The Christmas Tax Man Cartoons

Maria Bartiromo: Why tax reform matters so much

Tax reform: The key issues that could derail the bill

Both House and Senate lawmakers are working to make a deal on tax reform. Here is a look at the key issues, from health care to child credit tax relief, that could derail its passage

I’m not in the habit of giving stock tips or making market calls. I’ve never claimed to be an investment strategist. But after spending years reporting on business and finance, I was convinced on the night of Nov. 8, 2016, that the conventional market wisdom was way off target.
As the night wore on and equity traders began to grasp that Donald Trump would become president, stock markets around the world started selling off. In the U.S., trading in S&P 500 futures would eventually be halted after a 5% decline. After midnight, Paul Krugman of the New York Times opined: “If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.”
I didn’t see it that way. For years I’d been hearing anguished people at companies large and small bemoan the growing federal burden of taxes and regulations. Now the U.S. would have a president who intended to reduce this hardship and prioritize economic growth.
When I sat down around 10:30 on election night for a Fox News panel discussion, Dow futures were down about 700 points. Markets like certainty; it was understandable that some investors were selling. Mr. Trump seemed to present more uncertainty than Hillary Clinton, who was essentially promising a continuation of the Obama administration. Mr. Trump’s talk about ripping up the North American Free Trade Agreement, for example, created big unknowns and potentially significant risks.
Keep reading Fox Business Network anchor Maria Bartiromo's column in the Wall Street Journal.

Maria Bartiromo joined FOX Business Network (FBN) as Global Markets Editor in January 2014.  She is the anchor ofOpening Bell with Maria Bartiromo on FBN (weekdays from 9-11 AM/ET) and Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo (Sundays at 10 AM/ET) on FOX News Channel (FNC).

Newt Gingrich: Republican tax cuts are hit with fake news attacks

Republicans are wrapping up the biggest tax cut bill since 1986, despite the fact that the elite media has spent weeks attacking, distorting, and undermining the GOP tax cut legislation.

Every Democratic attack, no matter how false or distorted, has been given extensive news coverage. Liberal columnists and analysts have laboriously written and opined on television against the tax bill.

If a provision cuts taxes for millions of Americans but raises taxes for a few thousand, the elite media skips the many winners to focus on the small number of losers.
At the same time, the eight-year underperformance of the Obama administration in jobs, take-home pay, and economic growth is ignored by the elite media, while the already accelerating economic growth during the first year of the Trump presidency is underreported or downplayed.
Similarly, there is little coverage of the remarkable jump in small-business owner confidence or the equally impressive improvement in corporate CEO optimism.

The fake news game being played against the historic Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 is designed to take away all of the political advantages Republicans ought to be gaining.

The fake news game being played against the historic Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 is designed to take away all of the political advantages Republicans ought to be gaining.
Consider the facts:

• The Republican tax cut takes a big step toward President Trump’s campaign goal of implementing a 15 percent corporate tax rate. The corporate rate’s reduction from 35 percent to 21 percent would have been unthinkable two years ago.

• The pass-through provision to enable small businesses to also get a strong tax cut has won enthusiastic support from the National Federation of Independent Businesses and the Job Creators Network (two of the leading small business associations). Note also that the media completely distorted NFIB’s questions about early versions of the bill and presented the group’s honest concerns as total opposition. 

• The Republican tax cut bill will boost job creation and includes strong middle class and pro-family provisions. Increasing the child tax credit to up to $2,000 and doubling the standard deduction will have an incredibly positive impact on middle-class families.

• The simplification and increased deduction will allow nine out of 10 Americans to file their taxes on a form the size of a postcard. The savings in time and money that used to be spent on tax preparers will be a further advantage for most Americans.

Republicans are close to the end, but the fight isn’t over.
Republicans need to be prepared to win the argument. They have to assume the liberal media will continue to push fake stories about this legislation, and they need to be ready to counter these distorted, false claims.
In every interview, Republicans must be prepared to correct reporters and anchors when they start using phony examples and false "facts."
Republicans should use social media to reach every big winner in the tax cut bill – starting with small business owners.
Writing a good bill is only step one.
Communicating the bill effectively, despite falsehoods and distortions in fake news, is the vital second step – and it requires serious commitment.
If Republicans reach every person who is helped by this bill, they will win decisively in 2018.
The Democrats who do not vote for this bill will have to explain why they are against reduced taxes, lower unemployment, a simpler tax code and more American job creation.
Winning the argument over the tax bill may be the most crucial step toward victory in 2018.
Newt Gingrich is a Fox News contributor. A Republican, he was speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. Follow him on Twitter @NewtGingrich. His latest book is "Understanding Trump."

