Is it time for the GOP to reconsider its position on tax increases?

posted at 11:45 am on April 4, 2012 by Morgen Richmond

For all practical purposes the general election campaign officially kicked off yesterday with the Romney sweep, and the President’s speech on the Ryan budget. This is likely to be the defining debate of the 2012 campaign, and the President is clearly looking to cement the image of the GOP as the party of the 1% as early as possible. Guy Benson deserves a medal for having the fortitude to respond point-by-point to the President’s remarks, which were incredibly dishonest even for him. (My temple was throbbing after reading only half-way through Obama’s speech).

But at the risk of being banished after Ed returns from vacation, I think there is one key issue where the GOP is making a tactical mistake in conceding ground to the President, and that is the insistence on ruling out any tax increases as part of a comprehensive budget reform deal. Now before you write me off as just another RINO, I’ll hold up my track record as a conservative activist against anyone. And as a successful business owner in California, I deal first-hand with the challenges of one of the nation’s most onerous tax and regulatory regimes.

But I am mystified why the GOP has adopted such a hard line when it comes to tax policy, particularly within the framework of a budget deal which would include a major re-structuring of federal entitlement programs. I get the arguments. That a pro-growth approach of lowering rates, and eliminating deductions and loopholes, would actually be the most effective means of generating revenue in the long run, by expanding the tax base. I can also appreciate that from a political perspective it makes sense to stake out an initial bargaining position as far to the right as can be reasonably defended. And the Ryan plan is reasonable, by any fair assessment, considering the enormity of the fiscal imbalances it seeks to redress.

But regardless of how effective or reasonable the plan may be, it won’t make one iota of difference without a Republican president in place to enact it. And this is the mistake I think the GOP is poised to make, in handing the President a weapon he will use over and over again between now and November. To distract the public from the seriousness of the problem, and from the fact that he has no credible plan to deal with it. That the GOP is planning yet another giveaway to the 1%, at the expense of the poor, the elderly, and the sick.

Yes, this is class warfare, yes this is partisan demagoguery…and let’s face it, there is a better than even chance that it’s going to work. Which I find particularly frustrating, because given what may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to finally deal with entitlements, personally, as a member of the near-1%, I would at least grudgingly accept a moderate tax increase knowing that we’ve set the nation on a sustainable path. Further, I would gladly – enthusiastically! – support the possibility of a moderate tax increase as part of the 2012 GOP budget platform, as long as it’s clear that this would only be on the table as part of a comprehensive deal which included entitlement reform, along the lines proposed by Ryan. To not only eliminate this issue as a diversion, but also to expose the fact that the President has no credible plan for sustaining the entitlement programs short of massive, across the board tax increases.

I’m not suggesting we scrap the Ryan tax reforms, just that we consider adding a little revenue from higher wage earners, or least a placeholder to do so. Just something to allow our nominee to credibly argue that when it comes to restoring the fiscal prosperity of our nation, everything is on the table. Because frankly, it should be.

Apostasy, I know. So go ahead and let me have it in the comments, but at least consider the merits of the argument. Are we really willing to jeopardize our future freedom and prosperity over the principle that we will never, ever under any circumstances accept a tax increase? This seems like folly to me, and I shudder to think what the fiscal outlook will look like if the status quo continues for another four years.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Yeah – it’s like the border situation. The Feds could probably reduce illegal immigration by 80% or more within 1-2 years if they really gave a crap. At that point, I’m sure many of us might be willing to be a little less “rigid” and listen to some ideas about how to deal with those illegals here.

Same with taxes. Get spending and borrowing on a rational trajectory, then MAYBE we can talk.

kjl291 on April 4, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Agree tax increases ONLY on the condition of IMMEDIATE tax cuts.

MelonCollie on April 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM

I am all for a tax increase, no issue here. Let’s start with all those in the ~50% group that pay no federal (or state) taxes at all and ensure that EVERYONE pays their fair share. No reason for me to pay for that road upkeep when non-paying slackers use it whenever they want to. They pay, same as the rest of us. Enough already with “fair share”, next time anyone opens their mouth to even whisper this we should point out that we are all for it and there is a starting point that MUST BE made before any other consideration is even contemplated.

Fair share. Bring it!

riddick on April 4, 2012 at 12:14 PM

I have ALWAYS said that this is a perfect area for the GOP to turn the demagoguery back on Barack. Make EVERYONE file and pay taxes. EVERYONE. But for the lowest earners, make it a painless, say $10, “Fair Citizenship” tax. If they’re getting a big refund, make them have to subtract that Fair Citizenship” tax from their refund. Say that we agree with the president — everyone should have some “skin in the game” — and it will be important for those paying the “Fair Citizenship” tax to see that it often goes up, and as new taxpayers they might want to get involved a bit more and find out how their $10, now $11, next year $12, is being spent.

Rational Thought on April 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM

posted at 11:45 am on April 4, 2012 by Morgen Richmond

We have the highest corporate taxes in the world now, genius.

My gosh.

Akzed on April 4, 2012 at 12:20 PM

But at the risk of being banished after Ed returns from vacation

I would hope not.

I’d be willing to consider tax increases if everybody had skin in the game.

cozmo on April 4, 2012 at 12:20 PM

My dad told me a little proverb when I was a kid about spending. He said if you turn the bathtub faucet on full blast, but don’t plug the drain, the tub will never fill up. If, however, you turn on the faucet to just a trickle, but plug the drain, then in a few days your tub will be over flowing.

It’s always more about what you spend rather than what you take in, and not only does D.C. leave the drain unplugged, they’ve also cut out the entire bottom of the tub. The way the Federal Government exists now cannot be fixed, D.C. must massively decentralize.

Weight of Glory on April 4, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Well said. Great analogy.

Bitter Clinger on April 4, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Yes – Why can’t leftists understand simple logic like that?

Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty – Ronald Reagan

Chip on April 4, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Yes. We should make our opposition to tax increases retroactive. Every increase over the last 3099 years should be rescinded.

Citizen-003528 on April 4, 2012 at 12:17 PM

FIFY

kjl291 on April 4, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Morgen, you have been in California too long. The libs are starting to infiltrate your brain. It happens.
Shake it off.

trish333 on April 4, 2012 at 12:21 PM

I am 100% for increased taxes on the almost half of Americans who pay no taxes.

astonerii on April 4, 2012 at 11:51 AM
I stand corrected; I AM for some increased taxation, then!

search4truth on April 4, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Tax increases for everyone else as long as i am left out right? Morons.

