Ban congressional hearings

Barthold was forced to sit through more than six hours of “debate” on the Republican tax cut bill, which lawmakers tried desperately hard to make entertaining for some home audience they could only hope were watching, but probably weren’t.

But it proved one thing: Congressional hearings should be banned. Committees should call up bills and push them out with as little talking as possible.

Republicans actually tried that on Monday. They held a markup, but it quickly turned into a complaint fest featuring the complaints of about 40 lawmakers.

Democrats railed that the markup was just “theater,” but then figured as long as they were at the theater, they might as well add to it. Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., bellowed at Republicans for several minutes and then apologized to Barthold for being used as a prop by the GOP to pretend this was a serious legislative process.

“You’re merely a showpiece today,” Larson said. “You’re camouflage for what’s really going on here.”

Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., shot back that being loud doesn’t make a person right.

“I don’t find it necessarily more persuasive when people speak louder,” he said.

But both sides ended up playing the role of Gallagher the prop comic. To lawmakers, Barthold was the watermelon, and they brought their respective mallets of logic down on him hard until everyone was covered with messy red watermelon gunk — metaphorically speaking, at least.

Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J., asked Barthold a series of embarrassingly simple questions in an effort to prove that Republicans were lying when they said the standard deduction for married couples would double under the GOP, when in fact, the deduction would almost double.

Pascrell pointed out that the new standard deduction for married couples in 2018 would be $13,000.

“Can you tell me what $13,000 times two is, Mr. Barthold?” Pascrell asked.

“Twenty-six,” Barthold dutifully answered.

“Very good. Very good, Mr. Barthold.”

Pascrell then went on to prove, using math, that the GOP deduction would not be twice as big as $13,000, since it would only be $24,000. (The Republican talking point on this is that deductions would be “roughly doubled” from their current levels.)

“Is $24,400 more or less than $26,000? It is less, Mr. Barthold,” Pascrell said.

Are you riveted, America?

Rep. Tom Reed, R-N.Y., took his own turn lobbing softballs at Barthold. He sat next to a stack of books that comprised the U.S. tax code, and asked Barthold if he knew how many pages the code was.

“No, I don’t,” Barthold said. “Depending on the different publisher, and whether you count the footnotes, you can get different results. But … your stack is impressive.”

“Thank you, I appreciate it,” Reed said as the crowd laughed.

And it continued, in the way that only “debates” in Congress can: predictably and endlessly.

“No expert witness has been given the opportunity …” complained Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas.

“So it is true if we cut the taxes on hardworking taxpayers, they’re going to have more money to decide what they want to do, instead of giving it to the federal government?” asked Rep. Jim Renacci, R-Ohio, scoring a point for Republicans.

“Is this paid for?” Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., injected into the debate.

One of the more telling comments came from Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., who said Republicans were embarrassing past Ways and Means committees with their tax bill.

“Each and every person in the room today knows that the bill we are considering is an insult to their legacy,” he said. “This bill is a shame and a disgrace to the spirit and history of this committee, and the constitutional duties and responsibilities of the United States Congress.”

Could Republicans possibly find a witness on the planet who could convince Democrats that the tax bill was a good idea, after language like that? Is there a Democratic witness anywhere who could get Republicans to rethink the idea of lower taxes?

Let’s can the hearings. These lawmakers know just what they think already.