In partnership with

Morning! As usual, we’ll get started after the ads below. Today’s advertiser is three times more generous than usual with their payment per click, though, so please give them a look if you’re still on the free version of this ‘sletter? Thank you for your support! ⬇️

ADVERTISEMENTS FOLLOW

END OF ADVERTISEMENTS

First, though, I went for a walk in Central Park yesterday with my mate Lee and it was incredible. He was kind enough to take a few pictures of me.

I also went to the Met to see the Black Dandy exhibition curated by Anna Wintour. It included this striking 1994 film about Ozwald Boateng taking his collection to Paris. It was fine. Then I went and saw the Sargent in Paris show, which is also fine, but the best pictures in it were actually done in Venice. This one grabbed me from across the room. I read the caption and was like, “so these two were in love.” Don’t you agree?

Although amazingly there’s no record of anything illicit between the men on the Internet, whatsoever. I remembered from reading Natalie Dystrka’s biography of Isabella Stewart Gardner that Sargent was gay. Indeed, a recent exhibition in Boston explored his fascination with a Black elevator attendant. That’s the only time Boston is going to beat New York at anything for a while, though, sadly.

Google’s AI search reminded me that; “While John Singer Sargent never explicitly stated his sexuality, the evidence suggests he was likely gay. There's no definitive proof, but numerous circumstantial details point to a same-sex orientation. These include his close friendships with gay figures like Oscar Wilde, his portrayal of male figures with what some interpret as homoerotic undertones, and his private nature regarding his personal life.”

The main problem with this for modern gay critics — and the rest of us — is that Sargent was probably gay before you could be gay publicly. So in that way, he’s a lot like Harry Styles. His art is really about the spaces in between what’s private and what’s public, particularly during the Victorian era of social repression in England, and I must say that as a result, the filthier pieces really were compelling. Look at this:

I would retitle this painting “the proposition.” My question is really, who owns it?

A gay Trinity student wrote a piece about the “problem space” of Singer’s identity, as a result of all this. But he concluded: “Perhaps we cannot definitively “claim” people like John Singer Sargent as “one of our own,” but it is enough to see, as author E. M. Forster wrote, “occasional glimpses of the happiness of 1000s of others whose names I shall never hear.”

And that’s a nice bit of poetry for you, isn’t it?

Now. The GOP tax bill. I’m afraid it is not poetic. But if you skim through the next few paragraphs you’ll be able to enrich your life with some art and drama afterwards. That’s my contention. We read the newspaper so that our lives can be otherwise interesting.

The Republicans are at it again, Tony Romm reports, rolling out another tax bill that promises to save the world but, shockingly enough, seems to favor billionaires over “hard-working Americans.”

Representative Jason Smith of Missouri (R), in what can only be described as political theater, began his sales pitch for the bill this week by claiming that the bill would “shift our economy toward one that serves [those “hard-working Americans”], not the wealthy and well-connected.”

And I think we can agree, that’s always been the GOP's priority. Also that Jason Smith of Missouri (R) is full of poopy. According to a helpful dose of reality provided by the Penn Wharton Budget Model, a nonpartisan scorekeeper, the truth is in fact the opposite of what Jason Smith of Missouri (R) said. Under the bill many Americans earning less than $51,000 annually could see their after-tax income drop:

Work harder, plebes!

By contrast, the top 0.1% of earners who make north of $4.3 million a year, stand to gain an average of $389,000 annually.

In other words this bill, which is in the interests of “hard-working Americans”, simply redefines what a “hard-working American” is to be someone earning north of $4.3 million a year. If you’re struggling to make ends meet, you’re just trash, and we’re going to rob you. Now that’s the GOP’s agenda we’ve come to know and love!

Naturally, House Republicans have been quick to defend the bill, rejecting any suggestion that it favors the rich. Because who wouldn’t believe their claim that cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans magically results in better jobs and wages for everyone else? Representative Smith even boldly declared that the proposal prevents the “largest tax hike in American history,” which, if true, could have been pretty terrifying— except for those pesky details showing how the bill actually would disproportionately harm lower-income Americans by hiking taxes on them.

I hate these f___ers. I just f___ing hate them.