Uppereastside on April 4, 2012 at 12:22 PM

I’m all for soaking the *%$# out of the rich and corporations. Let them pay in the now for the massive cost of “diversity.” Maybe once they really feel the pinch they’ll reconsider both the size and focus of the federal government.

exlibris on April 4, 2012 at 12:23 PM

We still have a lot of people that care for the long-term future of this country and would gladly ante-up if they saw hope down the road. Right now I think they see tax increases as simply pouring water into a leaking bucket.

teejk on April 4, 2012 at 12:11 PM

I don’t think the GOP position is the bait-and-switch you suggest. There is a solid economic case to be made behind the GOP’s stand. In other words, it is a principled position.

And I’d have no problem with Morgen Richmond’s comments if there were also based on an alternative principled position but, seemingly, it is not. It’s all about throwing a few rich people under the bus so the GOP nominee has political room when Obama starts in on the class warfare. Political strategy is great for campaigns but has no place in establishing fiscal policy.

Happy Nomad on April 4, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Alternate title for this article:

“Trying to Make The New York Times Like Us”

Trust me, it will never work and we should never, ever, ever, abandon our priciples trying to gain temporary appeasement of the hard left that controls the levers of power in this country now.

Wine_N_Dine on April 4, 2012 at 12:24 PM

I have no problems considering tax increases AFTER we eliminate the DoEd, cut the budget of EPA by at least 85%, eliminate the Dept. of Labor, and a few other things such as turning over huge numbers of federal programs to the states and eliminating all of those offices.

crosspatch on April 4, 2012 at 12:25 PM

GOP is making a tactical mistake in conceding ground to the President, and that is the insistence on ruling out any tax increases as part of a comprehensive budget reform deal. Now before you write me off as just another RINO, I’ll hold up my track record as a conservative activist against anyone. And as a successful business owner in California, I deal first-hand with the challenges of one of the nation’s most onerous tax and regulatory regimes.

How would you go about returning our government to its constutionally limited roots while increasing the revenues? Since goverment cannot operate in the constraints of the revenue it receives now, how would you reduce the size and scope of government while increasing the revenue receipts?
Hasn’t the laffer curve proven beyon any reasonable shadow of a doubt that increasing taxes at this point will only serv to reduce receipts, making the starin on the budget that more severe? According the the Art Laffer, would it not be better to reduce the rates, and broaden the base to increase revenue?

This is fundamentally the heart of every fiscal conservative. You can not refer to youself honestly as a fiscal conservative if you do not adhere to these basic facts of economics.

paulsur on April 4, 2012 at 12:27 PM

The Rs will always betray you.

They’re all Etch-A-Sketches.

Now they’ll have the perfect titular head and symbol.

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2012 at 12:27 PM

But I am mystified why the GOP has adopted such a hard line when it comes to tax policy, particularly within the framework of a budget deal which would include a major re-structuring of federal entitlement programs.

GOP doesnt have a tax increase problem, they have a messaging problem. Let me know if you have heard this line before. The GOP wants to raise taxes on the middle class while giving tax cuts to the rich. In the interest of fairness who is eligible for the most “free stuff” and what income levels receive the most back in refunds even when no taxes are paid into the system? Ya those guys. Do you really think Democrats will not demagogue anyone who attempts to enact real “fairness” in the tax system? We need a complete tax system overhaul. All of our elected representatives are too fearful to do that.

canditaylor68 on April 4, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Very simple way out for the GOP on this. Take the Simpson-Bowles recommendation of 2 to 1 tax cuts to tax increases ratio and say they’ll agree to $1 of tax increase for every $2 in cuts once the cuts have been identified.

Zaggs on April 4, 2012 at 12:27 PM

, I would at least grudgingly accept a moderate tax increase knowing that we’ve set the nation on a sustainable path

Waste, fraud, and sweetheart crony deals are pervasive and rampant in the culture of the Federal government.

When the governement makes a real effort to eliminate these cancers, talk to us about raising taxes.

Until then, any increase in the tax rate is tantamount to pouring fertilizer on the corruption. You’ll just grow it bigger.

Taxes overall are much higher in Europe, yet their deficit and corruption problems are bigger than ours. Perhaps more taxes are not the solution one might think.

MessesWithTexas on April 4, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Tax increases for everyone else as long as i am left out right? Morons.

Uppereastside on April 4, 2012 at 12:22 PM

No, you are the moron. Let’s get those who are paying NOTHING in income taxes to put a little bit of their money into the pool before we keep asking those who are already paying into the system to contribute EVEN MORE.

Bitter Clinger on April 4, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Such increases might be plausible IF AND WHEN it can ever be shown that the predicted revenues will not be frittered away by politicians and bureaucrats who have lately displayed little—no make that NO—regard for taxpayers’ money. There seems to be no spending they can’t justify to themselves, particularly if it’s money that will go into their own pockets in the form of higher wages, benefits or added members for their unions.

Why should ANYONE, even the rich, be asked to pay for more until the government can show it is willing to make hard decisions like has been done in the private sector for almost 5 years now?! Fire incompetent or unneeded workers? Uh uh. Demand accountability for spending scandals? (Solyndra?) No way. Insist that bureaucracies be at least as capable as their private sector counterparts? ( Think Medicare/Medicade fraud compared to how private insurers prevent fraudulent payments.) Don’t be silly.

Thus—I would like the GOP message to be that we would consider tax increases on the wealthy under two conditions:

1) Spending cuts must be put in place FIRST. Firings must be done (not layoffs). Butdgets must be reset to the lower spending levels. All without whining to the media about how “uncaring” Congress is being. Act like grownups.

and

2) Reasure us that the cuts won’t be reversed. We all know that, historically, the tax increases always take effect but the spending cuts never materialize—future Congresses can’t resist the temptation to bestow their “favors” on us (at our expense, of course). A well crafted Balanced Budge Amendment might fix this.

jeanneb on April 4, 2012 at 12:29 PM

I’m not suggesting we scrap the Ryan tax reforms, just that we consider adding a little revenue from higher wage earners, or least a placeholder to do so

.
Oh, Please! Where are we going to get the money for a bonehead move like that? Maybe from the Glorious Economic Recovery Accomplished by the Democratic Peoples’ Reform Movement now in office? GET REAL !!!
.
What would a little tax increase of a few hundred billion dollars say to a liberal Democrat regime who has been fidgeting about this very issue and that Republican (including TEA Party) representatives have been fighting off for more than two years? It would say CAPITULATION and We Were Right All Along, Troglodytes!
.
This is a bad idea without spending cuts and regulatory reversal FIRST. After about a year, see what the dynamics look like then. No Increases Without Spending Decreases – FIRST!

