Who's afraid of the fiscal cliff?
Were the average Republican asked for a succinct statement of his views on taxation, he might respond: “The tax burden — federal, state, local, together — is too heavy. We need to cut tax rates to free up our private and productive sector and pull this economy out of the ditch.”
This core conviction holds the party together. Yet today the leadership is about to abandon this conviction to sign on to higher tax rates or revenues, while the economy is nearing stall speed.
Why are Republicans negotiating this capitulation? Because they have been warned that if they do not sign on to a tax hike, they will take us all over a fiscal cliff. If we go over, Republicans are being told, you will be responsible for tax hikes on all Americans, for a surge in tax rates on dividends, interest, capital gains, estates, and for an automatic sequester catastrophic to the national defense. This is the pistol President Obama is pointing at the GOP.
Republicans are being told that they either vote for something they believe to be wrong and ruinous — or get something worse.
What are the perils for Republicans who sign on to an Obama deal? They will sever themselves permanently from much of the base of the party. While their votes may ensure that tax rates or revenues rise, they will have no assurance that the promised spending cuts will ever be made. Even Ronald Reagan fell for this bait and switch.
Then, if the tax hikes slow the economy, Republican collaborators will share the blame. They will have damaged the recovery. What would be their argument for re-election?
If you believe higher tax rates or tax revenues would be like poisoning an already weak economy, why would you collaborate in administering that poison?
Speaker John Boehner should tell the president politely that America's problem is not that we are taxed too little but that we spend too much — and the GOP will not sign on either to tax rate or tax revenue increases. For Republicans believe that would further injure the economy.
Then Boehner should urge his Republican caucus to do two things. Pass an extension of the Social Security payroll tax cut and block its automatic rise from 4.2 percent of wages to 6.2 percent, then vote to extend the Bush tax cuts for another year, with a pledge to do tax reform — lowering tax rates in return for culling, cutting or capping deductions for the well-to-do in the new year.
Then let Harry Reid work his will. If the Senate votes to let Social Security taxes rise, let Harry and his party explain this to the middle class that gets hammered in January. If the Senate votes to let the Bush tax cuts lapse for those over $200,000, decide in the caucus whether to negotiate.
As for the automatic sequester that would impose $100 billion in cuts next year, half in defense, do nothing. The budget has to be cut, and while these cuts are heavy on defense, the depth and mixture can be adjusted in the new year.
If Republicans walk away from tax negotiations with the White House, market investors, anticipating a sharp rise in tax rates on dividends, interest and capital gains next year, will start dumping stocks, bonds and investments to take advantage of the last year of lower taxes.
The market may tank. Let the party of high taxes explain it.
Pat Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Reagan shooter Hinckley closer to permanent freedom
- Insider: Lapierre’s play is improved
- Cole overcomes rough start as Pirates sweep Brewers
- Minnesota tight end Williams hopes to join father as 1st-round pick
- Steelers won’t be backed into a corner at NFL Draft
- For Penguins penalty kill, enough is enough
- Quarterback Tebow expected to sign with Eagles
- Outdoors notebook: Hunters Sharing the Harvest has big year
- Pirates notebook: GM sticking to plan with Kang
- Pitt football notebook: ‘No. 1 safety’ Mitchell asked to step up
- Penn State notebook: Offensive line is work in progress