Gregg Jarrett: Did the FBI and the Justice Department, plot to clear Hillary Clinton, bring down Trump?

There is strong circumstantial evidence that an insidious plot unprecedented in American history was hatched within the FBI and the Obama Justice Department to help elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. 

And when this apparent effort to improperly influence the election did not succeed, the suspected conspirators appear to have employed a fraudulent investigation of President Trump in an attempt to undo the election results and remove him as president.

Such a Machiavellian scheme would move well beyond what is known as the “deep state,” a popular reference to government employees who organize in secret to impose their own political views on government policy in defiance of democratically elected leadership.
However, this apparent plot to keep Trump from becoming president and to weaken and potentially pave the way for his impeachment with a prolonged politically motivated investigation – if proven – would constitute something far more nefarious and dangerous.
Such a plot would show that partisans within the FBI and the Justice Department, driven by personal animus and a sense of political righteousness, surreptitiously conspired to subvert electoral democracy itself in our country.
As of now, we have no proof beyond a reasonable doubt of such a plot. But we have very strong circumstantial evidence.
And as the philosopher and writer Henry David Thoreau wrote in his journal in 1850: “Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”
Newly revealed text messages about the apparent anti-Trump plot are the equivalent of a trout in the milk. It smells fishy. 
The Plans
The mainstream media and Democrats dismiss talk of an anti-Trump conspiracy by the FBI and Justice Department as right-wing nonsense – paranoid fantasies of Trump supporters with no basis in facts. But there are plenty of facts that lay out a damning case based on circumstantial evidence.
Recently disclosed text messages between FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggest there may have been two parts of the apparent anti-Trump plot.
“Part A” was to devise a way to exonerate Clinton, despite compelling evidence that she committed crimes under the Espionage Act in her mishandling of classified documents on her private email server.
Absolving Clinton cleared the way for her to continue her candidacy at a time when all polls and just about every pundit predicted she would be elected president in November 2016. If Clinton had been charged with crimes she would likely have been forced to drop her candidacy, and if she remained in the race her candidacy would have been doomed.
But “Part A” of the apparent anti-Trump plot was not enough. A back-up plan would be prudent. It seems the Obama Justice Department and FBI conjured up a “Part B” just in case the first stratagem failed. This would be even more malevolent – manufacturing an alleged crime supposedly committed by Trump where no crime exists in the law.
And so, armed with a fictitious justification, a criminal investigation was launched into so-called Trump-Russia “collusion.” It was always a mythical legal claim, since there is no statute prohibiting foreign nationals from volunteering their services in American political campaigns.
More importantly, there was never a scintilla of evidence that Trump collaborated with Russia to influence the election.
No matter. The intent may have been to sully the new president while searching for a crime to force him from office. 
But thanks to the discovery of text messages, circumstantial evidence has been exposed.
The Texts
The text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page, who were romantically involved, confirm a stunning hostility toward Trump, calling him an “idiot” and “loathsome.”
At the same time, the texts were filled with adoring compliments of Clinton, lauding her nomination and stating: “She just has to win now.”
One text between Strzok and Page dated Aug. 6, 2016 stands out and looks like the proverbial smoking gun.
Page: “And maybe you’re meant to stay where you are because you’re meant to protect the country from that menace.” (This is clearly a reference to a Trump presidency).
Strzok:  “Thanks. And of course I’ll try and approach it that way. I can protect our country at many levels .…”   
It is reasonable to conclude that Strzok had already taken steps to “protect” the country from what he considered would be a dangerous and harmful Trump presidency.
Just one month earlier, then-FBI Director James Comey had announced he would recommend that no criminal charges be filed by the Justice Department against Clinton. Given all the incriminating evidence against Clinton, Comey’s view that she should not be prosecuted made no sense by any objective standard. 
This is where Strzok played a pivotal role. As the lead investigator in the Clinton email case, he is the person who changed the critical wording in Comey’s description of Clinton’s handling of classified material, substituting “extremely careless” for “gross negligence.”
As I explained in an earlier column, this alteration of two words had enormous consequences, because it allowed Clinton to evade prosecution. This removed the only legal impediment to her election as president.
Documents made available by the Senate Homeland Security Committee also show that Comey intended to declare that the sheer volume of classified material on Clinton’s server supported the “inference” that she was grossly negligent, which would constitute criminal conduct. Yet this also was edited out, likely by Strzok, to avoid finding evidence of crimes.   
This seems to be what Page and Strzok meant when they discussed his role as protector of the republic. It appears that Strzok was instrumental in clearing Clinton by rewriting Comey’s otherwise incriminating findings.
Were Page and Strzok also referring to the investigation of Trump that was begun in July 2016, right after Clinton was absolved?  After all, Strzok was the agent who reportedly signed the documents launching the bureau’s Trump-Russia probe. And he was a lead investigator in the case before jumping to Robert Mueller’s special counsel team.           
If there is any doubt that Strzok and Page sought to undermine the democratic process, consider this cryptic text about their “insurance policy” against the “risk” of a Trump presidency.
Strzok:  “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.…”
The reference to “Andy” is likely Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was also supervising the investigation of Clinton’s emails at the same time his wife was receiving roughly $675,000 in campaign money in her race for elective office in Virginia from groups aligned with Clinton.
What was the “insurance policy” discussed in Andy’s office? Was it the FBI’s investigation of Trump and his associates?  Or was it the anti-Trump “dossier” that may have been used by the FBI and the Justice Department as the basis for a warrant to wiretap and spy on Trump associates? Perhaps it was both.
The Dossier
The “dossier” was a compendium of largely specious allegations about Trump, compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Comey called it “salacious and unverified.” 
Various congressional committees suspect the dossier was illegally used to place a Trump campaign associate, Carter Page, under foreign surveillance. When asked about that on Wednesday during a hearing on Capitol Hill, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to answer, which sounds like an implicit “yes.”
Using a dubious, if not phony, document in support of an affidavit to obtain a warrant from a federal judge constitutes a fraud upon the court, which is a crime.
The dossier scandal recently ensnared Bruce Ohr, a top Justice Department official, who was demoted last week for concealing his meetings with the men behind the document.
Ohr’s wife worked for Fusion GPS. This created a disqualifying conflict of interest for Mr. Ohr. He was legally obligated under Justice Department regulations to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation of Russia’s role in the election, but he did not.     
Congress needs to find out whether the dossier was exploited as a pretext for initiating the Russia probe against President Trump. It would also be unconscionable, if not illegal, for the FBI and Justice Department to use opposition research funded by Clinton’s campaign to spy on her opponent or his campaign.
Both agencies have been resisting congressional subpoenas and other demands for answers, which smacks of a cover-up. Since the Justice Department cannot be trusted to investigate itself, a second special counsel should be appointed.
This new counsel should also reopen the Clinton email case and investigate the conduct of Strzok, Page, Comey and others who may have obstructed justice by exonerating Clinton in the face of substantial evidence that she had committed crimes.
If Strzok or anyone else allowed their political views to shape the investigations of either Clinton or Trump and dictate the outcomes, that is a felony for which they should be prosecuted.   
The Mueller investigation is now so tainted with the appearance of corruption that it has lost credibility and the public’s trust.
It is very much like a trout in the spoiled milk.                       
Gregg Jarrett joined FOX News Channel (FNC) in 2002 and is based in New York. He currently serves as legal analyst and offers commentary across both FNC and FOX Business Network (FBN).

