PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — The Oregon Legislature is considering a new bill that would add a tax on coffee beans and ground coffee, officials say. 
 
 But the chair of the Committee on Revenue said it’s not going anywhere. 
 
 House Bill 2875 would impose a tax of five cents per pound on wholesale coffee. It’s sponsored by the Oregon House Committee on Revenue. 
 
 Funds raised from this new tax would go toward establishing the “Alternative Education Sustainability Fund.” Half of those funds would go toward the Oregon Military Department to be used in the Oregon National Guard Youth Challenge Program. The other half would fund grants for Oregon school districts that operate alternative high school programs, as well as primary schools. 
 
 Schools that operate alternative high school programs and primary schools would be able to apply for those grants from the Oregon Department of Education. If awarded, the grant money could be used for “cost of operations and capital construction” of alternative high school programs and primary school reading programs. 
 
 If passed, the bill would go into effect on July 1, 2018. The bill did not mention an estimate of how much revenue this new tax would provide, but Oregon is facing a $1.8 billion budget gap. 
 
 This new tax would require a three-fifths majority from both the Oregon House of Representatives and Senate in order to pass. 
 
 A spokesman for House Republicans released the following statement on the proposal: 
 
 “I’ll say this about House Democrats; they never seem to run out of ideas for new tax increases. A tax on coffee is clearly not a proposal Oregonians would support, and we hope Democrats will disavow it just as quickly as they introduced it.” 
 
 On Friday, Scott Moore of the Oregon House Democrats told KOIN 6 News the bill is not going to even get out of committee. Lindsey O’Brien, the director of communications for House Speaker Tina Kotek, told KOIN 6 News there are “more than a 100 bills introduced to the Revenue committee alone, most of which will not move forward.” 
 
 Read the entire bill below. ||||| PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — With the Oregon Legislature set to convene on February 1, Republicans and Democrats will gather in Salem to decide how best to deal with the state’s $1.8 billion budget gap, whether to ditch the statewide ban on rent control and other pressing issues. 
 
 Oregon’s Budget 
 
 A budget framework for the 2017-2019 biennium was released on January 19 by the Co-Chairs of the Joint Ways and Means Committee, and it detailed how Oregon’s incoming revenue is 8% lower than what’s needed at current levels. 
 
 The framework listed a number of spending categories where cuts would need to take place, including education and health care. Needless to say, the cuts would have a large impact on several departments and would lead to layoffs in schools, declining health insurance coverage for Oregonians covered by the Oregon Health Plan, declining state funding for TANF and more. Furthermore, cuts to state funding could trigger a reduction in federal funding, creating a much greater loss to programs. 
 
 After the framework was released, House Republican Caucus Budget Chair Greg Smith, R-Heppner, issued the following statement: 
 
 “Like many Oregonians, I am deeply frustrated by the financial situation our state finds itself in. It is difficult to comprehend that at the same time our state is taking in record tax revenues, we are being told we do not have enough money to pay our bills.” 
 
 Smith went on to say House Republicans “stand ready” to work with Democrats in order to deliver on a budget that’ll acknowledge the need for spending reform. 
 
 Gov. Kate Brown unveiled her budget in December 2016, focusing on education, health care and job growth. 
 
 She proposed closing a loophole in so-called pass-through taxes, increasing a tobacco tax and discarding the customary increases in budgets for state universities and community colleges. Her budget will also look for inefficiencies, including keeping vacant state jobs open for 60 days and eliminating non-mandatory travel for state employees. Together, cuts and revenue increases are expected to address the current $1.8 billion gap. 
 
 Statewide Ban on Rent Control 
 
 With rent prices in Portland continuing to climb, many in the Rose City (like Commissioner Chloe Eudaly) are calling for quick action to protect renters. In November 2016, Eudaly called for a rent freeze and an end to no-cause evictions. A poll in September 2016 found 52% of Oregonians support repealing the statewide ban on rent control. 
 
 In response to these calls for action, House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, filed House Bill 2001 to repeal Oregon’s ban on city and county ordinances regulating rents. Her bill also aims to allow cities and counties to adopt rent stabilization programs (with certain restrictions) and impose a temporary moratorium on rent increases greater than 5% for residential tenancies (with some exceptions). 
 
 The House Speaker announced that she supported a state limit on rent increases and banning no-cause evictions at the state level back in September 2016. 
 
