
• AOC Slams $25,000 Cap on No Tax on Tips Provision
• Trump Wants to Be the Anti-Musk
• DoJ Will Ramp up Denaturalization Program
• Things Fall Apart; the Centre Cannot Hold
• Senate Retirement Watch
• Democrats Are Deluding Themselves
Donald Trump Wants His Big Bill by Tomorrow
Months ago, when Donald Trump ordered House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to get his giant bill done by July 4th, that date was a vague abstraction. Now, it is tomorrow. It is not a done deal yet, but it looks like Trump is going to get his wish.
The Freedom Caucus expended much oxygen complaining about the Senate version of the bill. And yesterday morning, once the actual Senate bill was in hand, the FCers released a three-page critique of the bill. Here are some of the criticisms:
- Increases Deficits
- Fails to Terminate Biden's Green New Scam
- Stripped Key Protection Against Illegals Getting Medicaid.
- Illegal Aliens with Trump Accounts
- Waters down House provision to curb waste, fraud, and abuse in SNAP
- Loaded with pork to buy key Senate votes to secure passage
- Slashes the 3.5% House tax on remittances, which were meant to curb illegal immigration
- Doesn't deliver substantive Health Savings Account (HSA) expansion for Americans
- Fails to stop taxpayer-funded sex changes and abortion
- Continues multi-billion-dollar tax loopholes for foreign tobacco companies
- Radically expands the eligibility of the costly RECA Fund
- Undermines Second Amendment Protections
- SALT Blue States Handout
- Partial Medicaid Improvements
- Other Failures
The last item is a compilation of another half dozen complaints. If you want a detailed explanation of each bullet point, see the link above.
Of course, what the FC has ignored is the fact that each of the provisions they don't like was inserted (or not inserted) to placate one or more senators whose vote was needed. Such is the nature of sausage-making. If the FC had made the sausage all by itself, the bill would have been different, but that is not the way of the Senate. Or of politics, for that matter.
The BIG question now is: Is this all bark and no bite (as usual)? It certainly looks like the answer is "yes." The FCers, and some other members, expended even more oxygen yesterday complaining about the bill. But then, Trump twisted some arms, and Johnson held some closed-door meetings with the holdouts. Late Wednesday night, the House voted 219-213 to advance the bill to the floor, for a final vote. The only person, on either side of the aisle, to cross party lines was Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA). He is the most centrist member of the Republican conference, and he also represents the wealthiest district in the state, the D+1 PA-01. So, one imagines his "no" vote was about SALTy matters.
When a member votes to bring a bill to the floor for a vote, they don't always vote for the actual bill. However, they usually do. Further, both Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) said last night they believe they have the votes they need. So, the odds are very good the Senate bill will pass the House today, and will get Trump's signature on July 4, as planned. Remember: FCACO.
Exactly how the Freedom Caucusers' votes were secured is a very interesting question. At least five of them were loudly proclaiming themselves as "no" votes as late as yesterday afternoon. Maybe all it took was a few threats from Trump. Or, maybe Johnson offered them some sort of goodies.
Those goodies, if they exist, are not in this bill, because the bill can't be altered without going to a conference committee, and there isn't time for that before the July 4 deadline. And those goodies probably won't be in a future bill, because reconciliation isn't available, and anything the FC wants can't get past the Senate filibuster. That probably means that if anything was offered, it was some sort of action Trump promised to take in the FCers' home states. If any deal made is not related to legislation, then the people involved don't have to reveal what horses were traded, and they might never do so. But if Trump announces next week that, say, all mosques in Texas must be closed down, under his authority granted by the Alien and Sedition Acts, you can make a pretty good guess as to where that came from.
It is also possible that the deal was Trump not doing something he could have done to punish recalcitrant members. NO member is going to brag: "That big military base in my district that employs 10,000 people isn't going to be closed after all because I gave Trump what he wanted." (V & Z)
AOC Slams $25,000 Cap on No Tax on Tips Provision
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is the only member of Congress who ever lived on tips. Hence she is a big fan of one provision in the House bill (which she otherwise hates), namely the section removing taxes on tips workers receive. However, the Senate version changed that part radically. Most importantly, it put a maximum of $25,000 on the amount of income that could be excluded. That was done, in part, to prevent highly paid partners in law firms, etc., from taking $1 in salary and, if they did a good job, getting millions in tips from their partners.