Republicans have tossed in a few shiny incentives for “everyday workers,” such as a $1,000 bump to the standard deduction and a $500 increase to the child tax credit. Neither of these will help. They’re also scraping federal taxes off tips and overtime pay, which is apparently their grand attempt to make it seem like they’re communists.

Meanwhile, the bill is so far being funded by slashing programs like Medicaid and food stamps. It’s worth noting that the bill is all still a work in progress and that by the time it reaches the president’s desk it will have been pruned of its worst excesses. Cutting Medicaid and taxing social security are disastrous ideas. Let’s hope they’re off the table eventually.

President Trump chimed in with his usual gravitas on Truth Social, proclaiming that “The Bill is GREAT” and promising “The Golden Age of America.” Who needs evidence when you have capital letters?

On Thursday, more conservative Republicans decided to engage in some good old-fashioned self-sabotage, revolting against the bill because they feel its cuts to programs like Medicaid and food stamps just don’t go far enough, according to the second front-page story.

Representatives Chip Roy of Texas and Ralph Norman of South Carolina (who honestly sound like jerks before I know anything else about them) led the mutiny, claiming that the proposed legislation would add too much to the deficit. Mr. Roy: “Right now, the House proposal fails to meet the moment. It does not meaningfully change spending. Plus, many of the decent provisions and cuts don’t begin until 2029 and beyond. That is swamp accounting to dodge real savings.”

Forget tax breaks for the wealthy; this is what’s ruining America.

The current bill, which attempts to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, is priced at a modest $3.8 trillion. How is this paid for? Well, by imposing work requirements on Medicaid recipients and eliminating clean energy subsidies, of course. Despite these stellar ideas, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated the bill would still add approximately $3.3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. How fiscally conservative of them.

Meanwhile, other Republicans used colorful language to voice their dissatisfaction. Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, ranted on social media: “On Medicaid work requirements: Start ‘em now. The American People are sick of half measures. Some of my congressional colleagues want to do anything but LEGISLATE…”

Pot, kettle. Kettle, Scott.

To make things even more entertaining, Speaker Mike Johnson is now walking a tightrope. He’s trying to pacify both the hardcore conservatives demanding deeper spending cuts and the swing district Republicans terrified of losing their seats.

Nothing encourages bipartisanship within a party like asking members to vote themselves into early retirement by gutting Medicaid. Johnson, in true politician fashion, optimistically told reporters, “Not everybody’s going to be delighted with every provision in a bill this large, but everyone can be satisfied, and we’re very, very close to that.”

Sure, Mike, that sounds convincing.

And the chaos doesn’t stop in the House. Even if the bill miraculously clears the Budget Committee (spoiler: it might not), Senate Republicans are already sharpening their knives, promising to impose “significant changes.” After all, what’s the point of passing a doomed bill without making it even messier?

This domestic policy bill is shaping up to be less of a legislative achievement and more of a cautionary tale about what happens when political factions start eating their own. While the Republicans are clusterf___ing in Congress, of course, voters can sharpen their own knives.

As your gift for getting through all that, here’s an acknowledged masterpiece:

Strange clowns in the foreground, eh? Thanks for letting me read the newspaper so that you don’t have to.

Say, is there a story that might cheer me up a bit?

Sure. They sentenced Salman Rushdie’s attacker to a quarter of a century in prison. I feel bad for the poor guy because he’s evidently mentally ill and the victim of efforts to radicalize him but honestly? I also believe he can be held responsible for his actions in that context. I downloaded David Mamet’s new film Henry Johnson last weekend and it deals with similar themes. Mamet took a turn towards Trump at some point, although the play — flawed as it was — I would suggest is anti-Trump, and anti-disinformation and anti-radicalization. The one defense we have against such nonsense is facts in a democracy and for that reason I am very grateful for the chance to read the newspaper so that you don’t have to. Mamet is brilliant at portraying desperate men and for that reason his new film really does feel timely as well as bonkers.

Matt Davis lives in Manhattan with his wife and kid.

Standard disclaimer: I read the top story in the New York Times every morning so that you don’t have to. If you were forwarded this, you can subscribe here. I’m also doing a five-minute video version of this, each weekday morning at around 9 a.m. (depending on how long it takes me to read the newspaper). If you’d like to follow me on LinkedIn (you can always watch the recording later). If you subscribe to my Youtube channel it’ll also send you a notification when I’m “going live.”