A cliff of their own choosing
With a chip on his shoulder larger than his margin of victory, Barack Obama is approaching his second term by replicating the mistake of his first. Then his overreaching involved health care — expanding the entitlement state at the expense of economic growth. Now he seeks another surge of statism, enlarging the portion of gross domestic product grasped by government and dispensed by politics. The occasion is the misnamed “fiscal cliff,” the proper name for which is: the Democratic Party's agenda.
For 40 years the party's principal sources of energy and money — liberal activists, government employees unions — have advocated expanding government's domestic reach by raising taxes and contracting its foreign reach by cutting defense. Obama's four years as one of the most liberal senators and his four presidential years indicate he agrees. And he surely understands that the entitlement state he favors requires raising taxes on the cohort that has most of the nation's money — the middle class.
Mitt Romney as candidate and others before and since have suggested increasing revenues by capping income tax deductions. This would increase that tax's progressivity, without raising rates that would dampen incentives. Obama's compromise may be: Let's do both.
Those proposing higher taxes on the wealthy note that when the income tax began in 1913, the top rate was 7 percent. But in 1917, war brought a 67 percent rate. Between 1925 and 1931, the rate was 24 percent or 25 percent, but in only five of the subsequent 80 years — 1988-92 — was the top rate lower than it is today.
Republicans respond that because lower rates reduce incentives to distort economic decisions, they promote growth by enhancing efficiency. Hence restoration of the higher rates would be a giant step away from pro-growth tax reform. Furthermore, restoration of the Clinton-era top rate of 39.6 percent would occur in the very different Obama era of regulatory excesses and ObamaCare taxes. Hence Republicans rightly resist higher rates.
Given liberals' fixation with the affluent paying their “fair share,” it might seem peculiar that they are so vehemently against Paul Ryan's “premium support” proposal for Medicare. Their recoil is, however, essential to the liberal project.
Ryan's supposedly radical idea is that people should shop for health insurance, with government subsidizing purchases by the less affluent. This would introduce what soon will be inevitable — means testing, aka progressivity. But liberals reject it with a word the incantation of which suffices, they think, as an argument — “voucher.”
Liberals' strenuous objection to vouchers is that vouchers empower individuals to make choices. It is the business of the liberals' administrative state, staffed by experts, to make choices for inexpert individuals.
Washington's contentiousness about the “cliff” is producing a blizzard of numbers. The argument, however, is not about this or that tax rate but about the nature of the American regime. When the Republican House majority acts as though it has a mind — and a mandate — of its own, this is not Washington being “dysfunctional”; it is the separation of powers functioning as the Founders intended. Their system requires concurrent congressional majorities — one in the Senate, with its unique constituencies and electoral rhythms, another in the House, with its constituencies and rhythms. And at least 219 of the 234 House Republicans won in November by margins larger than Obama's national margin.
George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and Newsweek.
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.
- Steelers defensive end Tuitt shifts into high gear
- Rossi: Pirates foolish to bet on Burnett return
- Steelers notebook: No decision on surgery for rookie CB Golson
- McGinty officially a candidate for a Democratic U.S. Senate nomination
- Steelers’ Mitchell taking cautious approach about dealing with injuries
- Rain postpones Pirates-Cubs game
- Police: Florida man arrested for hitting, dragging Dunbar Township man with truck
- Inside the Steelers: Wide array of receiving options shine
- Doctors to be given star ratings on UPMC site
- Thirsty pit bull turned on Arnold neighbors
- PennEnvironment planning Clean Air Act lawsuit