AOC said: "So, if you're at home, and you're living off tips, you do the math. Is that worth it to you—losing all your health care, not able to feed your babies, not being able to put a diaper on their bottom? In exchange for what?"
What she didn't mention is that there is a catch. That provision expires at the end of 2028, just before Donald Trump leaves office. It also applies only to tips that the employee reports to the employer for purposes of withholding payroll taxes. It also applies only to workers whose income is below a certain threshold. For workers who earn so little that they are not subject to federal income tax in the first place, there is no benefit.
There are other limits, as well. Only workers in specific industries are covered. Also, the provision affects only federal taxes, not state taxes. Finally, will tippers now give less because they think the tips are tax free? Consequently, the provision is not quite the windfall some tipped workers were hoping for. Still, for some workers, it is better than nothing.
Another thing the law may do is encourage workers who were previously not tipped to ask for tips. Think plumbers, auto mechanics, accountants, etc. Americans hate tipping and think the practice is totally out of control. Now it is only going to get worse. (V)
Trump Wants to Be the Anti-Musk
As we have pointed out about a zillion times, anyone who works for Donald Trump, does his bidding, and worships him, will ultimately become the enemy when the worm turns. So it is with Elon Musk, once the First Buddy. Musk said he is out of politics, but that only applies to 2025, when there are no elections he cares about. Come 2026, he is likely back in. After all, he likes playing kingmaker and $100 million is nothing to him.
Trump doesn't trust Musk, and is already taking measures to head the South African off at the pass. Specifically, Trump is launching a new super PAC called Full Support for Donald (so, "FSD PAC," a play on Full Self Driving). What Trump will do is ask friendly billionaires who want something from the government to toss a few mil in the pot. That way, if Musk provides support for an anti-Trump candidate, the super PAC can provide support for the candidate's opponent, to even out the score. Musk spent $250 million on Trump's campaign in 2024. There are plenty of billionaires who could match that if they wanted to. Sheldon Adelson spent $100 million on Republican campaigns year after year. If Trump has half a dozen billionaires who want something from the government putting money in the pot, there may be enough to match Musk and thus neutralize him.
As to Musk's plan for a new party, that is just vaporware. There is almost no real demand for a new party. Every cycle, some group—say, No Labels—tries it and no one wants to run on the ticket. It is a losing proposition. The bottleneck isn't money. It's lack of demand. Also, if by some miracle, a third-party candidate got elected, every Republican and Democrat in Congress would want that president to be a complete failure, to stamp out the movement. The president would get nothing accomplished. Congress would block every proposal. Ain't gonna happen. (V)
DoJ Will Ramp up Denaturalization Program
Donald Trump's deportation program is expanding. Not only is it going after migrants in the country illegally, but it is also targeting a whole new group: people who entered the country legally and were naturalized to become citizens. The DoJ wants to denaturalize (some of) them—that is, strip them of their American citizenship, even though they got it legally. The reasons for denaturalization are broad and vague, and can involve something that happened either before or after the naturalization. For example, it could be exercising their rights under the First Amendment. In other words, people who are legally citizens could be stripped of their citizenship and deported for doing things that are themselves perfectly legal. Another possible reason for denaturalization is opposing Trump.
You want a concrete example? OK. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) has proposed stripping Zohran Mamdani, a naturalized citizen who was born in Uganda, of his citizenship. His offense? Winning the Democratic primary for mayor of NYC. Ogles didn't like that. Sorry, Mamdani, you need to be deported. Expect more cases like that ahead. (V)
Things Fall Apart; the Centre Cannot Hold
William Butler Yeats wrote that in 1919 in the aftermath of World War I. It is still true. The media desperately wants to believe that many voters and some politicians are moderates and there is a future for moderatism (?) in America. We can't say anything about the distant future—say, 2035—but in the immediate future, there doesn't appear to be any.