 A similar bill, sponsored by multiple representatives, also seeks to allow cities and counties to create ordinances regulating rent. Like Kotek’s legislation, House Bill 2003 would also repeal ORS 91.225 (the legislation prohibiting local rent control). House Bill 2003 differs, in that it doesn’t contain a cap on rent increases. 
 
 Both bills will face opposition from House Republicans. 
 
 A spokesman for House Republicans told KOIN 6 News more government intrusion into the marketplace wasn’t the answer to high rent prices. House Republicans said although rent control is potentially beneficial in the very short-term, it has proven to have negative impacts in the long-term. They cite a consensus among economists that rent control doesn’t produce the results it aims to achieve. 
 
 House Republicans believe that high rent prices are a result of a “basic breakdown in the laws of supply and demand” and suggest relieving pressure by incentivizing the development and construction of affordable units, to increase supply and lower demand. 
 
 Rural Communities 
 
 House Republicans said they want to prioritize rural Oregon during this legislative session by “forcing the majority party to be mindful of the impact of new laws on rural communities” and “advocating for policies that will help incentivize economic growth in rural Oregon.” 
 
 Despite the Portland-metro area having recovered from the depths of the great recession, some rural communities have not yet bounced back. 
 
 Rural Oregon still has a high unemployment rate, lower annual incomes for its workforce and downward demographic trends, according to the State of Oregon Employment Department. 
 
 Kotek also mentioned rural communities in her opening day remarks, saying “Despite these successes, we have more work to do to build an economy that creates equal opportunity for all. We cannot leave our rural communities behind as the state’s economy grows.” 
 
 She went on to speak on equal pay for women and supporting working families through affordable child care and policies that’ll allow workers to care for family members. 
 
 Justice and Ethics 
 
 In 2015, Oregon outlawed profiling by law enforcement based on race, ethnicity or other characteristics. 
 
 Kotek said she wants to “take the next steps” down that road, including setting up data collection, policies and training necessary to further cut down on profiling. 
 
 She also wants the legislature to consider reforms to how people are charged for certain drug offenses, how grand juries operate and to adequately fund public defense and increase support for legal assistance in civil cases. 
 
 Meanwhile, House Republicans are drafting legislation to limit the number of Salem employees that move from influential government positions to eventually turning into lobbyists that interact with the government, as well as the reverse. 
 
 The legislature will also have a number of other important issues to tackle, and it all begins in just over a week. ||||| Gov. Scott Walker unveils his 2011-'13 budget Tuesday to a joint Assembly and Senate at the Capitol. Credit: Gary Porter 
 
 By of the 
 
 Madison - Gov. Scott Walker vowed Tuesday to close a $3.5 billion budget gap by remolding Wisconsin government at every level: slashing aid to public schools and local governments while setting up increases in private school aid; eliminating 1,200 state jobs; and placing the tightest limits on property taxes that the state has seen. 
 
 To balance the budget without raising taxes or fees, the Republican governor is calling for sacrifices and changes affecting residents across the state, from students and participants in the SeniorCare prescription drug plan to poor families receiving health care or welfare from the state. 
 
 The two-year, $59.2 billion budget proposal also has a host of effects on Milwaukee, including ending the requirement that Milwaukee Public Schools teachers live in the city; expanding the use of voucher schools; and studying the possibility of converting the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee into a separate authority - a shift already being targeted for UW-Madison in the bill. 
 
 "We are returning to frugality and making the long-term decisions to balance our budget now and more importantly into the future. We will do the heavy lifting to protect our children and grandchildren from having to make the hard decisions that were once avoided," Walker said. 
 
 Throughout Walker's 25-minute speech, drumming and the roar of thousands of protesters could be heard outside through the thick walls of the Assembly chamber. The demonstration underscored a dramatic legal fight that played out Tuesday over the administration's restrictions on public access to the Capitol building before and during the speech. 
 
 The speech also came amid a continued standoff over a separate Walker proposal to eliminate nearly all collective bargaining for public unions that Senate Democrats have blocked by leaving the state. The Democrats' leader said Tuesday he believed progress is being made in ending the stalemate but declined to elaborate. 
 
 The proposed budget, which runs from July 1 to June 30, 2013, would force local governments and schools to cut their spending, because their state aid would fall by roughly $1 billion over the next two years and they would be prevented from making up that money by raising property taxes. Walker has said that local governments should absorb hundreds of millions of dollars of those cuts by trimming their employees' health and pension benefits. 
 
 Statewide union leaders have said they will agree to those cuts but only if Walker drops his proposal to eliminate nearly all union bargaining rights for public employees. 
 
 Democrats described Walker's proposal in apocalyptic terms, with Rep. Tamara Grigsby (D-Milwaukee) calling it an "absolute annihilation" of public education. 
 
 "He does this under the guise of fixing the budget, but what he's really doing is waging war on Wisconsin," Grigsby said. 
 
 The effects on Milwaukee, she said, would be a "blow that I don't think we can stand up to." 
 
 Republicans praised Walker for honestly balancing the state budget. 
 
 "It's the first budget we've had in 12 years that's going to actually be a balanced budget without any funny money," said Senate President Mike Ellis (R-Neenah). 
 
 Spending in the state's main account would rise by $384 million, or 1.4%, over the two years, with spending on health care increasing while most other major programs would see significant cuts. And with federal stimulus aid to the state budget having run out, total spending of state and federal dollars will drop by $4.2 billion, or 6.7%, over the two years. 
 
 The cuts in state jobs would be mostly vacant positions but could also include layoffs. 
 
 The Walker administration said his plan would cut the state's rolling shortfalls in future budgets by more than $2 billion, or 90%. But the plan would also push out $439 million in principal payments on state debt into later budgets and allow debt payments in future years to rise to unprecedented levels of more than 5% of the state's budget. 
 
 Here's a breakdown of Walker's proposal in key areas: 
 
 Education 
 
 The budget proposal would cleave $834 million in state aid for K-12 education, providing 7.9% below what was given in the current 2009-'11 budget. That would continue to move the state further from its former commitment to cover two-thirds of the costs of public schools. 
 
 In addition, the bill could increase the amount of money spent on Milwaukee's private school voucher system by making more city students eligible for the program and opening up enrollment to private schools in suburban Milwaukee County. 
 
 To keep school property taxes from filling the vacuum left by the loss of state aid, Walker has recommended a 5.5% decrease in the maximum amount per student that public school districts are able to receive in state aid and property taxes. That drop in the revenue caps would amount to a cut of about $555 in the average $10,100 per-pupil limit. The exact dollar amount would be greater for higher-revenue districts and lower for low-revenue districts. 
 
 UW-Madison economist Andrew Reschovsky said that could reduce the amount that school districts statewide could raise under the revenue caps by roughly $500 million and would likely lead to cuts affecting students. 
 
 "It's hard for me to believe that it wouldn't," Reschovsky said. 
 
 The proposal would turn the UW System's Madison campus into a quasi-public authority and study making the same change to the Milwaukee campus. 
 
 UW-Madison would face the deepest cut among state universities in Walker's proposed budget, but other state public universities would face 11% budget cuts and get none of the cost-saving tools UW-Madison would get by splitting from the UW System. 
 
 Tax cuts, the economy 
 
 Walker's budget would provide investors with lower state taxes on capital gains for investing in Wisconsin businesses. The capital gains changes would lower taxes by $36 million over the two years. 
 
 The bill also would give multistate corporations a larger window in using losses to offset their tax liability. That would lower taxes by $46 million over two years. 
 
 Those measures would come on top of the more than $100 million in tax cuts that Walker and lawmakers have already approved for the next two years. 
 
 The proposal would also provide $196 million over two years for the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., the partly private entity that is replacing the state Department of Commerce. 
 
 Health care 
 
 The budget would provide nearly $1.3 billion more in state money over the next two years - the biggest increase in state spending - to cover fast-growing costs in Medicaid health programs for the poor. But the administration will still have to find ways to avoid an additional $500 million in spending that would be needed under current trends for Medicaid. 
 
 So programs such as BadgerCare Plus for children and families, Family Care for the elderly and disabled in need of long-term care, and the SeniorCare prescription drug benefit still could see large changes and potential cuts. 
 
 For instance, SeniorCare recipients eligible for the separate federal Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit would be required to also enroll in the federal program. That would lower state spending by $15 million by shifting costs to the U.S. government. Recipients would see no changes in benefits, according to the administration. 
 
 Local governments 
 
 Besides the limits on school revenue, the bill would freeze property taxes for local governments, allowing them to increase only for the construction of new homes or buildings. 
 
 The bill would hold the growth in property taxes for the owner of the median-valued $160,000 home in the state to $42 over the next two years, according to projections by the administration. But the proposal would also squeeze local governments like cities and counties, which would see their aid cut by $96 million, or nearly 12% on average. 
 
 Walker's plan eliminates the requirement for local government to operate recycling programs, and also eliminates the state subsidies to run those programs. 
 
 In addition to the cuts in general aid for local governments, Walker's plan would reduce their payments to maintain local roads by 10%. 
 
 Transportation 
 
 Funding for highways would increase $410.5 million, and money would be fed into road projects in two key ways. First, it would shift $95 million from the state's main account to its road fund. Second, it would pay for bus and other transit systems - $115 million in all over two years - from the state's main account instead of the transportation fund. 
 
 Transit groups oppose such a change because they would have to compete with every other spending category to get funding. They also say public transportation keeps cars off roads, allowing them to last longer. 
 
 Over the next two years, Walker's budget would devote $225 million toward the Zoo Interchange in Milwaukee County and $196 million toward rebuilding I-94 from Milwaukee to the Illinois state line. 
 
 Walker's budget also puts money toward four new major projects - I-39/90 from the Illinois state line to Madison; Highway 38 in Racine and Milwaukee counties; Highway 10/Highway 441 in Winnebago and Calumet counties; and Highway 15 in Outagamie County. 
 
 Public safety, corrections 
 
 The budget proposal calls for more DNA analysts in the State Crime Laboratory, more staff to investigate child pornography cases and enforce tougher drunken driving laws, and more public defenders. It includes $1 million for raises for prosecutors. 
 
 The budget would eliminate the early prison release program approved as a cost-saving measure two years ago when Democrats controlled the Statehouse. 
 
 Walker's budget saves money for corrections in other ways, primarily because the prison population is declining as part of a national trend. The average daily population in the last fiscal year was just over 23,000, and Walker believes it will decline to about 21,200 in two years. 
 
 Money is also saved by closing Ethan Allen School in Wales and South Oaks Girls School in Union Grove. Those facilities have seen declining populations, and their operations would be shifted to Lincoln Hills School in Lincoln County. 
 
 Absent senators 
 
 Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) said he met Monday in Kenosha with some of the 14 Democratic senators who have been in Illinois since Feb. 17 to block a vote on Walker's separate budget-repair proposal because it takes away most collective bargaining rights from public workers. 
 
 No Democrat gave any hint of returning, but Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona) said in a telephone interview Tuesday that there have been "substantive discussions" with Republicans over the impasse. 
 
 Walker has said Tuesday was a deadline for passing his budget-repair bill, starting work on a $165 million bond refinancing and avoiding layoffs of up to 1,500 state workers. 
 
 A Walker spokesman Tuesday declined to say whether or when layoffs might start, while Miller said they could still be averted. 
 
 Meanwhile, Kevin Barthel of Lakewood filed paperwork Tuesday in Oconto County Circuit Court seeking an order to force Sen. Jim Holperin (D-Conover) to return to the Senate chamber. 
 
 *** 
 
 What's next 
 
 Gov. Scott Walker unveiled his 2011-'13 state budget Tuesday, but the bill must pass several hurdles to become law. 
 
 • First, the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee will receive briefings and hold public hearings on the bill in March and April. The committee will then vote on the bill and any amendments. 
 
 • Next, the Senate and Assembly must approve the bill along with any amendments. If the two houses pass different versions of the bill, they have to reconcile those differences, which can be done through a conference committee. 
 
 • Finally, Walker must sign the bill, potentially reshaping it with his powerful partial veto authority. ||||| Quietly, a fight has bubbled up in the ranks of House Republicans, which could derail the centerpiece of President Donald Trump’s congressional agenda. 
 
 The battle is really about tax reform, but its stage is the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution, which passed out of committee this week with unanimous Republican support. 
 
 Behind it all is a clash between Republican leadership and a group of archconservatives who see this moment — months before any major tax bill is likely to come before the full House — as their best chance to force deep cuts to both tax rates and social welfare spending. 
 
 Republicans are unified in their goal to cut taxes, but they are locked in an intraparty struggle of how deeply to cut rates — and whether to offset those cuts at all with increased taxation elsewhere. GOP leaders have proposed a tax reform blueprint that would include such an increase to offset lost revenue from rate cuts and keep the budget deficit from growing. 
 
 The conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus say that proposal is dead on arrival, and they are pushing House Speaker Paul Ryan to adopt an alternative: one that relies on draconian welfare spending cuts and incredibly optimistic economic growth projections in order to avoid swelling the deficit. Ryan has resisted their efforts, particularly their proposed spending cuts. 
 
 Rather than stage that fight this fall, when the White House and conservative leaders will undoubtedly ramp up the pressure to pass a tax bill, the Freedom Caucus members have chosen to make their tax stand over the budget resolution — a nonbinding government spending guideline that both chambers have to pass if they want to circumvent the threat of a Democratic filibuster in the Senate on tax reform. 
 
 GOP leaders are refusing to back down from a resolution that Freedom Caucus members warn would force a vote on a smaller batch of tax and spending cuts in the fall. But without the Freedom Caucus on board, the resolution will fail a floor vote — which is why caucus members have identified the budget resolution as their best leverage to get what they want on tax reform, Freedom Caucus member Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC) said. 
 
 And so the budget resolution has become a proxy war, while President Trump’s attention is still on health care in the Senate. 
 
 It is the same game of chicken, with the same key players that nearly killed the House health care bill in March. If neither faction blinks, Republicans, in control of the House, Senate, and White House will be stuck in a stalemate: No budget resolution means no tax reform. 
 
 For now, at least, Freedom Caucus members are saying they’re willing to take that chance. 
 
 Republicans have tied their whole agenda to something that’s really hard to get done 
 
 At the beginning of this year, thinking only Senate Democrats — with the power of a filibuster — would stop them from repealing Obamacare and cutting taxes, Republican leadership devised a plan to bypass Democrats altogether: They would tie their major agenda items to the budget through “budget reconciliation,” a bill that can impact spending, revenue, or the debt ceiling, with only a party line vote in the Senate. 
 
 It’s a process President Bill Clinton used to pass welfare reform in 1996 and President George W. Bush used to pass tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. It’s how President Barack Obama saw several budgetary amendments to the Affordable Care Act through. Republicans also attempted to use budget reconciliation to try to pass an Obamacare repeal bill in the Senate. 
 
 Budget reconciliation requires passing a budget resolution, forcing Republicans to thread the needle between members’ competing spending priorities and the larger contingents of tax cutters, deficit hawks, and defense hawks. This is hard, and because budget resolutions don’t actually fund the government or go to the president’s desk, and spending bills can be done without them, it’s a step that’s often skipped. 
 
 But this year Republicans have tied their hands. The budget resolution unlocks a path to tax reform, and depending on how the instructions for budget reconciliation are written in, it can also dictate how Republican actually implement tax cuts. 
 
 In budget reconciliation, each committee is instructed how much savings they must produce in order to pass a “reconciliation bill.” 
 
 Committees can only find these savings through mandatory spending — which most notably covers programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare programs like cash assistance and food stamps. But there are some limitations: Trump has repeatedly promised Medicare wouldn’t be touched under his presidency, and per reconciliation rules, Social Security funding cannot be cut. 
 
 If these reconciliation instructions are written strictly in the budget resolution, the level of required mandatory savings could influence how Republicans can approach tax reform — specifically how they pay for their tax cuts. 
 
 How do you solve a problem like ... cutting taxes without blowing up the deficit 
 
 In any scenario, Republicans are relying on projections of increased economic growth from tax cuts to offset the revenue losses from those cuts. But under most projections, growth alone won’t be enough to offset the full losses from the deepest cuts Republicans have discussed, including a drop in the corporate rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. 
 
 Ryan and the tax-focused Ways and Means Committee Chair Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) are adamant about executing a revenue neutral tax plan. To do that, they have floated implementing a border adjustment tax, which would tax foreign imports and exempt exports, raising money because the US currently imports more than it exports. Some analysts have projected that plan would be revenue-neutral after economic growth is factored in. 
 
 There’s a problem, though: So many Republican lawmakers — and major conservative donors — hate the border adjustment idea that it appears to have no chance of passing the House. 
 
 “You are adding a whole new tax and revenue stream on the economy and not getting rid of another one — that is always dangerous because it is just one more tax that could go up over time,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), a founding member of the Freedom Caucus, said of the BAT. “From a purely philosophical standpoint, I think this is problematic.” 
 
 There’s no need for revenue neutrality with tax reform, Jordan and the Freedom Caucus argue, in an attempt to make the case that these corporate tax rates would lead to what looks like extremely unrealistic GDP growth. But it’s unlikely Republicans will be able to convince members to vote for tax reform that removes the BAT without an alternative; the possibility of blowing out the deficit won’t gain much traction with a Republican conference that’s campaigned on doing the opposite. 
 
 The Freedom Caucus’s alternative is to make up the difference with deep cuts to welfare programs. Meadows said his caucus has identified upward of $500 billion in mandatory savings options Republicans could exercise. Most other House Republicans, though, seem unlikely to go along with those cuts. 
 
 The Freedom Caucus’s demands go too far 
 
 The Freedom Caucus knows that even without the BAT, if the party leadership is determined to be revenue-neutral, conservatives might be pressured into accepting a higher corporate tax rate to offset revenue losses, which they believe would reduce the economic growth generated by the bill. 
 
 That’s why caucus members are fighting for more dramatic mandatory spending cuts in the budget resolution — a welfare reform package that they say could in part pay for tax cuts. 
 
 With Medicare and Social Security off the table, the Freedom Caucus wants to put Medicaid, cash assistance, and food stamp programs on the chopping block. Currently the budget resolution has written in $203 billion in mandatory savings cuts overall. The Freedom Caucus wants something closer to $400 billion. 
 
 There are a lot of other dynamics at play here as well. 
 
 House Republicans, with overwhelming consensus, want to hike defense spending to $621.5 billion, which would bust the defense budget caps in the Senate — set at $549 billion. Authorizing that level of spending requires negotiating with Democrats, which would almost certainly increase to non-defense discretionary spending from the $511 billion the House has proposed. 
 
 House leadership has floated avoiding Democrats altogether by putting the additional defense funding in the Overseas Contingency Operations fund, which covers unplanned military expenses outside of the budget’s baseline. The proposed budget resolution already calls for $75 billion in OCO. For defense hawks in the House, like Armed Services Committee Chair Mac Thornberry (R-TX), “it’s better to have the money than not have the money,” but more than $100 billion in OCO is not ideal. 
 
 House conservatives, anticipating this negotiation with Democrats, are only heightening their call for more mandatory savings. 
 
 “Maybe we as the Freedom Caucus can live with a higher budget number if in fact we do real welfare reform on the tax bill — work requirements, time limits on able-bodied adults [are] part of that package,” Jordan said of a proposal to tie tax reform to welfare reform. 
 
 Because budget reconciliation instructions denote specific savings requirements for each committee, the Freedom Caucus is pushing for higher savings assigned to committees with purview over welfare programs, like the Agriculture Committee, which oversees food stamps. 
 
 That’s a difficult ask for committees that have their own spending priorities. 
 
 For example, Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX), who chairs the Agriculture Committee, has a farm bill to think about — to cover rural, low-income, and farming constituents. He and Budget Committee Chair Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) have made assurances that he would push for reforms including renewed work requirements for the food stamp programs, but not necessarily through the reconciliation bill. 
 
 Leadership say members can sign on to either $203 billion in savings overall or zero, one Republican aide close to the Budget Committee said — and that’s not enough to bring the archconservatives on board. 
 
 But for now, the Freedom Caucus isn’t buying this “binary choice” — without their votes, this resolution will fail on the House floor, and with it any hope for tax reform. 
 
 Last time House Republicans played chicken, Paul Ryan blinked 
 
 The question is, who will give in to the pressure first? 
 
 There’s no wiggle room for a failed budget resolution — and no faction of the party will want to come out against the president. 
 
 The battle ultimately comes down to the same two political dynamics that almost choked the health bill earlier this year: an era of extreme partisanship, in which congressional Democrats and Republicans are unlikely to work together, and a Republican Party that is polarized between its own moderates and conservatives. 
 
 Despite an ambitious agenda to repeal Obamacare, rein in government spending, and slash taxes, congressional Republicans have yet to enact a single piece of major legislation. 
 
 That’s left the White House desperate for some big policy wins fast. This game of chicken between House leadership and Freedom Caucus members is a big gamble. The lower chamber’s far-right contingent might have been able to successfully extract key concessions from Trump on health care — but it’s not certain they can do it again. 
 
 The White House is much more involved in the business of cutting taxes than it has been on health care policy. And the reality from this fight over the budget resolution is that if it continues — and is exacerbated by the Senate — it could keep Trump from yet another win. ||||| House Republicans on Thursday proposed the biggest overhaul of the U.S. tax code in three decades, a plan that would sharply cut tax rates for corporations and individuals while eliminating many popular deductions that Americans have long enjoyed. 
 
 At its core, the legislation would deliver the kind of tax relief to companies — $1 trillion over 10 years — that Republicans say will spark economic growth and encourage businesses to create more jobs and invest heavily in the United States. 
 
 Far less clear is the bill's impact on middle- and working-class households. The trade-off between reducing tax rates but curtailing deductions — such as the amount that homeowners can write off for their mortgage interest payments — means the impact will vary widely from one family to another. 
 
 Many Americans who need to take out big loans to buy homes in expensive areas such as New York, Boston and San Francisco could see their taxes go up. The Washington region would be a prime example of the trade-offs. High salaries here at lower tax rates would deliver savings off Internal Revenue Service bills. But high home prices mean home buyers take out big loans. The D.C. region is home to six of the 10 counties where residents take the highest average mortgage deduction. 
 
 The GOP bill would also scale back the amount Americans can deduct from their federal bill because of taxes paid to state and local governments. That could punish those who live in states with high income taxes — states that generally are governed by Democrats. 
 
 The uneven effects of the legislation — and the possibility that some middle-class Americans could see their tax bills increase — promise to complicate the Republican effort to unify behind the bill. Several powerful lobbying organizations, some long aligned with the GOP, vowed Thursday to fight the proposal. 
 
 But for Republicans, the tax push represents possibly their last opportunity to pass a major piece of legislation before campaign season begins for next November's elections, when their majorities in the House and Senate will be challenged. 
 
 President Trump has put changing the tax code at the top of his domestic agenda, and the party holds enough seats in the House and Senate to pass the bill into law without support from a single Democratic lawmaker. But to succeed, GOP lawmakers will have to avoid the internal divisions that have undermined other major legislative efforts, including multiple failed attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. 
 
 Trump praised House lawmakers for introducing the bill and predicted that some iteration of the tax cut plan will be signed into law by year's end. 
 
 "We are giving them a big, beautiful Christmas present in the form of a tremendous tax cut," he said in brief remarks from the White House. 
 
 The bill, unveiled by GOP leaders Thursday morning at an elaborate news conference in the Capitol, would slash the corporate tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent, the most significant in a series of benefits the bill contains for businesses. In addition to the $1 trillion in total tax cuts over 10 years for businesses, the proposal would mean $300 billion in tax cuts for households and families, as well as $200 billion in tax cuts — almost all of which will benefit the wealthiest families — by repealing the estate tax, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. 
 
 The legislation is the result of months of negotiation among Trump administration officials and many Republican lawmakers, discussions that continued right up to the hours before the bill's release. 
 
 On Wednesday evening, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) suggested the party might wobble on Trump's promise to permanently cut the business tax rate, instead having the rate expire after eight years as part of an effort to facilitate the bill's passage in the Senate. But in a late change, Republicans extended the cut in the business tax rate, in part by scaling back the scope of a new "Family Flexibility Credit" for parents and non-child dependents that the bill would create, said several people involved in the discussions who were not authorized to discuss them publicly. 
 
 In the version of the bill introduced Thursday, the credit would be worth $300 annually and would be eliminated in five years. 
 
 For individuals and families, income-tax rates would go down. Currently, families pay a tax rate of 39.6 percent on income above $470,700. The House Republican bill would apply that tax rate only to income above $1 million for families. Rates further down the income spectrum would be cut as well. 
 
 "It's an awesome tax cut," said Rep. Bill Flores (R-Tex.). "I mean, it rebuilds working-class America — great for jobs, great for the economy. It's going to be huge." 
 
 The bill would seek to balance revenue lost to the rate cuts, however, by scrapping numerous tax breaks, some of which are used by tens of millions of Americans and have large-scale support. 
 
 The change to the mortgage interest deduction drew immediate attention Thursday. Under current tax law, Americans can deduct interest payments made on their first $1 million worth of home loans. The bill would allow existing mortgages to keep the current rules, but for new mortgages, home buyers would be able to deduct interest payments made only on their first $500,000 worth of loans. 
 
 The proposal to scale back the ability of Americans to deduct state and local tax payments from their federal bill was particularly contentious during negotiations. 
 
 Republicans initially proposed eliminating that deduction entirely, but after a revolt by GOP lawmakers from New York, New Jersey and other high-tax states, the bill introduced Thursday contained a compromise. The bill would allow people to deduct their local property taxes from their taxable income, but only up to the first $10,000. 
 
 And Americans would no longer be able to deduct their medical expenses or property and casualty losses, according to a document outlining the plan. Tax credits for electric cars would be eliminated. Americans would no longer be able to deduct moving expenses or alimony payments. Large college endowments would pay taxes on their income in a way that treats them more like private foundations. 
 
 Some deductions would be expanded. The bill would nearly double the standard deduction that many Americans claim on their taxes, raising it from $12,700 to $24,000 per family. But this benefit would be partially offset by the elimination of the personal exemption that many Americans can claim, which can be large for families with multiple children. 
 
 The bill would also increase the child tax credit from $1,000 per child to $1,600. That credit would phase out once a family earns more than $230,000 a year, more than double the current $110,000 threshold. 
 
 The bill would add up to $1.5 trillion over 10 years to the national deficit, a move that contrasts with Republicans' efforts under President Barack Obama to block legislation that could have expanded the deficit. 
 
 With legislation introduced, the GOP tax effort moves into a new and perilous phase, with party leaders working to unify their caucus behind the measure while individual lawmakers seek changes that match their ideologies or the preferences of their constituents and donors — all while Democrats pound the measure and attempt to rally the public against it. 
 
 Party leaders are setting an ambitious timeline, with the House and Senate hoping to pass legislation before Thanksgiving. A Senate bill has not been introduced. 
 
 The GOP effort will also be tested by what House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) warned would be an "army of lobbyists" that would push Congress to make changes on behalf of their client industries and interest groups. 
 
 At least one major industry group, the National Association of Home Builders, announced days before the bill was released that the group would not support it, and others joined the attack within minutes of the measure's unveiling. The National Federation of Independent Businesses said it was also not backing the effort, saying the legislation "leaves too many small businesses behind." 
 
 Other business groups lauded the bill and are expected to try to help it win passage. 
 
 "In terms of a legislative text that addresses the core issues that must be addressed if we are going to grow our economy faster and raise wages for families, this is a home run," said Neil Bradley, chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 
 
 Among lobbying groups, the change to the mortgage interest deduction has proved particularly contentious. 
 
 Some budget experts have said this change is necessary because otherwise the tax code essentially subsidizes the purchase of large homes in the wealthiest parts of the country. But housing groups have long fought off such a change, as the median home price in numerous parts of the country can be very high. 
 
 Jerry Howard, chief executive of the National Association of Home Builders, said his group would fight the bill "tooth and nail," claiming that it could lead to a decline in home prices and a housing recession. 
 
 "This now is a direct assault on the American dream of homeownership," he said in an interview. 
 
 Republicans said these changes are necessary to allow them to lower tax rates for all taxpayers. But many Democrats signaled opposition, vowing to fight its passage even while in the political minority. 
 
 "This bill is like a dead fish," said Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). "The more it's in sunlight, the more it stinks, and that's what's going to happen." 
 
 The bill would not make changes to popular retirement plans such as 401(k)s, though. It also would not attempt to repeal provisions of the Affordable Care Act, though Republicans have said they might try to change the bill later for these purposes. 
 
 The legislative fight over the tax bill has become the Trump administration's biggest political goal after failed attempts to repeal the ACA. Trump wants the legislation to pass the House and the Senate by the end of the year, though they must resolve numerous differences. 
 
 Other changes in the bill would be far-reaching. It would, for example, make changes to college savings programs and have new requirements for tax-exempt organizations such as churches and charities. 
 
 Republican supporters of the measure said Americans will see a number of changes if the tax plan is signed into law, but they argued that the final result would be a major tax cut. 
 
 "They're interested in tax relief," said Rep. Peter J. Roskam (R-Ill.). "They're not particularly interested in the formula by which that relief gets to them." 
 
 Kathy Orton contributed to this report.
– Nearly 250 years after the Boston Tea Party, we could have a Salem Coffee Party on our hands. The Oregon Legislature is weighing a tax of 5 cents per pound on wholesale coffee, including coffee beans and ground coffee. KOIN reports that no revenue projection was given in House Bill 2875, but the Willamette Week's math suggests it could bring in about $2 million a year. (The state's budget gap stands at $1.8 billion.) The money would be earmarked for the Oregon National Guard Youth Challenge Program, alternative high school programs, and primary school reading programs. Willamette Week sees a disconnect there, reporting that lawmakers typically try to "establish a clear connection" between the tax and what the revenue will do, like property taxes paid by homeowners covering fire services. "The relationship between coffee consumption and alternative education is less clear," it writes. That said, the bill will go into effect on July 1, 2018, if it receives a three-fifths majority in the state House and Senate. A rep for House Republicans says "a tax on coffee is clearly not a proposal Oregonians would support, and we hope Democrats will disavow it just as quickly as they introduced it."