The media and other Democrats campaigned hard against the tax cuts and tax reform plan.  It is clear that the law will be successful, so it is being attacked as benefiting wealthy shareholders too much.  Today we get two opinion pieces from the Washington Post spewing forth this garbage.

First:

Democrats, on the other hand, said it was a scam. They charged that workers would see only a fraction of the benefits, and instead corporations would use most of their windfall for things like stock buybacks, which increase share prices and benefit the wealthy people who own the vast majority of stocks.

Second:

But the buying back of shares is also at record levels.

Almost 100 American corporations have trumpeted such plans in the past month. American companies have announced more than $178 billion in planned buybacks – the largest amount unveiled in a single quarter, according to Birinyi Associates, a market research firm.

Why didn't these reporters list $350 billion in Apple investment, $50 billion in Exxon investment, $20 billion in Chase investment, and all the others that have been announced that will give major job opportunities, especially to the middle class and people who want to be middle class?  These investments along with raises, bonuses, increased benefits, and charitable contributions will dwarf the buybacks, so why did they leave them out?

It truly is pathetic that the Democrats along with the sycophant journalists have indoctrinated so much of the public to believe that the wealthy are the only ones who benefit from stock prices going up.

Here are some of the "rich" shareholders Democrats say are getting too much:

The California pension system, CALPERS, had a value of $326 billion, 1.9 Million members, and $21.4 billion in payments in 2017. 

The third largest pension system, N.Y., had $192 billion in assets, over 1 million members, and over $10 billion paid out in 2017.

At the end of 2016, retirement accounts, including IRAs and 401(k)s had $26 trillion in assets.

I look forward to Democrats going around the country telling retirees, savers, and pensioners that they are rich shareholders and that government deserves the money more than they do even though the shareholders took 100% of the risk.  That should be a winning issue in elections.

It is incomprehensible to me that Schumer, Pelosi, Durbin, and most reporters are so ignorant that they don't understand that increasing stock values and profits helps everyone in the U.S, not just the wealthy.

For example: In Springfield, Illinois, the pension system is underfunded, and they are not getting the unrealistic return on investment that is expected.  On a budget that is around $130 million, they were projecting to be $11 million short, mostly because of pensions.  To cover this shortfall, they are cutting services, taking money out of a rainy day fund, and raising three regressive taxes: the sales tax, the telecommunications tax, and a natural gas tax.  Each service cut and regressive tax harms the poor and middle class more than the rich.  I wonder what the city will do next year to cover the additional shortfall in pensions, because the situation is getting worse, not better.

It is a simple concept that the higher the rate of return to shareholders, the less taxpayers including the poor and middle class are going to have confiscated from them.

It certainly appears from articles and Democrat talking points that the politicians who are against shareholders getting a better rate of return would rather have a slower economy and tax everyone to death.  Somehow, to Democrats, it is better to make more people dependent on government than giving them significantly more opportunities to move up the economic ladder because of the tax cuts, increasing stock values, and decrease in regulations.

Everyone should also remember that all the journalists and other Democrats who are complaining that the tax cuts, bonuses, raises, and benefits aren't high enough wanted the lower and middle class to get zero while continuing to make D.C. more wealthy and powerful.