The imminent retirements of two high-profile moderate Republicans make that clear. Moderate Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) saw the writing on the wall when Donald Trump threatened him with a right-wing primary challenger next year and just threw in the towel and announced he won't run for reelection. Tillis is 64. He could possibly have served another 20 years as a (sort of) moderate in a swing state—if only there were a market for moderates in swing states. Tillis lamented the rise of tribal politics and the decline of bipartisanship in Congress.
He isn't the first moderate Republican to collapse when Trump took aim at him. Former senators Mitt Romney, Bob Corker and Jeff Flake all ran for the hills when Trump decided it was time for them to go. Trump's real power is his cult-like grip over 75 million voters who would drop everything and walk a mile barefoot over scorching concrete covered with broken glass if he orders them to. This cartoon by two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning-cartoonist David Horsey is as true now as it was in 2014 when Horsey drew it, even though the players have changed:

Tillis made a telling comment on Sunday. He said that when members of the other party exhibit signs of "moderatism" (i.e., are willing to work with your party on something), they are hailed as heroes. But if someone on your team does the same thing, he or she is scorned, ostracized, or censured as a traitor to the cause.
A second moderate who gave up is Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), who represents the "blue dot" in Nebraska (Omaha). The district is D+3, but Bacon's brand of moderatism (plus his background as a retired Air Force brigadier general) have gotten him elected to the House five times, even in a bluish district. He could probably have won again next year, but he clearly understands that there is no future for moderates in the Republican Party at this moment. Bacon is only 61 and could potentially have had another 20+ years in the House, but what's the point of it? Nobody is listening to him, despite his 29 years of service in the Air Force. He worships Ronald Reagan, but in the modern Republican Party, that makes him a moderate, if not a RINO.
In reality, not a lot of members are really moderates anymore, and those who are tend not to showcase it too much except when holding rallies in hostile territory. The combination of extreme partisanship coupled with an almost evenly divided electorate means that anyone not vigorously defending the party line has a big problem with his or her base. Being a moderate is not easy right now. (V)
Senate Retirement Watch
Thom Tillis' retirement has focused attention on a bunch of Senate races where the incumbent has already announced a retirement or may yet, plus a few where the voters might make the retirement decision. Here are the seven senators who have announced they are out at the end of next year.
Senator | Party | State | Reason for retirement |
Tommy Tuberville | Republican | Alabama | He is running for governor of Alabama |
Dick Durbin | Democratic | Illinois | Age (80) and pressure for generational change |
Mitch McConnell | Republican | Kentucky | Age (83) and failing health |
Gary Peters | Democratic | Michigan | He is only 66 but says it is time for a new generation |
Tina Smith | DFL | Minnesota | She was originally appointed and never really liked the job |
Jeanne Shaheen | Democratic | New Hampshire | She is 78 and has been in public office for 35 years |
Thom Tillis | Republican | North Carolina | Trump threatened him and he caved |
These not-so-magnificent seven are already out, but there could be a few more. There has been an average of five open Senate seats in all elections since 1930. We are already above that, but there is plenty of time for more members to join the list.
Many eyes are on Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), who shot herself in the foot at a town hall. When a constituent said that the MAGAbill (which Ernst voted for) would cause Iowans to die, Ernst said: "Well, we all are going to die." That didn't go over so well, and after the bill actually passes and some Iowans lose their health care, the Democrats are going to make hay of it (pigs will eat it if there isn't anything better on the menu). If the Democrats can find a strong contender and Ernst's polling goes south, she might drop out rather than face a battle, especially if a blue tsunami is forming. In a blue tsunami with the right candidate, Iowa could at least be competitive.