ExpressoBold on April 4, 2012 at 12:29 PM

You forgot some taxes we pay:

1. Accounts Receivable Tax

2. Accounting and Tax Preparation fees (cost to taxpayers $300 billion)

3. Accumulated Earnings Tax

4. Accumulation Distribution of Trusts

5. Activity Fee (Dumping Permit Fee)

6. Air Tax (PA coin-operated vacuums)

7. Aircraft Jet Fuel Tax

8. Aircraft Excise Tax

9. Alcohol Fuels Tax

10. Alcoholic Beverage Tax

11. Alternative Minimum Tax – Amt

12. Ambulance Services (Air Ambulance Services, SD)

13. Ammunition Tax

14. Amusement Tax (MA, VA, MD)

15. Annual Custodial Fees (Ira Accounts)

16. Ballast Water Management Fee (Marine Invasive Species)

17. Biodiesel Fuel Tax

18. Blueberry Tax (Maine)

19. Bribe Taxes (Pay If You Dare)

20. Brothel licensing fees (NV – $35,000.00 per year per brothel)

21. Building Permit Tax

22. Capital Gains Tax

23. California Interstate User Diesel Fuel Tax

24. California Redemption Value (Can and Bottle Tax)

25. CDL License Tax

26. Charter Boat Captain License

27. Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Fee

28. Cigarette Tax

29. Cigarette Tax Stamp (Acts) (Distributors)

30. Compressed Natural Gas Tax

31. Commercial Activity Tax (OH – for Service Providers)

32. Corporate Income Tax

33. Court Fines (Indirect Taxes)

34. Disposable Diapers Tax (Wisconsin)

35. Disposal Fee (Any Landfill Dumping)

36. Dog License Tax

37. Electronic Waste Recycling Fee (E-Waste)

38. Emergency Telephone User Surcharge

39. Environmental Fee (CA – HazMat Fees)

40. Estate Tax (Death Tax, to be reinstated)

41. Excise Taxes

42. Facility Fee (CA – HazMat Fees)

43. FDIC tax (insurance premium on bank deposits)

44. Federal Income Tax

45. Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)

