SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home $3 Trillion In Tax Cuts Isn't Enough?

TIMOTHY NOAH NOVEMBER 16, 2011

$3 Trillion In Tax Cuts Isn't Enough?

BY TIMOTHY NOAH

Am I missing something? The Republican Study Committee is circulating a letter urging that the super committee "not increase Americans' tax burden. With current levels of taxation already limiting economic growth, we believe that marginal rates must be maintained or lowered and that repeal of any tax credit or deduction be offset with an equal or greater tax cut."

The deal currently being offered by super committee Republicans meets every one of those goals. As I explained yesterday, their tax package nets out to a tax cut of more than $3 trillion (if you count the plan's renewal of all the Bush tax cuts) or about $2 trillion (if you assume Obama was never going to cancel all the Bush tax cuts but only those for families earning more than $250,000). A planned increase in the top marginal rate from 35 percent to 38.6 percent gets cancelled under the GOP super committee proposal, and the top rate might get lowered further to 28 percent. In exchange, the super committee Republicans want to close some loopholes. The Republican Study Committee can't abide that. It wants more tax cuts to offset the revenue gained by the closing of any loopholes. To summarize: $2 to $3 trillion in tax cuts (as part of a deficit reduction deal!) just isn't good enough for the GOP's right flank.

What I fear is that the press will decide that since the tax proposal put forward by the super committee's Republican members has come under fire from both the right and the left, then it must be reasonable and any and all who oppose it must be extremists. A fair accusation to level against the Republican Study Committee. But the Democrats would have to be out of their minds to accept a deal that purports to be a $250 billion tax increase but in fact is a $2 to $3 trillion tax cut. I'm all for entitlement cuts in exchange for a tax increase. There truly is no other way to lower the long-term deficit. But this isn't a tax increase. Repeat: This isn't a tax increase. Would someone please tell the Washington Post? It's so busy tut-tutting the death of bipartisanship that it's forgotten how to do simple arithmetic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 15 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

15 comments

Aim high and hit low strategy. Problem is, their politics are so far Right, that they have to pretend to be even more mental than the most mental mentalist of their already mental party, which makes their truly mental position look merely mental or bipartisan, as it's called in the "everyone's got a mortgage to pay" media.

- IggyPop

November 16, 2011 at 3:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When basic aritmatic remains elusive, I suppose it's just too much to hope that these same media outlets will maybe, oh I don't know, explain how the gop argument itself is totally flawed: That we have been shown, over and over and over, that lowering taxes does not - repeat NOT - create jobs and improve economic growth.

- Tristan

November 16, 2011 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What I fear is that the press will decide that since the tax proposal put forward by the super committee's Republican members has come under fire from both the right and the left, then it must be reasonable and any and all who oppose it must be extremists." You predicted it perfectly TN. The "liberal" MSM will report it exactly like that with the WaPo leading the charge.

- tmmats

November 16, 2011 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More fine reporting by Lori Montgomery, perhaps?

- rayward

November 16, 2011 at 4:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I'm all for entitlement cuts in exchange for a tax increase. There truly is no other way to lower the long-term deficit." What about just increasing taxes without cutting mandatory spending programs?

- subterran

November 16, 2011 at 4:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What have you been smoking today, Ig? Sadly, the once great WaPo is a shell of its former self.

- liberalref

November 16, 2011 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I should be astonished that this is being reported as a "major concession," since "I'll give you $25.00 if you give me $300.00 back" involves about as much concession as a mugging, and yet somehow, I am not. There is an upside, of course. If "concession" is redefined in this way, perhaps I can talk to my boss and offer to make concessions on my salary for the good of the office's bottom line.

- janus

November 16, 2011 at 4:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lost in this noise is the question of why "current levels of taxation [are] already limiting economic growth" when much higher levels of taxation had no such effect over the last 60 or so years.

- boyski

November 16, 2011 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Crack cocaine Liberal. Helps break the week up.

- IggyPop

November 16, 2011 at 5:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It used to be that when I would hear a comment how "inside the beltway" was not in touch with the rest of the country, I would think "So what? If the rest of the country wants a free ride, Congress does not have to appease them." Now it's the opposite. The rest of the country wants responsible government and the Republicans want to raise polictical contributions. Where is the g*d*mn evidence that current low taxes on "job creators" is helping? And where is the evidence that we shouldn't raise tax rates?

- Nusholtz

November 16, 2011 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All the nutbag section of the GOP wants is to be able to shout "I opposed the Democrat plan to raise taxes and increase spending" next Fall. Whether there was such a plan or not doesn't matter. There will be surveys that show that 75% of the electorate believes that Obama raised taxes during his term when he didn't raise them a cent; and promises will be made of a surge in economic vitality and job creation (assisted by something they won't call a 'Stimulus Package') once the Republican is in the White House. It's already Tivo'd.

- ironyroad

November 16, 2011 at 5:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Man TN, you've just been destroying the Washington Post as of late. I'm all for pointing out that the Emperor is naked. Nobody seems to notice anymore...

- andyman345

November 16, 2011 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The worst part about this stuff seems to be the fact that Congress is ignoring the people. Since when is that a democracy? The Far Right isn't supported by a majority of Americans, yet, they act like somebody died and made them a king. This alone is pretty frightening, forget the economic repercussions.

- Sophia

November 16, 2011 at 7:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia: "The Far Right isn't supported by a majority of Americans, yet, they act like somebody died and made them a king." That's because the Far Right is who votes in Republican primaries. Moderate Republicans who might otherwise be reasonable fear primary challenges from the right. So they can't support reasonable revenue increases, even if they have majority support from self-identified Republicans. We don't have Republican rule in the House; we have a coalition government. And that's why nothing important can get done.

- dsimon

November 17, 2011 at 1:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with andyman345 that TN has been destroying the Washington Post.....and I love it. My hope is that TN decides to take on the Post like Andrew Sullivan took on Palin in 2008.

- JSAYKO@EXCITE.COM-old

November 17, 2011 at 11:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close