Also on retirement watch, albeit the "involuntary retirement watch," is Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). He is facing firebrand Texas AG Ken Paxton in what is shaping up to be a bitter primary. Paxton is exceedingly Trumpy and Cornyn is not. If Trump endorses Paxton, that could mean that Cornyn is sent into retirement, even though that is not part of his game plan. Could the Democrats win an open seat in Texas? The odds are against it, but Paxton is the kind of shoot-first-think-later guy who could say something on camera so damaging that even Texans can't stomach it. Let's put it this way: If Democrats are going to win in Texas anytime soon, they'll need to draw an opponent like Ken Paxton.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) hasn't officially launched her campaign yet, and she did vote against the Big Bill, which could help a bit. However, if Democrats get their druthers and Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) jumps in to oppose Collins, the senator might decide to go home, even though home (Caribou, ME) is only 10 miles from a foreign country as the crow flies, and of course she knows all about those dastardly immigrants sneaking across the border from foreign countries. Caribou could soon be overrun. You never know.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) has crossed swords with Trump a few times in the past, but has since taken to hiding under his desk in the Senate. He has already drawn a couple of primary challengers. Trump has the memory of a flea when it comes to policy but the memory of an elephant when it comes to perceived slights. If Trump decides to back one of Cassidy's challengers, then Sen. Cassidy might decide to go back to being Dr. Cassidy (he was a liver specialist).
These possible vacancies aside, all the Senate talk now is about North Carolina's actual upcoming vacancy. Democrats are praying that Lara Yunaska Trump, who is married to Eric Trump, will announce a run. She was born in Wilmington, NC, grew up there, and has a degree in communications from North Carolina State University, so she would not be a complete carpetbagger, despite not having lived in North Carolina in 20 years. Is she Trumpy? If you have any doubts, check out her last name again. She has never run for anything before so she can't run on her experience. All she has to offer is her last name. And boy would that bring out Democrats in droves. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) has said he will not run, no matter what Lara Trump does.
The other thing to keep an eye on is what former governor Roy Cooper does. North Carolina is a purple state. The North Carolina governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state and superintendent of public instruction are all Democrats. Although the last Democrat to win the state's electoral votes was Barack Obama in 2008, Democrats do regularly win elections in North Carolina. Against Lara Trump, Cooper would have at least even odds, maybe better, and if a blue wave builds up, he would be the favorite, as he left office with an approval rating of +14 points. Cooper knows that the day he announced, a few million dollars would roll in and that would probably pass $100 million before the campaign started in earnest.
The New Hampshire race could be interesting. It looks like Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH) vs. former Massachusetts senator Scott Brown. In that race, Pappas will point out a few times that his family has been in New Hampshire since his great grandfather moved there from Greece, while Brown recently represented Massachusetts in the Senate. How many ways can you spell C-A-R-P-E-T-B-A-G-G-E-R?
The Michigan race is unsettled. Three high-profile Democrats are already in and more could follow. They are state Rep. Joe Tate, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, and Rep. Haley Stevens. Michigan AG Dana Nessel might yet enter. On the Republican side, former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers is the only well-known candidate so far, but there is a long list of possible entrants.
Minnesota is kind of a blue state; the biggest question is which Democrat will win the primary. Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan (DFL-MN) is part Native American, which gets the lefties all excited. But her likely primary opponent is Rep. Angie Craig (DFL-MN) who is a lesbian. Needless to say, there will be a big battle of which group is more deserving of a Senate seat. No top-tier Republican is in yet.
Alabama, Illinois, and Kentucky are not going to flip, no matter who the candidates are. (V)
Democrats Are Deluding Themselves
A core belief among many Democrats is: If we could only improve turnout, we would do better. Put in other words, Democrats fervently believe that the 30-40% of people who don't vote are actually secret Democrats and if they could be turned out, Democrats would always win. Turns out, more and more studies are showing that belief to be wrong. Nonvoters are, at best, politically neutral and, at worst, secret Republicans.
Pew Research has a new report out that shows Democrats are deluding themselves. Pew interviewed 9,000 voters after the election and then painstakingly checked to see who voted and who did not and how the nonvoters skewed. What the study showed is that if all the nonvoters had voted, Trump's 2024 margin would have been 3% instead of 1.5%. In other words, if the nonvoters had voted, Trump's popular vote margin would have doubled. The nonvoters were actually lazy secret Republicans.
This one study is not a fluke. In 2020, a Stanford study compared states that had made voting easier to states that had not. The conclusion was that neither party gained from having a greater turnout. The extra voters were roughly evenly split between the parties.