46. Fiduciary Income Tax (Estates and Trusts)

47. Fishing License Tax

48. Flush Tax (MD Tax For Producing Wastewater)

49. Food License Tax

50. Fountain Soda Drink Tax (Chicago – 9%)

51. Franchise Tax

52. Fresh Fruit (CA, if Purchased From A Vending Machine)

53. Fuel Permit Tax

54. Fur Clothing Tax (MN)

55. Garbage Tax

56. Gasoline Tax (44.75 Cents Per Gallon)

57. Generation-Skipping Transfer Tax

58. Generator Fee (Recycled Waste Fee)

59. Gift Tax

60. Gross Receipts Tax

61. Hamburger Tax (Ask Huckabee)

62. Hazardous Substances Fees: Generator, Facility, Disposal

63. Household Employment Taxes

64. Hunting License Tax

65. Illegal Drug Possession (No. Carolina)

66. Inheritance Tax

67. Insect Control Hazardous Materials License

68. Insurance Premium Tax

69. Intangible Tax (Leases Of Govt. Owned Real Property)

70. Integrated Waste Management Fee

71. Interstate User Diesel Fuel Tax

72. Inventory Tax

73. IRA Rollover Tax (a transfer of IRA money)

74. IRA Early Withdrawl Tax

75. IRS Interest Charges

76. IRS Penalties (Tax On Top Of Tax)

77. Jock Tax (income earned by athletes in some states)

78. Kerosene, Distillate, & Stove Oil Taxes

79. Kiddie Tax (Child’s Earned Interest Form 8615)

80. Lead Poisoning Prevention Fee (Occupational)

81. Lease Severance Tax

82. Liquid Natural Gas Tax

83. Liquid Petroleum Gas Tax

84. Liquor Tax

85. Litigation Tax (TN Imposes Varies With the Offense)

86. LLC/PLLC Registration Tax

87. Local Income Tax

88. Lodging Taxes

89. Lump-Sum Distributions

90. Luxury Taxes

91. Make-Up Tax (Ohio, applying in a salon is taxable)

92. Marriage License Tax

93. Meal Tax

94. Medicare Tax

95. Mello-Roos Taxes (Special Taxes and Assessments)

96. Minnow Dealers License (Retail – For One Shop)

97. Minnow Dealers License (Distributor – For One+ Shops)

98. Mobile Home Ad Valorem Taxes

99. Motor Fuel Tax (For Suppliers)

100. Music and Dramatic Performing Rights Tax

101. Nudity Tax (Utah)

102. Occupation Tax (Various Professional Fees)

103. Oil and Gas Assessment Tax

104. Oil Spill Response, Prevention, And Administration Fee

105. Pass-Through Withholding

106. Pay-Phone Calls Tax (Indiana)

107. Personal Property Tax

108. Personal Holding Company (undistributed earnings)

109. Pest Control License

110. Petroleum Business Tax

111. Playing Card Tax (Al)

112. Pole Tax (TX – A $5 Cover Charge On Strip Clubs)

113. Profit from Illegal Drug Dealing

114. Property Tax

115. Prostitution Tax (NV – Prostitute Work Permits)

116. Rain Water Tax (Runoff after a Storm)

117. Real Estate Tax

118. Recreational Vehicle Tax

119. Road Usage Tax

120. Room Tax (Hotel Rooms)

121. Sales Tax (State)

122. Sales Tax (City)

123. Sales And Use Tax (Sellers Permit)

124. School Tax

125. Service Charge Tax

126. Self Employment Tax

127. Sex Sales Tax (UT, when nude people perform services)

128. Sewer & Water Tax

129. Social Security Tax

130. Sparkler and Novelties Tax (WV Sellers of Sparklers, etc.)

131. Special Assessment Tax (Not Ad Valorem)

132. State Documentary Stamp Tax on Notes (FL RE Tax)

133. State Franchise Tax

134. State Income Tax

135. State Park Fees

136. State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)

137. Straight Vegetable Oil (SVO) Fuel Tax

138. Stud Fees (Kentucky’s Thoroughbred Sex Tax)

139. Tangible Personal Property Tax

140. Tattoo Tax (AR Tax On Tattoos)

141. Telephone Federal Excise Tax

142. Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax

143. Telephone Federal Surcharge Taxes

144. Telephone State Surcharge Taxes

145. Telephone Local Surcharge Taxes

146. Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax

147. Telephone Recurring Charges Tax

148. Telephone Non-Recurring Charges Tax

149. Telephone State Usage Charge Tax

150. Telephone Local Usage Charge Tax

151. Tire Recycling Fee

152. Tobacco Tax (Cigar, Pipe, Consumer Tax)

153. Tobacco Tax (Cigar, Pipe, Dealer Tax)

154. Toll Road Tax

155. Toll Bridge Tax

156. Toll Tunnel Tax

157. Tourism or Concession License Fee

158. Traffic Fines (Indirect Taxation)

159. Transportable Treatment Unit Fee (Small Facility)

160. Trailer Registration Tax

161. Trout Stamp (Addendum To Fish License)

162. Use Taxes (On Out-Of-State Purchases)

163. Utility Taxes

164. Unemployment Tax

165. Underground Storage Tank Maintenance Fee

166. Underpayment of Estimated Tax (Form 2210)

167. Unreported Tip Income (Social Security and Medicare Tax)

168. Vehicle License

169. Registration Tax

170. Vehicle Sales Tax

171. Wagering Tax (Tax on Gambling Winnings)

172. Waste Vegetable Oil (WVO) Fuel Tax

173. Water Rights Fee

174. Watercraft Registration Tax

175. Waterfowl Stamp Tax

176. Well Permit Tax

177. Workers Compensation Tax

joshlbetts on April 4, 2012 at 12:29 PM

joshlbetts on April 4, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Well, now that you put it like that…..sure let’s increase taxes…..NOT.

Bitter Clinger on April 4, 2012 at 12:32 PM

The Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year. taxes will go up for everybody including the lower incomes. everybody

gerrym51 on April 4, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Repeal Porkulus and ObamaCare, and we won’t need revenue increases.

Tax rates were cut under Reagan, and government revenue increased.

Tax rates were cut under Bush 43, and government revenue increased.

If tax rates are decreased, taxable income (including corporate profits) increases. If government revenue is the product of taxable income and tax rate, government revenue CAN increase when tax rates are decreased, except if tax rates are near zero. We’re not there yet.

Steve Z on April 4, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Tax increases for everyone else as long as i am left out right? Morons.

Uppereastside on April 4, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Not really moron. You see, when the taxes at the bottom go up, they go up equally for everyone else.

astonerii on April 4, 2012 at 12:34 PM

In addition, Taxes are aggregated. Take a car for example: when you buy a new car, it’s taxed, when you sell a car, it’s taxed.

Gasoline: The operation of obtaining oil is taxed, processing the oil is taxed, shipping operations are taxed, the gas station is taxed, then you pay a tax to purchase the gasoline.

joshlbetts on April 4, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Is it time for the GOP to reconsider its position on tax increases?

ANSWER: Only if “reconsideration” means implementing a policy of “REAL AND IMMEDIATE TAX REDUCTION” and “ZERO-BASED BUDGETING” instead of merely “stopping tax increases”!!!

It is not smart to feed wild bears in hopes that they will go away when they’re full.

Similarly, it is not smart to continuously feed more revenue to an already-bloated government.

landlines on April 4, 2012 at 12:35 PM

It’s simple…

The Dems simply can’t be trusted to enact or enforce entitlement reform if it came to that. Unless we wind up keeping the house, getting the White House, and getting a supermajority in the Senate, the Dems will be all for the “temporary” tax increases, and filibuster the entitlement reform.

And once the taxes come up, it takes nearly an act of God to bring them back down. Case in point – the “Bush tax cuts” were actually a return to the pre-Clinton tax rate. Only Democrats could twist it around to be a tax cut.

If our side gives in on this, then we may as well forget entitlement reform, because it’s not going to happen. And the Dems will hapilly spend any extra revenue that comes in on nonsence.

crazy_legs on April 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM

I haven’t read the comments yet so I’m probably repeating someone or several someones, Congress MUST prove that they are capable of reducing their spending before they get any more tax dollars. And I mean real reductions, not that reduction in automatic increases b.s. they fly by us every chance they get.

Cindy Munford on April 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Hey, let’s raise taxes. Yep. That’s the ticket.

kevinkristy on April 4, 2012 at 12:37 PM

I think a much wiser strategy would be to go after subsidies and special breaks for “special” people and groups. You wouldn’t be raising taxes per se, just getting the government out of the business of picking winners and losers, which is the very definition of corruption.

Ethanol subsidies, green energy subsidies, oil subsidies, the special railroad credit, the exemption of teachers from paying Social Security taxes–they all need to be phased out so that prices can stabilize at the true value of goods and services. Everybody gets treated the same.

Yes, there will be gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, but if the GOP can show real fairness vs. the Dems’ fake “fairness,” I think our position on no new taxes will be much more powerful and compelling to the electorate.

Arms Merchant on April 4, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Agree w/ Gerry M. Let the Bush tax cuts expire IN TOTO and then see how much the American people like Democrat tax ideas.

As a conservative, what I don’t like is favoritism in the tax code, its byzantine complexity, and high marginal rates. I’d be fine with a net tax increase if (in trade) we got a simpler structure, with more transparency, got EVERYBODY in the game. The 48% Federal Income Tax free-riders are a bigger fiscal problem that the top bracket going from 39 to 35%, Obama & Pelosi’s Bullschitt notwithstanding.

SAMinVA on April 4, 2012 at 12:37 PM

The comments have been all over the place on exactly what type of a problem the US faces. Is it a:

Messaging problem?

Taxation problem?

Spending problem?

Equity problem?

I say that it is a little bit of all of the above but the real problem is that Americans (especially the 50% that pay income taxes) have a trust problem in their government and how it spends their hard-earned money. Especially when you learn of Michelle Obama’s addiction to vacations, lavish Vegas conferences complete with clowns and commemorative coins, and all the money flushed down the drain to reward Obama’s bundlers in shady “green” industries.

Happy Nomad on April 4, 2012 at 12:39 PM

No. A thousand times, no. Hell no!

The real answer is to stop spending. Get the fed out of all the things it should not be doing. Why cant some people get that through their heads?

dogsoldier on April 4, 2012 at 12:39 PM

You know it’s pretty ballsy to ask people to ratchet back on the no tax increases when you have news of more taxpayer “investments” going belly up and the head of department is forced to resign when his Vegas parties training sessions. Hell no!

Cindy Munford on April 4, 2012 at 12:40 PM

joshlbetts on April 4, 2012 at 12:29 PM

That’s a keeper!

In addition, Taxes are aggregated. Take a car for example: when you buy a new car, it’s taxed, when you sell a car, it’s taxed.

Gasoline: The operation of obtaining oil is taxed, processing the oil is taxed, shipping operations are taxed, the gas station is taxed, then you pay a tax to purchase the gasoline.

joshlbetts on April 4, 2012 at 12:35 PM

And then there are all those extras like tax surcharges, fees, fees on tax surcharges,…..

Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty – Ronald Reagan

Chip on April 4, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I think a better response than “Sure, let’s raise taxes” would be a call for tax reform. Say that the president has been using taxes to punish his enemies and reward his friends. Further, the GOP won’t let Obama operate a Chicago style payout machine with American tax payer money (e.g. Solyndra) or as a slush fund for bureaucrats (e.g. GSA Las Vegas party.

