It’s the One-Year Anniversary of the Day Republicans Lost the House

Trump signed a huge tax-cut bill, and then the GOP ran away from it.

Trump speaks at Tax bill ceremony

Alex Edelman/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On December 20 last year, more than 150 House and Senate Republicans gathered in the Rose Garden of the White House to celebrate the party’s most significant legislative accomplishment in more than a decade—the passage of a comprehensive overhaul of the tax code. The bill, in effect a massive transfer of wealth to the richest Americans, passed along mostly party lines. All but 12 House Republicans voted for the measure; every Democrat voted against it.

At the ceremony and in the days leading up to it, President Donald Trump and Republican leaders sounded a triumphant note. The Republican Party has long used the promise of lower taxes to entice voters and the prospect of higher taxes to scare them. “If we can’t sell this to the American people,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said during the floor debate over the law, “we ought to go into another line of work.”

Republicans failed to sell the law over the next 11 months, and in November, more than two dozen members of Congress who voted for the law were fired. If you wanted to pinpoint the exact moment Republicans lost the House, you could do a lot worse than that ceremony—not just because it was an unpopular law that laid bare the most cynical priorities of the ruling party, but because this was the closest thing they thought they had to a life preserver.

Start with the unpopular part. One of the most controversial aspects of the law was a cap on the annual deduction for state and local taxes. This wasn’t a big deal in places like Texas or Florida that don’t have a state income tax, but it meant that a landmark “tax cut” was actually a significant tax hike for many residents of California, New York, and New Jersey—incidentally three states that are, or were, home to a substantial number of endangered Republican members of Congress. Some of those Republicans, like John Faso and Dan Donovan of New York, voted against passage, but whether they supported it on an individual basis was almost besides the point; the law was the handiwork of the Congress they’d empowered. On Election Day, Democrats netted 14 seats in those three states alone—seven in California, three in New York, and four in New Jersey. They only needed 23 to win back the House.

There was a lot more to the Democratic wave than an unpopular tax law, but the bill touched a lot of other things. The new law blew up the budget deficit, undermining the entire political identity of incumbents, such as Virginia Rep. Dave Brat, who had cast themselves as responsible checkbook-balancers. (His opponent, congresswoman-elect Abigail Spanberger, delivered one of the most memorable lines of the cycle on exactly this subject.) Democrats’ most consistent point of emphasis in 2018 was health care, and it likely would have been regardless of whether tax reform passed. But the law that eventually passed was a health care law too—the tax bill repealed the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.

In covering the 2018 campaign, I found it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were eager to talk about the new law. That was in tune with pre-election surveys (and the Republican Party’s own polling), which found that voters saw it for what it was—a gift to corporations and the rich above all else. Besides, tax reform wasn’t a hypothetical anymore; voters could decide for themselves whether this new law was a godsend. It’s one thing to promise voters that the future passage of tax reform will change their lives, but it’s another to convince them that it already has when it hasn’t. Paul Ryan’s boast that the law inflated a Pennsylvania public school secretary’s paycheck by $1.50 ought to be the 115th Congress’ epitaph.

Eventually Republicans stopped even trying to sell the law, opting instead to talk about kitchen-table issues like MS-13 and antifa. What else did they have to turn to? They never passed an infrastructure bill, they didn’t build the wall, and they gutted parts of the health care law without replacing it with anything. You just don’t get many signature accomplishments. If you can’t sell the one you have, well, you go into another line of work.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate