First she limited the total amount to 30K pounds per person for several years (about $100K in today's money), so a married couple had $200K of mortgage relief. Then she dropped it to $100K per property for a few more years, then phased it out entirely for new mortgages - old mortgages were grandfathered in as the rules applied when they were written.

Worked a charm - there was an impact on property prices, but it happened in 2-3 small steps, and with property prices rising, it was more of a leveling off than a drop in value.

It seems that the numbers guys (including Ryan) had been sort of banking on using 'savings' from gutting healthcare to pay for the bulk of their tax cut, and are urging Trump to try for another bite at that apple. Strangely, they think it would be easier to sell a tax cut with funds stolen from sick people to the Freedom Caucus, and worse, they're probably correct.

You hit a nail on the head with your example of mortgage interest deduction. The tax code is little beyond codification of entitlements to those in one situation or another. I think Pat Buchanan is attributed with the aphorism that an entitlement, once extended, can't ever be revoked.

It may be, as Krauthammer remarked during health care, that is the genius of the left. So or not, the curse of the MovementCons is that they can't deliver revenue neutral --let alone deficit reducing-- tax entitlements to the Chamber-of-C or multinational constituencies unless they can rip off the revenue from those in middle or lower class circumstances either by frog-boiling or stealth.

Without a big head start on pulling those off via health care, and thanks in large part to candidate Trump's populism and promises, that looks damned near impossible right now.

Remember, a lot of the tea party and conservative Republicans were elected specifically on REDUCING the deficit and not increasing it. That was supposed to be the priority even over reduced taxes.

Plus, there is a much more important deadline looming, onrushing from the distance like locomotive headlights. Some kind of continuing budget resolution MUST be passed by April 29 in order to avoid a government shutdown, and it can't be done without Democratic votes. Unless of course the Republicans can all stick together and do away with the last remaining filibuster in the Senate, the one on legislation.

I agree though it will be interesting to see what voters in places like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia do during the next couple of election cycles, when they realize that Trump's campaign promises were empty ones and he really can't bring coal field jobs back no matter what he does, and Republicans only make the opioid crisis in their midst even worse by making healthcare even more expensive and less available to the working poor and unemployed.

I think you make a good case that Trump, Ryan and McConnell will opt for Candyland. That said, I'm going to Red Team your theory.

The incentive for Trump is he can fulfill some campaign promises: infrastructure, military procurement and even the wall are promises that can be pitched as "job creation" to the lunch bucket electorate and as pork o'rama to big contractors.

The incentive for Ryan and McConnell is they finally accomplish some legislating, which they have not been particularly good at to date.

There are obvious dangers though: big infrastructure, military and wall are going to ramp up fairly slowly, won't produce all that many jobs, and most of the jobs directly related to the projects are going to go to highly skilled workers - not the rust bucket rural coalition created by Trump. If you work at Wendy's you'll probably still be working at Wendy's, but maybe more hrs.

There is also the danger of deficit induced inflation, which the US hasn't seen in a while and which may eat up most, all or more than all of the trickle down benefits to low skilled and low demand participants in the workforce. This could come back to bite Trump, Ryan and McConnell in their next elections. In keeping with the infrastructure theme, Candyland could prove a bridge too far.

Another danger lurking in Candyland is just pure love of ideological purity-and the fear of an ideologically driven primary election opponent. I think politicians are more cautious than I've seen them. Compromise or going along to get along are perceived as risky politics. Cable news and Twitter are nasty enforcers.

So, there you have it, my counter theory. I'm no macro economist either. Trump on the other hand shows every sign of becoming a macro economist. I notice his third chin is nearing completion and his rump wing is getting more impressive every day.

"Golf is not exercise unless you carry your caddie." - attributed to Eisenhower's cardiologist.

"The man ate bacon at every meal... you... you can't do that!"- City Slickers

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-economic-data-fed-futures-throw-doubt-on-trump-boom-2017-4

Wall St. is learning the hard way that 45 is great at promising things, but can't deliver - President Obama had him nailed - he is just a carnival barker.

Now with PM May calling a snap election, I'm wondering if 2017 could be the year of undoing:

1. Undo Brexit with a strong mandate from the Brits
2. Impeach 45 as even the Republicans lose patience with him

In fact the Republicans don't even need to impeach 45, they just need to start subpoenaing his business documents, starting with his tax returns and any loans from non-American citizens of financial institutions and he'll run back under the stone he crawled out of. Pence and Sessions will then go all antediluvian on us and the Republicans are toast for a generation.

If the GOP had any shame, the biggest problem for them would be the whole "running up the deficit" thing.

Since they don't, who knows if their voters will pay attention or not?

Heh.

-CW

They'll buy off the "Freedom Caucus" with one at a time with individual give-aways until they have enough votes - it will be interesting to see how they react when they are faced with standing together and hoping that the rest of the caucus doesn't take a bribe or get to the front of the line. Ryan only needs to tell them that he only needs 1/2 of them to get the bill passed, and the first 1/2 that agree can get some candy and the rest get nothing.

It could give Ryan a lever to split them permanently.

The Democrats just need to stand and point "They're giving your boss a six figure tax cut and the rest of us are lucky if we get $500, plus they are running up the deficit".

Should be entertaining.