But rather the GOP should agree that comprehensive tax reform does make sense to get the government out of the business of shaping the economy through taxes and picking winners/losers. Then every time Obama brings up taxes, bring up tax reform with the government limited to a certain portion of GDP on spending and a unbiased tax code to raise enough to pay for that spending. If Americans have to live within a budget, why shouldn’t the government.

Nothing will actually happen in an election year, but it starts the ball rolling for next year, blunts the president’s attacks and opens new lines of attacks on the president.

yetanotherjohn on April 4, 2012 at 12:03 PM

I would love that.

The GOP will never do it. Oh, they’ll talk about it, but when it comes to actually voting on it… not a snowball’s chance in hell.

This is one of those areas where the Dems and GOP members in Washington are in full agreement. They love the current tax code. They get to carve out all these little deductions and loopholes using a 72,000 page tax code that no one can read all of or possibly understand every facet. So, they can slip in all these little goodies that all of us rubes in flyover country have no idea are in there. Why do you think all those lobbyists get paid so damn much by all those companies and special interest groups? And of course the Congress members get their perks from the companies and groups who paid the lobbyists so damn much to lobby them… campaign funds, use of the company jet or company yacht, invites to all the best parties, etc.

Why in the hell would Congress ever want to simplify the tax code and cut out loopholes and deductions? The fact that the tax code is insanely complex, and it has all the loopholes and deductions and carve outs, that works to their benefit? They aren’t going to vote against their own self-interest until the voters are in near riot mode (which I’m not sure isn’t far off).

gravityman on April 4, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Get spending and borrowing on a rational trajectory, then MAYBE we can talk.

kjl291 on April 4, 2012 at 12:18 PM

This.

catmman on April 4, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I would at least grudgingly accept a moderate tax increase knowing that we’ve set the nation on a sustainable path.

All taxation would have to instantly rise about 75%, just to cover current spending. That assumes the economy wouldn’t instantly tank, imposing such an extreme burden.

How about this. I am for Democrats manning up and calling for that 75% increase in everybody’s taxation. I am for an honest debate about exactly how much we’re spending, beyond current taxation. I know I will not get that honest debate, considering the out and out trash that makes up today’s Democrat Party.

MNHawk on April 4, 2012 at 12:42 PM

It’s time for the GOP to differentiate between tax Rates and tax Revenue.
Higher rates, above a certain level, produce LESS revenue.
The GOP should promote tax rates that optimize revenue.
20 percent is the starting point for inducing the behavior modification that results in less revenue.
Tax rates below 20 percent encourage people to ignore the tax consequences.

esblowfeld on April 4, 2012 at 12:45 PM

No.

DDay on April 4, 2012 at 12:48 PM

The author seems to be confused. He thinks he is a conservative, but he’s actually just a Republican.

angelat0763 on April 4, 2012 at 12:48 PM

I agree.

Give the Dems the millionaire tax. Make the top rate equal to Clinton’s top rate for AGI (not gross) income of $1M+. It’s a political loser for the GOP to fight this. Yes, it’s bad policy and we all know that. But polls show 60-70% of the unwashed masses want to soak the rich.

But like all things in DC, the GOP could get something in return. Open up ANWR. Get rid of some EPA regulations. Lower the gas tax by 5 cents. Whatever. In their zeal to tax the rich, I think Dems would go for pretty much anything just to get that.

angryed on April 4, 2012 at 12:49 PM

I have ALWAYS said that this is a perfect area for the GOP to turn the demagoguery back on Barack. Make EVERYONE file and pay taxes. EVERYONE. But for the lowest earners, make it a painless, say $10, “Fair Citizenship” tax. If they’re getting a big refund, make them have to subtract that Fair Citizenship” tax from their refund. Say that we agree with the president — everyone should have some “skin in the game” — and it will be important for those paying the “Fair Citizenship” tax to see that it often goes up, and as new taxpayers they might want to get involved a bit more and find out how their $10, now $11, next year $12, is being spent.

Rational Thought on April 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Yes, but first we will have to go to war with the proggies over the Earned Income Credits that are now law, which means not only do many not pay income taxes, but get free money in the mail.

Once we eliminate those, an absolute minimum income tax of a couple hundred dollars against ordinary income is a must.

slickwillie2001 on April 4, 2012 at 12:49 PM

If Obama is defeated he’s not going to cave on bush tax cuts.

everything will increase jan 1. then a tax deal will have to be done anyways.

gerrym51 on April 4, 2012 at 12:49 PM

angelat0763 on April 4, 2012 at 12:48 PM

This made me laugh, I agree.

joshlbetts on April 4, 2012 at 12:50 PM

No

CatoRenasci on April 4, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Majority of the voters are in the 99%

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 11:53 AM

I don’t know, let me run that through my calculator…

SHE’S RIGHT!

Chuck Schick on April 4, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Rational Thought on April 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Yes, but first we will have to go to war with the proggies over the Earned Income Credits that are now law, which means not only do many not pay income taxes, but get free money in the mail.

Once we eliminate those, an absolute minimum income tax of a couple hundred dollars against ordinary income is a must.

slickwillie2001 on April 4, 2012 at 12:49 PM

You could still do RT’s idea even with EITC. Whatever your tax bill is after the EITC is calculated. Subtract $50 from it. If you owe $100, you now owe $150. If the govt owes you $500, it’s down to $450.

angryed on April 4, 2012 at 12:53 PM

@Morgen Richmond

You are a silly person….

I tell you what, I will be for tax increases when they phase them in the same way they phase in those spending cuts they always promise.

But as with what others have said, the answer is no.
We don’t need tax increases (or decreases, for now).
What we need is a restructuring of our tax code…..
I hate spending 3 – 5 hours (or more) every year doing taxes for Federal and State.

We need a more simple code.

MityMaxx on April 4, 2012 at 12:54 PM

The GOP did offer “revenue increases” to the tune of $800 billion in the debt ceiling negotiations last year, mostly from eliminating loopholes, but Obama came back for more which is why the negotiations failed.
So the GOP has already met your standards. It’s just that it will never be enough for the left.

breffnian on April 4, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I’m not opposed to this line of thinking at all. One of the biggest drivers of our nations problems is that the Government has been spending money buying votes, but the taxpayers haven’t felt pain as a result. It’s all been borrowed money or printed money.

The end result is an electorate that doesn’t pay attention, and apathetic.

Over the last 2 years I’ve come to the realization that people will want smaller government when they figure out they have to pay significantly for bigger government. When there is a direct correlation with a congressional spending plan with financial pain in the voters pocketbooks, THIS CRAP WILL STOP!

JB-STLMO on April 4, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Yes – Why can’t leftists understand simple logic like that?

Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty – Ronald Reagan

Chip on April 4, 2012 at 12:20 PM

logic doesn’t exist in a vacuum, you need the organ to generate it…it’s that part that the leftists are missing, or simply not using it, because it is more comfortable to let other think for them and make the decisions in their place…spend one day int he comment section of NYT and you have the perfect demo of that…

jimver on April 4, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Majority of the voters are in the 99%

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 11:53 AM

You know, girlfriend, you ain’t as dumb as you look! Well played!

MNHawk on April 4, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Representation without taxation is unfair.

logis on April 4, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Majority of the voters are in the 99%

liberal4life on April 4, 2012 at 11:53 AM

I don’t know, let me run that through my calculator…

SHE’S RIGHT!

Chuck Schick on April 4, 2012 at 12:51 PM

looool :-) libtard for life is a genius :-) she just figured out that the majority of the voters are in the 99% :-)

jimver on April 4, 2012 at 12:57 PM

I agree.

Give the Dems the millionaire tax. Make the top rate equal to Clinton’s top rate for AGI (not gross) income of $1M+. It’s a political loser for the GOP to fight this. Yes, it’s bad policy and we all know that. But polls show 60-70% of the unwashed masses want to soak the rich.

But like all things in DC, the GOP could get something in return. Open up ANWR. Get rid of some EPA regulations. Lower the gas tax by 5 cents. Whatever. In their zeal to tax the rich, I think Dems would go for pretty much anything just to get that.

angryed on April 4, 2012 at 12:49 PM

I agree with this. Call their bluff on the Buffett nonsense. Don’t get into the fact it will pay for less than 1/600th of Obama’s deficits and make it seem like a solution as they do.

Then demand deep spending cuts. Spread the political pain.

If people want Clinton’s tax rates, demand Clinton’s spending levels, which were around 18-19% of GDP compared to 25% now. So that means over a trillion a year in spending cuts in today’s dollars.

Seems fair to me.

Chuck Schick on April 4, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Tax reform first and if my taxes go up, at least they’re going up as part of reform. And I agree with everyone has skin in the game, even if it’s $10.

GeorgieGirl9 on April 4, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Very simple way out for the GOP on this. Take the Simpson-Bowles recommendation of 2 to 1 tax cuts to tax increases ratio and say they’ll agree to $1 of tax increase for every $2 in cuts once the cuts have been identified.

Zaggs on April 4, 2012 at 12:27 PM

What makes you think the liberals won’t take this “bargain”? To only reneg on it after the tax increases take place. That movie has played a good number of times before, last year for example with the borrowing limit.

Raise the taxes, no problem. Or rather, make sure those who don’t pay anything start paying their fair share. Hussein’s “Fair share” was the communist motto over a century ago in Russia, see how it played out.

riddick on April 4, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Lower taxes = more disposable income = economic growth = more jobs = more taxpayers = higher revenue to Behemoth.

Not rocket science. It’s NOT the GOP’s “hard-line” stance on taxes that is killing the party, it’s people like you who are willing to moderate on every core issue.

If you want to send more money in Morgen, have at it. I’m paying enough, thank you.

labrat on April 4, 2012 at 1:00 PM

I have to echo what many have said — the problem with a deal that has tax increases is that, in the past, the tax increases always become effectively immediately while the spending cuts come some time in the future, and then the spending cuts never occur. Plus, you can’t bind future Congresses. If you had a plan for immediate spending cuts, with tax increases coming later when you know for sure the spending is really being cut, then maybe it would be ok.

woocane on April 4, 2012 at 1:02 PM

But like all things in DC, the GOP could get something in return. Open up ANWR. Get rid of some EPA regulations. Lower the gas tax by 5 cents. Whatever. In their zeal to tax the rich, I think Dems would go for pretty much anything just to get that.

angryed on April 4, 2012 at 12:49 PM

:-) they will screw the GOP on every deal, they will give them something today, and then take it back the next year, through the typical demagoguery and the class warfare shtick that we’ve seen from this administration…you are naive if you think that the dems will give up some of the EPA regulations or open up ANWR…only thing they’d agree for would probably would be keytstone, and we know now that even if it’s approved it will mean shit for the gas prices here, according to the Canadian PM (and I can’t blame him for his stance, at all)…

jimver on April 4, 2012 at 1:05 PM

I agree its time to raise taxes. Let me suggest the following: Employees who’s wages are set by a collective bargaining agreement or who’s employment is not at risk due to tenure shall be taxed at a rate twice the regular rate.

meci on April 4, 2012 at 1:08 PM

101. Nudity Tax (Utah)

joshlbetts on April 4, 2012 at 12:29 PM

.
They tax one’s birthday suit in Utah? Don’t give Mitt any ideas! Really, they do this?

ExpressoBold on April 4, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Wow. I’m sure he’s a nice guy and all, but poor Morgen really put on a logical fallacy festival here (sadly fairly characteristic of many here, and elsewhere, but that’s one of the things we are all up against).

He’s a CA businessman. Who cares? Ad hominem irrelevancy. “You’ll call me a RINO” – RINO and all such labels are idiotic, and for unserious folks, but again, irrelevant.

What’s the specific substance of his proposals? That’s all that’s relevant here.

And that substance is nearly childish nonsense, politically and fiscally.

Nothing will displace envy/class warfare/ignorance/guilt as one of the pillars of what’s become of modern liberalism and the Dem Party. It’s a core value and tactic – er, delusion/pathology. And to this has now been added (in Morgen’s home state and a few other blue ones) the self-dealing of the public sector, which now very literally is motivated to vote itself pay increases AKA tax increases, a la de Toqueville’s worry about a possible threat to democracy in the long run.

So the political “strategy” here is simply idiotic. Behold the embarrassing, jaw-dropping spectacle yesterday, of the totally unfit and irresponsible “president” speaking utter nonsense on the budget to a crowd of slavish, ignorant transcriptionists (formerly known as “journalists”). With public officials this clueless and shameless, and the complete collapse of the Fourth Estate as any sort of information source – much less crucial check – on the state, its is hard to believe anyone smart enough to keep a business going in CA would be so politically dense.

Fiscally, as so many here have pointed out, there is/has been a national and state-level (sometimes local) SPENDING problem, not revenue problem. This was really a crisis before 2008 – since then it has reached almost unbelievable dimensions. None of it is due to structural revenue problems (i.e., statutory tax levels or rates). When you back out the revenue effect of the financial crisis/recession, you still see a long-standing problem that has simply exploded since 2008 – that is even when you “normalize” tax receipts for the effects of the recession, the underlying or structural explosion in spending is spectacular, and unlike anything seen since 1942.

