I would have been onboard with the deduction cap if the revenue had actually been used to lower the deficit and help sustain existing expenditures--regardless o

I would have been onboard with the deduction cap if the revenue had actually been used to lower the deficit and help sustain existing expenditures--regardless of whether I personally agreed with those expenditures. Instead, it was used to partially offset a corporate tax deduction in a bill which significantly expanded the deficit. The bill effectively transfers wealth from the top 10-20%, as well as the top 98-99% of future generations' through their debt burden, and passes it on to the top 1-2%, putting a few bucks in the pockets of the bottom 50% for good measure. This is banana republic politics at its finest. I'm also not enamored of California transferring its wealth to states which continue supporting inherently broken fiscal policies in Washington. Texas gets a pass, but almost every other conservative-leaning state uses federal monies to backstop their own fiscal failures. There's nothing new about rich states helping poor states--its the whole point of the union--but its problematic when the poor states sustain such a fiscally craven political culture. The benefit of the SALT deduction is that it permits states to raise more revenue, and because states can't run long-term deficits there's more fiscal accountability. Making it easier for the Federal government to raise revenue isn't actually more efficient if the Federal government will simply use it as a pretense to lower tax rates and (mindbogglingly) run even greater deficits!