December, 16 2019, 11:00pm EDT

Sunday Marks Two-Year Anniversary of Failed GOP Tax Cut Law
New Report Shows 91 Fortune 500 Corporations Paid No Federal Income Taxes in 2018.
WASHINGTON
Sunday, Dec. 22, will mark the two-year anniversary of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the signature legislative achievement of the Trump Administration. While President Trump and Republicans still proclaim the law a success, data from independent and authoritative sources overwhelmingly shows that the many promises that helped convince lawmakers to speed enactment of the tax overhaul have failed to come true.
A new report by Americans for Tax Fairness, Chartbook: Trump-GOP Tax Cuts Failing Workers and the Economy, details eight key promises made by Trump and the GOP to help get the tax cuts enacted into law. (The law took effect Jan. 1, 2018.) The report uses the latest economic data that shows their rosy scenarios have wilted in the glaring light of actual facts.
And a report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) shows 91 profitable Fortune 500 corporations--including Amazon, Chevron, Halliburton and IBM--paid no federal income taxes in 2018 the year following the tax law's passage. Moreover, 379 profitable corporations paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 11.3% on their 2018 income, slightly more than half the 21% corporate tax rate--which already had been slashed down from 35% in 2017.
Taken together, the two reports paint a devastating picture of the true impacts of the costly $1.9 trillion Republican tax plan, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. The ATF report catalogs the many predictions about who would benefit most from the tax cuts (including a $4,000 family pay-raise guarantee), how much they would cost and how much the economy would grow, and how each of those promises have proven false. The ITEP report shows that while the tax law cut the corporate rate by 40% - from 35% to 21% - financial data from 379 profitable corporations show they paid an effective federal income tax rate of just 11.3%, the lowest in decades.
"In 2017, we were told repeatedly that the giant, unpaid-for tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations would increase jobs, pay for themselves, give every family a big raise and would really hurt rich people like Donald Trump," said Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness. "Two years later, the evidence is in, and all their promises look like a Macy's parade balloon the day after Thanksgiving."
The links below go to the Chartbook, which includes the original sources.
1. PROMISE: IT WILL BE A MIDDLE-CLASS TAX CUT.
REALITY: The tax cuts are mostly going to corporations and their wealthy owners.
- The richest 1% of taxpayers will get an average tax cut of $50,000 in 2020. That's 75 times more than the tax cut for the bottom 80%, which will average just $645. [Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP)] These figures are comparable to estimates from the Tax Policy Center for 2018, which found the average tax cut for the richest 1% to be $51,000 and the average tax cut for the bottom 80% to be about $800. [Table 1, "All Provisions"]
- The richest 1% will receive a total of $78 billion in tax cuts in 2020. That's about equal to the total tax cut that will go to the bottom 80%. [ITEP]
- A big reason benefits are tilted to the top is the law slashed the U.S. corporate tax rate on domestic profits from 35% to 21% and on foreign profits to about 10%. Wealthy people own most corporate stock.
2. PROMISE: WEALTHY PEOPLE - LIKE DONALD TRUMP - WON'T BENEFIT FROM THE TAX CUTS.
REALITY: President Trump and his family will benefit personally by millions of dollars from at least five features of the law: lower top income tax rates; the deep corporate tax cuts; a weakened estate tax; a tax break mostly benefitting wealthy business owners like Trump (see below); and real-estate loopholes the law opened. [Americans for Tax Fairness]
3. PROMISE: Working families will quickly get a $4,000 to $9,000 raise.
REALITY:
- Median family income grew by just $514 in 2018 after enactment of the tax law--much slower growth than occurred in each of the last three years under President Obama. [U.S. Census Bureau]
- The increase in the yearly wage growth rate is up just 0.4% over the roughly two years since the Trump-GOP tax law was enacted. The yearly wage growth rate under Obama's last two years accelerated by 0.7%. [Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)]
4. PROMISE: Small businesses will receive a big tax cut.
REALITY: Almost half the benefits of this supposed "small" business tax cut are going to the tiny sliver of businesses with over $1 million in annual income. Less than a quarter is going to firms with an income of $200,000 or less. [Joint Committee on Taxation/Bloomberg News]
5. PROMISE: The economy will grow by 4%, 5%, or 6%.
REALITY: Economic growth (GDP) since the tax law was enacted has been in line with the Obama years. Annual growth hasn't hit 3% under Trump, and growth during the first three quarters of 2019 is averaging 2.4%. [Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)] The Federal Reserve predicts growth of 2.2% for the full year.