The polity is very, very sick, and for reasons that make Mr. Richmond’s well-meaning proposals simply ridiculous.

IceCold on April 4, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Oh yes! The Mitt Romney trial balloon has floated. One more reason not to vote for Romney! Still angry over the delt ceiling screw job!

jjnco73 on April 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM

I have no problems considering tax increases AFTER we eliminate the DoEd, cut the budget of EPA by at least 85%, eliminate the Dept. of Labor, and a few other things such as turning over huge numbers of federal programs to the states and eliminating all of those offices.

I agree. If all that could be done it would pretty much negate the need to raise federal taxes.

hawkeye54 on April 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Nothing will displace envy/class warfare/ignorance/guilt as one of the pillars of what’s become of modern liberalism and the Dem Party. It’s a core value and tactic – er, delusion/pathology. And to this has now been added (in Morgen’s home state and a few other blue ones) the self-dealing of the public sector, which now very literally is motivated to vote itself pay increases AKA tax increases, a la de Toqueville’s worry about a possible threat to democracy in the long run.

IceCold on April 4, 2012 at 1:08 PM

absolutely spot on!!

jimver on April 4, 2012 at 1:11 PM

jimver on April 4, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Ditto.

labrat on April 4, 2012 at 1:11 PM

I think it is time for the Democrats to reconsider their position on spending increases and spending in general.

John 5 on April 4, 2012 at 1:12 PM

How about signs just outside every college campus: “Hey kids, thanks for donating your future to us Boomers!”

(The slogan isn’t mine, BTW. But rubbing the Obama base’s nose in it might do some good.)

PersonFromPorlock on April 4, 2012 at 1:15 PM

I agree, and told Jeb Hensarling the same when I ran into him at Disney World over Thanksgiving. I’m willing to see my taxes go up-slightly – in exchange for a broader base, fewer exemptions and less spending! Until then, not one additional red cent!

therealfranklin on April 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Apostasy, I know. So go ahead and let me have it in the comments, but at least consider the merits of the argument. Are we really willing to jeopardize our future freedom and prosperity over the principle that we will never, ever under any circumstances accept a tax increase? This seems like folly to me, and I shudder to think what the fiscal outlook will look like if the status quo continues for another four years.

Strawman.

Republicans are not and have never been flatly opposed to every single tax increase.

What they and conservatives are opposed to is sending one more dime to a government that is spending it on bureaucrat junkets, private airliners stocked with top-shelf liquor and gourmet food for insider-trading multi-millionaires, and lavish Hollywood parties for fat wealthy demagogues.

Until then, not an inch. These people are wasting money. There is zero, ZERO reason for them to be allowed to ever have access to Federal funds for these purposes.

You, Morgen, can either call them out on their lies and wastefulness and make them stop, or you can go to hell. When Pelosi whines and cries, ask her why she’s spending money on jets and alcohol instead of on “the poor”. When Obama shrieks, point out that he blew a million dollars on feting his wife and children without it paying a single elderly person’s health care bill.

You don’t understand the game. These people are STEALING from the national treasury, demanding that we make up their theft, and trying to hold other people hostage to do it. And your answer, like the rest of the Romneybots, is to let them do it, ratchet up taxes on the honest people because these thieves won’t pay their bills.

What kind of kickbacks are you getting, Morgen? Why would any sane person, any Republican or conservative, actually advocate raising taxes on people to pay for the losses from THIEVES? To what party do you really belong?

northdallasthirty on April 4, 2012 at 1:18 PM

:-) they will screw the GOP on every deal, they will give them something today, and then take it back the next year, through the typical demagoguery and the class warfare shtick that we’ve seen from this administration…you are naive if you think that the dems will give up some of the EPA regulations or open up ANWR…only thing they’d agree for would probably would be keytstone, and we know now that even if it’s approved it will mean shit for the gas prices here, according to the Canadian PM (and I can’t blame him for his stance, at all)…

jimver on April 4, 2012 at 1:05 PM

We’ll never know if we don’t try.

angryed on April 4, 2012 at 1:19 PM

I totally reject any politician who insists on raising taxes when he he has REFUSED to address out-of-control government spending, who has rejected spending cuts, & who has totally rejected the idea of implementing a Balanced budget amendment. Although REQUIRED BY LAW, President Obama has not submitted and passted a Budget during hie entire term in office. During the last 2 battles over raising the debt ceiling, Obama has fought any and all cuts to the budget or spending.

One of the major differences between Democrats & Republicans is their stance on taxes. Obama has demonstrated and opined that the United States is great because of Government Spending, not because of the Entrepreneurial spirit, hard work, sacrifices, innovation, etc of the American people.With a Democratic party super majority, Democrats forced a nearly $2 Trillion deficit-spending Un-Constitutional health care bill, and this administration has set records for Monthly/Annual/Total deficit-spending/added debt, adding over $5 Trillion to the US Debt in less than 4 years. Senator Obama rebuked then-President Bush, calling him Un-Patriotic for adding $4 Trillion in EIGHT years while fighting 2 wars (approved by Congress); however, President Obama has added MORE than Bush in LESS than 1 term, adding more debt than ALL Presidents from Washington to Clinton COMBINED!

The man STILL refuses to cut spending, still ha snot passed a budget, still demands to continue to spend at a nation-destroying record pace, and insists that raising taxes in a disasterous economy with extremely high unemployment is the answer to all of our economic/monetary woes. What enrages Progressives, however, is the fact that their way has been tried under Obama and it publicly, openly for everyone to see has FAILED miserably. They can no longer argue the concept of doing it their way – it has been tried for 4 years, started out by a DNC Super majorty-controlled Congress.

Even scarier was when Obama was caught talking to the Soviet leader talking when he thought the microphones were off & he stated he would have more flexibility in his 2nd Term. With a 2nd term and no concern for having to be re-elected, Obama can truly reak havoc. He has already declared the Congress to be ‘dysfunctional’ so that he could act on his own. He has already violated the Constitution no less than 12 times in his 1st 1st erm. He has already ‘wafed war’ on BOTH of the 2 other branches of government, to include most recently the Supreme Court. Obama has already betrayed allies in Europe regarding missile defense, & what he thought was secret now tells the Soviet ‘puppet’ to relay to Putin he can do even more once re-elected. Obama in a 2nd term would be un-shackled by the concern for re-electon, free to do whatever he wants, to take his agenda even farther. Redistribution of wealth, raising taxes while continuing to set records for deficit-spending and added debt is all part of that agenda, as we have seen throughout his 1st term. Tax increases should ONLY be allowed/implemented simultaneously, in lock-step with massive spending cuts and a balanced-budget amendment!