Similarly, a study by the Public Policy Institute of California found that making it easier to vote either had no effect or in some places helped Trump.
The dynamics of this are complicated. If there is a strict voter-ID law, campaigns will invest more money and energy in educating and registering voters. If there is a law making voting by mail easier, campaigns will do more outreach to get ballots returned. If early voting is expanded, campaigns will divert funds and spend them in October to nail down votes. The effects of changes in the law are not always simple. But the assumption Democrats have been making for years that nonvoters are just lazy Democrats is not likely to be true.
So far no reason for this effect has been found. Maybe nonvoters watch Fox News from time to time but are generally not interested in politics. Maybe they get their news from ill-informed friends. Also, why don't they vote? Some probably say it is too much trouble. Others probably say their vote doesn't matter. More in-depth research is needed here. (V)
If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.
- questions@electoral-vote.com For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
- comments@electoral-vote.com For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
- corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
- items@electoral-vote.com For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.
Email a link to a friend.
---The Votemaster and Zenger
Jul02 Abusing the System, Part I: Paramount Pays Its Protection Money
Jul02 Abusing the System, Part II: The Next Wave of Sham Lawsuits
Jul02 Abusing the System, Part III: Trump Minions Pay a Price
Jul02 Never Forget: Saving Private Ryan
Jul01 The Big, Beautiful Budget Bill Beat Goes On
Jul01 Another Supreme Court Term Comes to an End
Jul01 Pride Month, Part I: Elphaba, not Glinda
Jul01 Candidate News: Governors
Jul01 Never Forget: Dr. Rancher
Jun30 Megabill May Come up for a Vote in the Senate Today
Jun30 Thom Tillis Will Retire
Jun30 Collins Is Deeply Unpopular in Maine
Jun30 Trump Isn't Exactly Doing a Power Grab
Jun30 Newsom Sues Fox News for $787 Million
Jun30 Another Test of Youth vs. the Establishment
Jun30 Reading the Tea Leaves
Jun29 Sunday Mailbag
Jun28 Supreme Court Gives Donald Trump a Late Birthday Gift
Jun28 Saturday Q&A
Jun28 Reader Question of the Week: Capraesque
Jun27 Adventures in Overreach, Part I: More Trouble for the Big, Beautiful Bill
Jun27 Adventures in Overreach, Part II: Trump Managed to Shank the Iran Bombing
Jun27 Adventures in Overreach, Part III: Trump, Bondi Have Managed to Saddle Themselves with a Real Mess
Jun27 Adventures in Overreach, Part IV: Dodgers Throw a Bean Ball at Trump
Jun27 Never Forget: WTF?
Jun27 I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Deep Down
Jun27 This Week in Schadenfreude: $JPROOF Gets Knocked on Its Rump
Jun27 This Week in Freudenfreude: Helping the Children of Gaza Back on Their Feet
Jun26 Trump Treated Like a King by a Real King
Jun26 Democrats Are Struggling with a Response on Iran
Jun26 The Son of the Former Shah of Iran Wants His Dad's Old Job
Jun26 Trump Has a New Plan for Deporting Hundreds of Thousands of Immigrants
Jun26 The BBB Is Not Out of the Woods Yet
Jun26 New Poll: Trump is 14 Points Underwater
Jun26 Vance Explains the Trump Doctrine
Jun26 Gabbard Appoints a Trumper to a Key Position
Jun25 Cuomo Comes from Ahead to Lose
Jun25 Iran Stuff
Jun25 When Will Congress Act to Save Social Security?
Jun25 Never Forget: Cold Warrior
Jun24 Peace in Our Time
Jun24 Robert Garcia Likely to Succeed Gerry Connolly at Oversight
Jun24 Murkowski Hints at Party Switch
Jun24 Never Forget:
Jun23 Are We at War or Not at War?
Jun23 Trump Will Get Big Win from Europe, But the U.S. May Be the Loser
Jun23 Trump Doesn't Trust Gabbard
Jun23 It's Almost July 4th
Jun23 New York City Primary Is Tomorrow