ShareThis Page

George F. Will: Defining down tax victory

| Wednesday, Nov. 1, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, whose panel is charged with writing tax law, pauses for reporters just after the House gave a significant boost to President Donald Trump's promise to cut taxes, narrowly passing a GOP budget that shelves longstanding concern over federal deficits in favor of a rewrite of the tax code. (AP Photo | J. Scott Applewhite)
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, whose panel is charged with writing tax law, pauses for reporters just after the House gave a significant boost to President Donald Trump's promise to cut taxes, narrowly passing a GOP budget that shelves longstanding concern over federal deficits in favor of a rewrite of the tax code. (AP Photo | J. Scott Applewhite)

WASHINGTON

Needing a victory, congressional Republicans have chosen not to emulate Shakespeare's Henry V before Agincourt. He advocated stiffening the sinews, summoning up the blood and lending the eye a terrible aspect. The Republicans would rather define victory down.

What began with a bang of promises of comprehensive tax reform will end with a whimper: The only large change will be to the national debt. Consider a small proposal: The significance of repealing the estate tax — raising about $20 billion this year, a pittance in the $3.88 trillion budget — would be philosophic rather than economic.

Desperate to propitiate impatient constituents, Republicans say this is no time (there never is a time) to fret about the national debt, which passed $20 trillion two months ago. House Speaker Paul Ryan says do not worry, “We finally have a president who is willing to actually balance the budget.” Ryan underestimates the president, who has promised to eliminate not just the budget deficit but the national debt in just eight years, without touching entitlements.

Superficial political discord distracts from this bipartisan consensus: We shall have a generous entitlement state and not pay for it. Instead, we shall offload onto future generations a substantial portion of the costs. As Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute reminds, during half a century of Republican rhetoric of frugality, 1960 to 2010, entitlement spending grew 8 percent faster under Republican presidents than under Democrats.

In the ninth year of the economy's unusually long expansion, and with near full employment, the budget deficit for the past fiscal year was $666 billion, up $80 billion from the previous year. Republicans reportedly flinched from a “border adjustment tax” on imports ($1 trillion in a decade) to partially recoup revenue lost from reduced rates, and now have gone wobbly about ending the deductibility of state and local taxes ($1.3 trillion). Republicans might still be contemplating steep reductions in the amounts that individuals can put into tax-deferred 401(k) retirement accounts. This will displease approximately 32 percent of workers and worsen the inadequate savings rate of a nation where defined-benefit pension plans are now mostly luxuries for government workers, almost a majority approaching retirement have nothing saved for it and the median Social Security payment is about $16,000 a year.

Dwight Eisenhower said: “If a problem cannot be solved, enlarge it.” Republicans should have made the case for large reforms that annoy democratically — almost everyone, simultaneously — but for a large purpose: a revenue system that stops subordinating economic efficiency to social engineering and rent-seeking, thereby maximizing the probability of growth sufficient to fund the entitlement state. That requires a bold argument — for a consumption tax or a carbon tax or a zero corporate tax rate or anything for which public-spirited people might stiffen their sinews and summon up their blood.

George F. Will is a columnist for Newsweek and The Washington Post.

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.