6. PROMISE: Tax cuts will pay for themselves.
REALITY: The total cost of the tax cuts is estimated at $1.9 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which will be added to the national debt. Conservatives claimed the law's lower tax rates would raise a lot more revenue through greater economic activity. But largely due to the tax cuts (especially for corporations), the deficit has exploded, reaching nearly $1 trillion in 2019, up more than 70% from the $585 billion during Obama's last year in office. [U.S. Office of Management and Budget]
7. PROMISE: The pace of job growth will quicken.
REALITY: Monthly job growth has averaged 202,000 in the two years since the tax cuts were enacted. Job growth in the last two years of the Obama Administration averaged 210,000 a month. [BLS]
8. PROMISE: Business investment will boom.
REALITY:
- After just one-quarter of modest growth in 2018, capital investment has declined overall since then, falling into negative territory in the second and third quarters of 2019. [BEA]
- Corporations have instead used their tax savings for stock buybacks, which primarily benefit executives and other wealthy shareholders. Corporations bought back a record $800 billion-plus of their own shares in 2018, an increase of more than 50% over the $519 billion in stock buybacks in 2017. [S&P Dow Jones Indices]
For these and other reasons, more voters continue to oppose the Trump-GOP tax cuts than support them. ATF maintains a comprehensive set of public opinion polls about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which also includes data on support for progressive tax reform proposals. Other key findings include:
- Only 17% said their taxes decreased in 2018 compared to 2017, 33% said their taxes increased while 31% said their taxes stayed the same.
- Most voters want to repeal the 2017 tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. 52% were more likely and 26% were less likely to support a candidate for Congress who supported repealing the 2017 tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy passed by Republicans and signed by President Trump.
ATF also maintains a major compilation of media reports and studies that have analyzed the effects of the Trump-GOP tax cuts since enactment.
In addition, Americans for Tax Fairness previously released a report, Fair Taxes Now: Revenue Options for A Fair Tax System, a comprehensive menu of 40 progressive tax reform options that includes recommendations for amending or repealing the Trump-GOP tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations (p. 5). The recommendations could raise $1.7-$2.7 trillion, demand the most from those with the most to give, and steer a better economic course for our country than the failed policy of cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations.
Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) is a diverse campaign of more than 420 national, state and local endorsing organizations united in support of a fair tax system that works for all Americans. It has come together based on the belief that the country needs comprehensive, progressive tax reform that results in greater revenue to meet our growing needs. This requires big corporations and the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes, not to live by their own set of rules.
(202) 506-3264LATEST NEWS
US Led 'Unprecedented' Surge in Global Military Spending in 2024
"As governments increasingly prioritize military security, often at the expense of other budget areas, the economic and social trade-offs could have significant effects on societies for years to come," said one expert.
Apr 28, 2025
Military spending worldwide soared to $2.718 trillion last year, meaning it "has increased every year for a full decade, going up by 37% between 2015 and 2024," according to an annual report released Monday.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has tracked conflict, disarmament, and weapons for nearly six decades. Its 2024 spending report states that "for the second year in a row, military expenditure increased in all five of the world's geographical regions, reflecting heightened geopolitical tensions across the globe."
In a Monday statement, Xiao Liang, a researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, highlighted that "over 100 countries around the world raised their military spending in 2024."
"It was the highest year-on-year increase since the end of the Cold War."
"This was really unprecedented... It was the highest year-on-year increase since the end of the Cold War," Liang told Agence France-Press, while acknowledging that there may have been larger jumps during the Cold War but Soviet Union data is not available.
Liang warned that "as governments increasingly prioritize military security, often at the expense of other budget areas, the economic and social trade-offs could have significant effects on societies for years to come."
The United States—whose Republican lawmakers are currently cooking up a plan to give even more money to a Pentagon that's never passed an audit—led all countries, with $997 billion in military spending. The report points out that the U.S. not only allocated "3.2 times more than the second-largest spender," but also "accounted for 37% of global military expenditure in 2024 and 66% of spending by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members."
In the second spot was China, with an estimated $314 billion in spending. Nan Tian, director of the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, raised the alarm about spending in Asia.
"Major military spenders in the Asia-Pacific region are investing increasing resources into advanced military capabilities," said Tian. "With several unresolved disputes and mounting tensions, these investments risk sending the region into a dangerous arms-race spiral."
In third place was Russia, with an estimated $149 billion in spending. Russia remains at war after launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Rounding out the top five were Germany ($88.5 billion) and India ($86.1 billion).
They were followed by the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, France, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Poland, Italy, and Australia. The report says that "together, the top 15 spenders in 2024 accounted for 80% of global military spending ($2,185 billion) and for 79% of the total increase in spending over the year. All 15 increased their military spending in 2024."
