As of the early morning hours of Saturday, December 2, 2017, Senate Republicans were able to successfully pass their tax reform bill that they, as well as President Trump, campaigned on leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

We have seen outrage from left-leaning celebrities, talk show hosts, Democratic politicians and everyday Americans alike, but let's be honest with ourselves: excluding those on Capitol Hill, no one has actually read and understands all 497 pages of the tax bill.

So, let me ask those in opposition of the bill: why believe your neighbor's assessment of the damage this tax bill will do to our country when 137 economists, from both ends of the political spectrum, have all expressed support for this tax bill? One would assume that professionals who hold economic expertise would give a fair and balanced, not to mention accurate, prediction of the effectual implications of this bill.

Obviously, the loudest voices of opposition are from the Democratic camp. Article after article claims that the GOP tax bill will ultimately raise taxes on the middle-class and low-income earners; however, as indicated within the second bullet point in this article from CNBC, for example, the rise in taxes would occur in 2027--after the GOP tax bill expires in 2026.

Now, let me ask another question: why would Democratic politicians, as well as left-leaning political commentators, political analysts and media outlets portray this information in such a deceitful manner (so deceitful, in fact, that it was awarded four Pinocchios by the Washington Post's fact checker)? The answer is simple: politics.

Politicians, contrary to popular belief, are all exceptionally intelligent people. Democratic politicians, though their policy standpoints make me think otherwise at times, are not an exception to that rule. They know full well that this tax bill will lower taxes on middle-class Americans, but they are running with the fallacious claim that this bill will hurt them anyway.

As a budding political scientist, it seems obvious as to why this is the course of action that they are responding with. But I realize that not everyone is as inclined to dissect the rationale behind a politician's words or actions, which is something that I think my fellow colleagues in the political science department fail to grasp.

The main concern on every Democrats mind, at the moment, are the 2018 midterm elections, as well as the 2020 presidential election looming on the horizon more broadly.

Because this tax bill will likely not go into effect until 2018, Democrats are going to begin exhaustively campaigning on the damaging effects it will bring, again, after it expires in 2026, leading up to the 2018 midterms. It may actually pay off for some of them, since many Americans will not begin reaping the benefits associated with a higher return until they file their 2018 tax returns, which will be in 2019.

Having said that, they will have less luck campaigning on this tax bill in the 2020 presidential election since middle-class Americans will have received higher returns for two years before casting their votes in November of 2020. Which is why we are seeing such hyperbolic backlash against the GOP tax plan while we are still in its purgatorial phase. The more doubt and uncertainty Democrats can cast on the efficacy of this bill will only help them come election time.

Now that I've addressed why Democrats are deceptively telling the American people that this bill will actually raise taxes on the middle-class, let's address where they're basing that assessment: the bill's expiration date in 2026. Why would Republicans give their grandiose tax overhaul an eight-year window?

SURPRISE--it's politics again.

Guess what will be happening in 2026? Another midterm election! Republicans strategically coordinated their tax bill's expiration date with a midterm election for a pretty smart reason.

Since 1980 every president outside of George H.W. Bush has served two terms, so odds are that trend will continue forty years later. However, in that same stretch of time, a two-term president has been succeeded by a member of the opposite party, again excluding President George H.W. Bush, so odds are that trend will continue forty years later as well. Because of that, it gives Republicans a great campaign strategy to run on in the middle of what they assume to be a Democratic president's term.

Before I close I'd like to address one final issue being brought up regarding this tax bill: the $1 trillion it will add to the deficit. But this point is actually very, very easy to explain away.

If I'm taxed $1 million dollars, and the government spends $2 million, then that has added $1 million to the deficit. If tax brackets are readjusted, and I end up only having to pay $500 thousand, but the government still spends $2 million, then $1.5 million has been added to the deficit.

$1 million wasn't added to the deficit initially because of anything I, as a taxpayer, did. It was because the government was spending $2 million when it was only taking in $1 million. In other words, it was spending money that it didn't have. So when I was allowed to keep more of my income, that act isn't what raised the deficit by $500 thousand--the deficit was raised because the government didn't reduce it's spending to coincide with my reduction in taxation.

Of course, nothing that I have written here is to say that this is a perfect tax bill. In fact, I think it's far from it. But my point is that the ultimate goal of every politician is to remain in office and politicking is a natural byproduct of that. With the least of which being spurious accounts of an opposing party's tax proposal.