Sinema-Cassidy isn't bipartisan, but is fake help for child careand no matter the issue, it's bad tax and fiscal policy

In a column, Chris Tomlinson ignores two things about Trump's fake tax credits child care bill. (Note: Per the first half of the header, it IS fake; per the second half, there's a deeper issue, which is what prompted this blog post.)

One is that Arizona "Democrat" Kyrsten Sinema is considered even more in the GOP camp than Joe Manchin by many Congressional rating services.

The second is that the bill is bad policy.

On Twitter, Chris claims that Pelosi and House Dems would incorporate Sinema-Kennedy into any child care bill.

I doubt it. They'd incorporate ACTUAL tax credits, yes; I highly doubt they'd do this.

Per the "actual," all this bill does is let parents borrow ahead against future tax credits. Chris admits that in the column. Per the Pelosi angle?

In fact, House + Senate Dems have (sad trombones, not bipartisan) have a bill that would make child care more affordable in the first place.

All the Trump bill would do is have parents, 5-10 years from now, at risk of having their taxes audited for using child care tax credits that they've borrowed to exhaustion already, followed by stamping their feet over wanting to be "reimbursed." And yes, the Merikan ppl are like that, and yes, there's a good chance Congress would "cave." A Democrat president would cave, too. Look at the "Bush tax cuts" becoming the "Obama tax cuts." And, yes, Chris, I think there's a good chance you know this would be a likely outcome.

I think it's the alleged bipartisanness or whatever that seduces Chris. More on that below.

That said, if Dem Congresscritters did do a volte-face someday and adopt the Trump idea lock, stock and barrel? It would still be bad policy. It would be even if Greens somehow got a Member of Congress and that person introduced such an idea.

So, no, Chris and sorry. This one is a clunker and it's #FakeChildCareHelp, to modify a Trumpian hashtag.

Also, Chris, as a business and economics columnist, knows about the Obama tax cuts. He knows this would be bad business policy if something similar were proposed in business tax deductions. (Or I hope he does.)

1st, I highly doubt that. I think a Dem bill would give actual tax credits, rather than borrowing from future ones.
2nd, even if it WERE, and the "borrowing" and not actual tax credits, makes no diff which party sponsored it — GOP, Dems, or even Greens if they got a House member https://t.co/kTNAmpNZIn

— Nevada Caucus ChairThrower for Dolores Huerta 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) February 17, 2020

Well, I hope he would oppose it, even though he calls my stance here an ideological purity test.

I Tweeted back asking if he would support a bill that, for whatever reason, allowed eXXXon to "borrow ahead" against the depletion allowance. (Given that fracking has put oil prices in the toilet, this isn't a totally out of the blue hypothetical.)

Or, lest Chris think I'm picking on Big Oil, let's say there's a multi-year tax credit for putting in solar panels. Would I support borrowing ahead against that? Or for non-oil businesses, to borrow ahead against depreciation schedules? No.

(I'm not an informed expert on the tax code; AFAIK, there may be some stupid tax code subsection that already allows this in some area. It would most likely be a section of corporate tax code if it exists. Well, if it DOES exist? Two wrongs don't make a right here more than any place else.)

And, other pieces agree with me. This one explicitly notes that Sinema-Cassidy is essentially a tax loan.

Or, since I'm in full snark mode now? What if we had paid, rather than unpaid, family leave time, to go back to the subject matter of this fake help bill? Would you be OK with "borrowing ahead" on that, if the paid family leave split between two years?

Chris, in an earlier Tweet, justified borrowing ahead my claiming parenting expenses are frontloaded. Actually, the only one that is, really,  is the costs of birth itself. Like many things in US medicine, it's overpriced, which is an issue itself.  But for this discussion? The main issue is that we don't allow that elsewhere in the individual tax code, and a childbirth itself is not a deductible expense.

I guarantee that the Cassidy-Sinema bill would be part of ANY Democratic parental leave legislation. It's a small, smart piece of what they've always wanted to do. Parental expenses are frontloaded, why not the tax credit? https://t.co/D4FTRAeSGv

— ChrisTomlinson (@cltomlinson) February 17, 2020

And, while the Warren bill isn't perfect, it explicitly addresses lower income needs much better than Trump's bill does. Tax credits in general are targeted at the middle class, and within that, the top half of the middle class. This bill is no exception.

Finally, if he claims that Pelosi would incorporate this if it didn't have Trump's backing? Well, first, Trump (as he notes) has failed to do anything real on this issue. So, it's bad policy that's also serving as a would-be reward for bad political behavior. Second, Trump has had the chance to back the Warren bill, or even do a slimmed-down, but real, GOP alternative to it.

So, let's go back to the Tweet that started this:

As the lede suggests, you've made your decision. You've made the perfect the enemy of the good. I have no interest in your ideological purity tests.

— ChrisTomlinson (@cltomlinson) February 17, 2020

No, Chris, not true. I'm actually suggesting Warren's bill as one of many good bills that's the enemy of a not-good bill.

I don't often blog about such things, but this is bad enough policy, the bill itself, along with bad ideas in the column, and not thinking through how this would play out, means I had to respond. A column like this, to complete the trifecta, is a bad column serving as a reward for bad policy that's serving as a would-be reward for bad political behavior, and that justifies bad policy no matter the issue. No purity tests involved.

The "bipartisanship" angle may not all be Chris'. After all, early voting starts tomorrow, and even the higher ups at the Chronic are loosening up a bit. But not much. Klobuchar (the viable, non-Biden centrist) got their endorsement for president on the Democratic ballot. (I assume they'll endorse any Democrat short of Sanders in the general, but do no endorsement if he gets the Dem nod.)

==

Now, while you're here, about the first name on that bill.

Sinema isn't even up for re-election until 2024. So, she clearly believes in this boondoggle. (And she's been touting the idea since last July.) On the House side, Texas ConservaDem Colin Allred has proven his true colors by being a co-sponsor.