"The two largest year-on-year percentage increases among this group were in Israel (+65%) and Russia (+38%), highlighting the effect of major conflicts on spending trends in 2024," the publication continues. Israel has been engaged in a U.S.-backed military assault on the Gaza Strip—globally condemned as genocide—since October 2023.
"Russia once again significantly increased its military spending, widening the spending gap with Ukraine," noted SIPRI researcher Diego Lopes da Silva. "Ukraine currently allocates all of its tax revenues to its military. In such a tight fiscal space, it will be challenging for Ukraine to keep increasing its military spending."
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday announced an upcoming three-day truce to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for an immediate monthlong cease-fire.
All NATO members boosted military spending last year, which SIPRI researcher Jade Guiberteau Ricard said was "driven mainly by the ongoing Russian threat and concerns about possible U.S. disengagement within the alliance."
"It is worth saying that boosting spending alone will not necessarily translate into significantly greater military capability or independence from the USA," the expert added. "Those are far more complex tasks."
Another SIPRI researcher, Lorenzo Scarazzato, highlighted that "for the first time since reunification Germany became the biggest military spender in Western Europe, which was due to the €100 billion special defense fund announced in 2022."
"The latest policies adopted in Germany and many other European countries suggest that Europe has entered a period of high and increasing military spending that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future," Scarazzato said.
As for the Middle East, SIPRI researcher Zubaida Kari said that "despite widespread expectations that many Middle Eastern countries would increase their military spending in 2024, major rises were limited to Israel and Lebanon."
In addition to slaughtering at least tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza over the past nearly 19 months, Israel has killed thousands of people in Lebanon while allegedly targeting the political and paramilitary group Hezbollah. Kari said that elsewhere in the region, "countries either did not significantly increase spending in response to the war in Gaza or were prevented from doing so by economic constraints."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Not Just for the Battlefield: Rights Group Warns of Dystopian World Where Killer Robots Reign
"To avoid a future of automated killing, governments should seize every opportunity to work toward the goal of adopting a global treaty on autonomous weapons systems," according to the author of the report.
Apr 28, 2025
In a report published Monday, a leading human rights group calls for international political action to prohibit and regulate so-called "killer robots"—autonomous weapons systems that select targets based on inputs from sensors rather than from humans—and examines them in the context of six core principles in international human rights law.
In some cases, the report argues, an autonomous weapons system may simply be incompatible with a given human rights principle or obligation.
The report, co-published by Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, comes just ahead of the first United Nations General Assembly meeting on autonomous weapons systems next month. Back in 2017, dozens of artificial intelligence and robotics experts published a letter urging the U.N. to ban the development and use of killer robots. As drone warfare has grown, those calls have continued.
"To avoid a future of automated killing, governments should seize every opportunity to work toward the goal of adopting a global treaty on autonomous weapons systems," said the author behind the report, Bonnie Docherty, a senior arms adviser at Human Rights Watch and a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, in a statement on Monday.
According to the report, which includes recommendations on a potential international treaty, the call for negotiations to adopt "a legally binding instrument to prohibit and regulate autonomous weapons systems" is supported by at least 129 countries.
Drones relying on an autonomous targeting system have been used by Ukraine to hit Russian targets during the war between the two countries, The New York Timesreported last year.
In 2023, the Pentagon announced a program, known as the Replicator initiative, which involves a push to build thousands of autonomous drones. The program is part of the U.S. Defense Department's plan to counter China. In November, the watchdog group Public Citizen alleged that Pentagon officials have not been clear about whether the drones in the Replicator project would be used to kill.
A senior Navy admiral recently toldBloomberg that the program is "alive and well" under the Department of Defense's new leadership following U.S. President Donald Trump's return to the White House.
Docherty warned that the impact of killer robots will stretch beyond the traditional battlefield. "The use of autonomous weapons systems will not be limited to war, but will extend to law enforcement operations, border control, and other circumstances, raising serious concerns under international human rights law," she said in the statement
When it comes to the right to peaceful assembly under human rights law, which is important in the context of law enforcement exercising use force, "autonomous weapons systems would be incompatible with this right," according to the report.
Killer robots pose a threat to peaceful assembly because they "would lack human judgment and could not be pre-programmed or trained to address every situation," meaning they "would find it challenging to draw the line between peaceful and violent protesters."
Also, "the use or threat of use of autonomous weapons systems, especially in the hands of abusive governments, could strike fear among protesters and thus cause a chilling effect on free expression and peaceful assembly," per the report.
Killer robots would also contravene the principle of human dignity, according to the report, which establishes that all humans have inherent worth that is "universal and inviolable."
