The President's Opening Bid on the Grand Bargain (III)
The President says he wants $1.6 trillion in tax hikes.
Republicans say they won’t raise tax rates but might be willing to close
some loopholes and limit some deductions and tax credits. Is compromise
in the air?
Not a chance. True enough, such “
base broadening,” as Republicans
like to call it, could conceivably generate $1.6 trillion in additional
tax revenues over the next decade.
But, wait. Didn’t the President just win a second term? The major
issue decided in last week’s election was that the rich should pay more.
So, presumably, that $1.6 trillion should come out of the pockets of
the wealthiest Americans.
“Broadening the base” has nothing whatever to do with the rich paying
more. That’s because a lot of tax credits and deductions help the
middle class and the poor.
If we end the Earned Income Tax Credit, for example, some of the
poorest Americans will end up sacrificing. That tab was $63 billion last
year.
Or if the “loophole” is tax-free employee health care, or the home
mortgage tax deduction, or tax-deferred 401K accounts, most of the added
tax revenues will come out of the pockets of the middle class.
So when Republicans talk about “broadening the base,” watch your
wallets. Now that the President has set his goal on $1.6 trillion in
additional taxes, the question is whether the rich are going to cough up
$1.6 trillion more.
There’s no way that $1.6 trillion can come out of the pockets of the
wealthy merely by capping the deductions the wealthy take advantage of.
If Republicans won’t budge on raising tax rates but insist on
broadening the base, Democrats should take aim at the biggest tax
loophole of all for America’s wealthy: the preference for capital gains.
Capital gains are now taxed at only 15 percent (the major reason Mitt
Romney pays a rate of under 14 percent on over $20 million of annual
income). Capital gains should be taxed the same as ordinary income. That
way, under a progressive tax system, the wealthy would pay far more —
on the way to $1.6 trillion.
++++
With the election behind us I had hoped we’d get beyond games of chicken. No such luck.
But first you need to understand that the game of chicken isn’t about how much or when we cut the budget deficit. Or even whether the upcoming “fiscal cliff” poses a danger to the economy.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office on Thursday warned that
the automatic tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to start in
January amount to too much deficit reduction, too soon. They’d put the
economy back into recession, and push unemployment to about 9 percent.
But the CBO also warned of an economic crisis ahead if the United States
doesn’t stem the growth of the nation’s exploding deficit.
Get it? Reduce the budget deficit too
quickly, and we’re in trouble. But fail to address the deficit, and
we’re also in trouble. It’s really a matter of timing. That’s why I
think any deal should include a trigger mechanism that begins to cut
spending and raise taxes when the economy has two consecutive quarters
of 6 percent unemployment or less, and 3 percent annualized growth or
more.
In reality, though, the upcoming game of chicken isn’t about any of
this. It’s over the clearest issue President Obama and Mitt Romney
fought over: whether taxes should be raised on the rich.
Democrats and Republicans are now maneuvering to maximize their
bargaining leverage when they sit down next year to decide this.
On Friday the President called on called on Congress to immediately
make permanent the tax cuts for Americans who make less than $250,000 a
year, while at the same time allowing tax rates to rise for wealthy
Americans — and then making those rates part of a broader deal next
year.
The President knows congressional Republicans won’t agree, but he
needed to set out his central demand because it’s the one thing that can
fairly be interpreted as a mandate from the election.
So what’s going to happen? Bear with me, because this gets interesting.
Some Democrats (and some White House strategists) figure they’ll have
most bargaining leverage in next year’s deal if they do nothing now –
allowing tax rates to rise automatically on everyone after the first of
the year. Then they plan to offer Republicans a deal that reduces taxes
on people earning less than $250,000 – which would be retroactive to
January 1st.
Republicans would have to choose between a tax cut on the middle
class or no tax cut at all. Democrats believe Republicans would have to
take the deal. Even Grover Norquist would be hard-pressed to come up
with an argument against it.
Some Republicans, meanwhile, figure they’ll have more bargaining
leverage if they keep things as they are until late January or February.
What’s magical about late January and February? That’s when the debt
ceiling has to be raised again, which means that’s when Republicans can
once again threaten to vote against raising it. (In theory, we’ll hit
the ceiling at the start of January, but the government can juggle
payments and take various “extraordinary measures” for another month or
two beyond that – maybe even until March – before it could no longer be
able to borrow enough money to pay its bills.)
This is the thinking behind House Speaker John Boehner’s proposal
earlier Friday that all the tax cuts — including those for the rich —
should be extended until next year, until there’s a deal. “I’m proposing
that we avert the fiscal cliff together in a manner that ensures that
2013 is finally the year that our government comes to grips with the
major problems that are facing us,’’ Boehner said.
So who blinks first? Democrats who don’t mind going over the cliff
because they’ll get a better final deal – and the deal will be
retroactive to January 1st so it’s not really a cliff at all
but more like a little hill? Or Republicans who want to extend the Bush
tax cuts beyond January 1st, until we get sufficiently close to the debt ceiling that they can once again threaten the full faith and credit of America?
As I said before, I had naively assumed the election would put an end
to these games, but obviously not. Yet Obama and the Democrats are
holding most of the cards now. Let’s hope they use them.
No comments:
Post a Comment