Been catching whiffs of this over the last three or four days. Ways and Means Brady is talking about cutting taxes...BUT...he needs to create a new tax or raise taxes somewhere else to offset the "costs" of the tax cut. Why? Revenue neutrality. Got to keep the same amount of money, or always more, coming into the guvment so the politicians can continue to buy votes and spend money like sailor whores. No offense to sailor whores but...

This is why I stopped calling myself a Republican and started calling myself a conservative. Looks like politicians are all the same...give us your money so we can spend it. These Mo Fo's are the black hole of asss-hole-dom.

"Whenever politicians bring up the topic of "tax reform," what they usually want is a reshuffling of taxes so changes to the tax code will look like a tax cut — without reducing tax revenues or lessening the tax burden. In other words, policymakers usually want a tax reform that is "revenue-neutral," and this has been explicitly stated by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle for years now.

Last month, for example, Kevin Brady, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee stated through his office that he will propose a new tax plan to Donald Trump that will not cut tax revenues: "rather than reducing tax revenue and increasing the US fiscal deficit, will 'break even within the budget, knowing it's going to grow the economy.'"

This is standard operating procedure in Washington, and was also the case with the 1986 tax reform under Reagan.

From the perspective of the policymakers, revenue-neutral tax reform is a good thing because it allows them to reward interest groups the party in power likes, while punishing the interest groups they don't like. That is, reform allows them to to pick winners and losers in the newly-rearranged tax situation. In many cases, tax reform also allows policymakers to make claims of "tax cuts" to groups of voters without actually cutting government revenues, and thus continuing to spend freely."