollar donor, Judge Orrick, the Trump team will have to wait for the Supreme Court to clean up another mess made by the Ninth Circuit’s liberal activists.

(Originally published here.)

Smother Russia: Oppressive Tactics Lands Country on Watchlist

Good press for Russia is hard to find these days. And that won’t change any time soon, as the result of a new global report on religious liberty. In the latest release from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), members called for Vladimir Putin’s country to be blacklisted for the first time on the group’s watchdog list. “Not only has Russia ‘continually intensified its repression of religious freedom’ at home,” the commissioners write, “it has also expanded its repressive policies to territory of a neighboring country — Russian-annexed Crimea and the regions of eastern Ukraine controlled by Moscow-backed separatists, where ‘religious freedom is at the whim of armed militias not beholden to any legal authority.’”

As such, they conclude, Russia is a “country of particular concern.” But overall, USCIRF points out, the crisis is growing. “Overall, the Commission has concluded that the state of affairs for international religious freedom is worsening in both the depth and breadth of violations.” While Egypt and Iraq have made some positive strides, governments around the world (especially Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) are punishing belief to the extreme.

This must change, Senator James Lankford (R-OK) insists. “The right to practice any faith, or have no faith, is a fundamental human right of all people, no matter where they live,” he said in a lengthy statement. Like us, he knows that America’s hostility to religious liberty at home has led to incredible indifference abroad. After eight years of Obama’s war on faith, it’s time for America to pick up the torch of liberty and find its voice on the crisis.

The international community must do more to stand up for people around the world that cannot live out their conscience. In order to help protect and preserve this right for all, our American government should do more, and as a first step, nominate and confirm an Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. As a nation, we cannot ensure that the fundamental right of religious freedom is protected for all people if we do not actively address the egregious violations being committed by nations with whom the United States interacts, including our own allies.

(Originally published here.)

---

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC. Reprinted by permission.