Moore tells supporters 'battle is not over' in Senate race

A defiant Roy Moore told supporters on Friday that the battle for the Alabama Senate seat is "not over," despite President Trump, who backed him during the campaign, calling on him to concede.

Moore went on to email supporters asking for contributions to his "election integrity fund' so he could investigate reports of voter fraud.

"I also wanted to let you know that this battle is NOT OVER!" he wrote in the email.
Democrat Doug Jones on Tuesday defeated Moore by about 20,000 votes, or 1.5 percent, according to unofficial returns.
But Moore, who has been accused of sexual misconduct with teenage girls when he was in his 30s, has not yet conceded in the race to fill the seat that previously belonged to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Moore told supporters that the race was "close" and some military and provisional ballots had yet to be counted. Those are expected to be counted next week.
Moore said his campaign is collecting "numerous reported cases of voter fraud" to send to the secretary of state's office.
Secretary of State John Merrill has said it is unlikely that the last-minute ballots will change the outcome of the election or even trigger a recount.
Merrill said his office has investigated reports of voting irregularities, but "we have not discovered any that have been proven factual in nature."
Trump, who had endorsed Moore, called Jones to congratulate him on his win. Trump on Friday said that he believed Moore should concede the race.
The results of Alabama's Senate race will be certified between Dec. 26 and Jan. 3 after counties report their official totals.
Trump, for his part, appeared to be looking to the future.
"I think he should [concede]," Trump told reporters at the White House. "I want to support the person running. We need the seat. We'd like to have the seat."