"The dignity critique is not focused on the systems generating the wrong outcomes," the report states. "Even if autonomous weapons systems could feasibly make no errors in outcomes—something that is extremely unlikely—the human dignity concerns remain, necessitating prohibitions and regulations of such systems."
"Autonomous weapon systems cannot be programmed to give value to human life, do not possess emotions like compassion that can generate restraint to violence, and would rely on processes that dehumanize individuals by making life-and-death decisions based on software and data points," Docherty added.
In total, the report considers the right to life; the right to peaceful assembly; the principle of human dignity; the principle of nondiscrimination; the right to privacy; and the right to remedy.
The report also lists cases where it's more ambiguous whether autonomous weapons systems would violate a certain right.
The right to privacy, for example, protects individuals from "arbitrary or unlawful" interferences in their personal life. According to the report, "The development and use of autonomous weapons systems could violate the right because, if they or any of their component systems are based on AI technology, their development, testing, training, and use would likely require mass surveillance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Absolute Insanity': Right-Wing Activist Asks If Trump Will Suspend Habeas Corpus to Expel More Migrants
"Anyone advocating for suspending the writ of habeas corpus because they don't like due process is spitting on the legacy of those who fought and died for this country and our Constitution," said one policy expert.
Apr 28, 2025
With the Trump administration making space in the press briefing room for right-wing podcasters and other conservative "new media" content creators, viewers of briefings since President Donald Trump took office have seen his press secretary field questions about the Ukrainian president's clothing during an Oval Office meeting, compliments about Trump's "fitness plan," and attacks on reporters who have long reported from the White House.
On Monday, the first question of the briefing was derided by one Democratic politician as "absolute insanity," as right-wing commentator and influencer Rogan O'Handley—also known by the handle "DC Draino"—was given the floor to ask whether Trump will suspend the writ of habeas corpus in order to circumvent several judges' rulings and "start shipping out" undocumented immigrants without due process.
"Can you please let us know if and when the Trump administration is planning to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to circumvent these radical judges?" asked O'Handley after accusing federal judges of "thwarting [Trump's] agenda with an unprecedented number of national injunctions."
O'Handley shared some familiar right-wing talking points—saying federal judges have provided "more due process to violent MS-13 and Tren de Aragua illegal aliens than they did for U.S. citizens who peacefully protested on January 6"—as he suggested the administration should abandon the legal principle under which people who are detained are permitted to challenge their imprisonment in court.
"You have got to be kidding me," wrote Sara McGee, a Democrat running for the Texas House of Representatives.
His question came amid escalating attacks by Republicans and the administration on judges who have ruled against the White House. A Republican congressman said last month that Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. should be impeached for issuing an order against Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to expel hundreds of undocumented immigrants to El Salvador. Last week, the FBI arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan for allegedly helping a migrant evade arrest by escorting him out of her courtroom.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council, noted that O'Handley and press secretary Karoline Leavitt also repeatedly cited at least one statistic that was "completely made up"—that the Biden administration allowed 15 million undocumented immigrants into the United States—as they suggested Trump should take legal steps to force all of them out of the country without the input of the judicial system.
The undocumented population in the U.S. in 2023 was 11.7 million, according to the Center for Migration Studies, down from the peak of 12 million, which was reached in 2008.
"They've been pushing this on the right for about a week now," said Reichlin-Melnick of the push to suspend habeas corpus for undocumented immigrants. "Anyone advocating for suspending the writ of habeas corpus because they don't like due process is spitting on the legacy of those who fought and died for this country and our Constitution."
Leavitt responded to O'Handley's question by saying while she has "not heard such discussions take place... the president and the entire administration are certainly open to all legal and constitutional remedies" to continue expelling people from the United States.
Several cases of undocumented immigrants who have been sent to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center have made national headlines in recent weeks, including that of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia; Merwil Gutiérrez, a 19-year-old who federal agents acknowledged was not who they were looking for during a raid; and Andry Hernandez Romero, a makeup artist who was accused of being a gang member solely because he had tattoos.
O'Handley's suggestion that the bedrock legal principle be suspended for undocumented immigrants—hundreds of whom have already been forced out of the country without due process—came ahead of Trump's scheduled signing of two new immigration-related executive orders.
One would direct the departments of Justice and Homeland Security to publish a list of sanctuary cities and states—those where local law enforcement are directed not to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement as it seeks to arrest undocumented immigrants.
The other, Leavitt said, would "unleash America's law enforcement to pursue criminals." The New York Postreported that the order would be related to providing local police agencies with military equipment and legal support for officers accused of wrongdoing.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular