House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows said his "preference" is to do tax reform without the border adjustment tax on imports, a key component of House leadership's Better Way tax plan; "Let's go ahead and pass one without border adjustment, assuming that we can lower corporate [taxes] to 20 percent, flatten the rate out for individuals," he told me in an interview in his office.

Why this matters: Border adjustment is a key element of Republican tax strategy because it would raise so much money — more than $1 trillion over a decade — to offset other changes to tax law (or be a down payment on the wall with Mexico.) It would also serve Trump's policy goals by taxing imports. There are other ways to pay for tax reform, like closing loopholes and getting rid of deductions, but few are as likely and as lucrative. As chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, opposition from Meadows sends a signal to 35-or-so other members on the issue.

Without the revenue from a border adjustment tax, Meadows said he thinks the package could still pass the House, even if it wasn't revenue-neutral. "Assuming that lower taxes is good for growth, economic growth, why would you have to pay for something that's good for economic growth?" he asked.

The problem: Republicans want to pass tax reform through budget reconciliation, which means they don't need Democrats in the Senate. But to comply with reconciliation rules, the legislation can't add to the deficit. Which means the package needs to raise at least as much money as the tax revenue it eliminates through lower rates.

  • Meadow's answer to the reconciliation problem: "I think there's growing number of us who are willing to look at an individual bill, not through reconciliation, because your point's well-taken there, we're just saying alright, let's go ahead and advance tax reform on its own individual merits without the pay-for with the border adjustment tax. I believe we can pass it in the House, and we might even be able to pass it in the Senate, depending on how many senators are up for re-election, how much pressure they get from their constituency, et cetera."

Go deeper

How small businesses got stiffed by the coronavirus pandemic

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

The story of American businesses in the coronavirus pandemic is a tale of two markets — one made up of tech firms and online retailers as winners awash in capital, and another of brick-and-mortar mom-and-pop shops that is collapsing.

Why it matters: The coronavirus pandemic has created an environment where losing industries like traditional retail and hospitality as well as a sizable portion of firms owned by women, immigrants and people of color are wiped out and may be gone for good.

Apple's antitrust fight turns Epic

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

Millions of angry gamers may soon join the chorus of voices calling for an antitrust crackdown on Apple, as the iPhone giant faces a new lawsuit and PR blitz from Epic Games, maker of mega-hit Fortnite.

Why it matters: Apple is one of several Big Tech firms accused of violating the spirit, if not the letter, of antitrust law. A high-profile lawsuit could become a roadmap for either building a case against tech titans under existing antitrust laws or writing new ones better suited to the digital economy.

Survey: Fears grow about Social Security’s future

Data: AARP survey of 1,441 U.S. adults conducted July 14–27, 2020 a ±3.4% margin of error at the 95% confidence level; Chart: Naema Ahmed/Axios

Younger Americans are increasingly concerned that Social Security won't be enough to wholly fall back on once they retire, according to a survey conducted by AARP — in honor of today's 85th anniversary of the program — given first to Axios.

Why it matters: Young people's concerns about financial insecurity once they're on a restricted income are rising — and that generation is worried the program, which currently pays out to 65 million beneficiaries, won't be enough to sustain them.