easyt65 on April 4, 2012 at 1:20 PM

No

JDF123 on April 4, 2012 at 1:22 PM

angelat0763 on April 4, 2012 at 12:48 PM

My favorite is the Commercial Activity Tax (OH – for Service Providers. It’s a tax on gas stations, just another gas tax.

joshlbetts on April 4, 2012 at 1:22 PM

This is absolute nonsense. If the GOP takes your advice, we will be assured of another four years of the most corrupt and incompetent administration in our history. Obama will accept absolutely none of Ryan’s structural reforms. It goes against the man’s political DNA. He will accept the tax increases (obviously) and continue to demonize the rest of the plan with help from his friends in the mainstream media. The GOP capitulating on tax increases will be the biggest gift Obama can receive from Republicans in an election year.

ncconservative on April 4, 2012 at 1:23 PM

ExpressoBold on April 4, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Yep.

joshlbetts on April 4, 2012 at 1:23 PM

We increase taxes? Are we doing it to be fair or are we doing it to increase revenue? If we get more revenue, will we stop throwing it down the sinkhold of alternative energy or will we double-down on the Solyndras? There are important questions to ask, let’s ask them first.

bflat879 on April 4, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Our GOP house voted to keep the Clinton $.18 gas tax last Sept without a wimper. I am amazed Obama hasn’t taken the route of a gas tax hike. If we open up our petroleum resources gas prices will go down and a gas tax hike will never be noticed. Tariffs on govt subsidized trade (ala Trump/China) should also be considered.

KenInIL on April 4, 2012 at 1:31 PM

We’ll never know if we don’t try.

angryed on April 4, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Problem is, we have tried. Repeatedly.

Does it shut up the Obama Party? Does it stop the class warfare? Does it change the attitude of the electorate.

No. It just ratchets up the tax rate, leaves the wasteful spending alone, and hands the government more money that it then spends even more wastefully.

The simple fact is this. Republicans and conservatives are assuming that Obama Party leaders and Obama voters are rational people.

They are not.

They are insane welfare pigs who will say and do anything to stay on the Federal teat.

Morgen should know better. California is in the state that it is in because every year the GOP allowed another turn on the ratchet, another grand deal, another small tax increase, another minimal regulation.

He may not have balls to admit that his capitulation to the stupid in exchange for crumbs was a bad idea, but the rest of us will.

northdallasthirty on April 4, 2012 at 1:31 PM

There are already too many taxes and we pay rates at the highest (or closest to the highest) among any nations on earth.

First you eliminate the sweetheart contracts and kickbacks. Then jail the criminals stealing us blind such as GSA’s Martha Johnson’s reckless Las Vegas spending and Nancy Pelosi using US Air Force jets are her own private motor pool…thousand uponj thousands of cheating, gold digging chiselers.

Then you cut off and jail the medicare, medicaid, food stamp, welfare and Social Security frauds and cheats. There are trillions of dollars involved here alone.

Finally, in order to INCREASE revenue you paradoxically DECREASE the tax rate. By doing so you create a ripple effect of eliminating the underground economy, barter exchanges, etc and increasing cash flow and revenues by increased hirings and business startups and expansions.

There is NO excuse EVAH for increasing taxes,

MaiDee on April 4, 2012 at 1:31 PM

joshlbetts on April 4, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Nice list. I might need to borrow that on occasion if that’s okay? You might want to share that with the liberal trolls here a little more often. They still don’t get it. ; )

Bmore on April 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM

2016 !

I need to get another app besides this “OBAMA CLOCK”.

When the media gets through with anyone not named Obama this election cycle it’s going to be a long four more years.

MITT MCCAIN has no idea.

PappyD61 on April 4, 2012 at 1:37 PM

THE TIMID PARTY

The Stupid Party.

The Very Afraid Party.

The we can’t lead, why don’t you do it Party.

The nicer Democrat-lite Party.

The no-opposition Party.

The crybaby Boehner Party.

The Yeah, I guess we’ll raise taxes after whining about it Party.

The Pale Pastel Party.

The Self-castrated (so you don’t have to) Party.

PappyD61 on April 4, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Is it time for the GOP to reconsider its position on tax increases?

No.

America’s longstanding historical practice is to tax and spend 18-20% of GDP for government purposes. That is plenty!

The American government gets enough money from taxes that it should never be in financial trouble the way it is. There is no problem of taxes not being high enough. There is only an excessive spending problem.

If the GOP buckles on taxation now, when the problem is so clearly government squandering, when would it ever get taxes back down to historic norms? Never.

David Blue on April 4, 2012 at 1:42 PM

We’ve played this game before. Lucy always promises not to pull the ball away, we fall for it, we try to kick it, and she always pulls the ball away.

The Dems have promised spending cuts in exchange for tax increases many times before. The tax increases take affect immediately, the spending cuts are promised in the future, and the spending cuts never happen. Then they try to get us to play the same game again.

Cut spending. Cut it immediately. Cut it in real terms. Only after substantial real spending cuts have taken affect might I cinsider the Dems may be serious about controlling spending, the size and scope of government, and balancing the budget.

I am also almost certain this will never happen in my lifetime. Substantively and substantially cutting real spending is both political suicide for a Dem and a concession their glorious collectivist socialist statist dream is dying.

farsighted on April 4, 2012 at 1:42 PM

No.

Taxes are too high. Spending is too high. Shrink the government, starting in January 2013 after President Romney is elected.

Khun Joe on April 4, 2012 at 11:51 AM

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Shrink the Government?

President RomneyCare?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

PappyD61 on April 4, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I’m all for putting tax increases on the table in order to garner concessions from Democrats. For instance, make a deal saying once we eliminate the Dept of Education, we’ll raise taxes 10%. Then once the Dept of Education is gone … Whoops! … “I don’t have the votes to raise taxes. I tried really hard … even asked Michelle … but just couldn’t make it happen.”

Democrats play those games all the time. Why shouldn’t we?

JSGreg3 on April 4, 2012 at 1:46 PM

The corporate tax rate in the US is now the highest in the world. But that’s a bit misleading since the amount of deductions available to American companies dwarfs what is available in other countries with lower rates.

For individuals, we all know the 47% who pay no income taxes. But the other 53% don’t pay that much either at least not until you get to the top 5-10%. It’s not that hard to make $100K and pay practically nothing to the federal govt with a house, a couple of kids, a 401k, etc.

The only people that pay any significant amount of tax are the evil rich.

angryed on April 4, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Everybodys taxes are going up january first.End of Bush tac cuts. there will not be another extension deal.

gerrym51 on April 4, 2012 at 1:52 PM

The corporate tax rate in the US is now the highest in the world. But that’s a bit misleading since the amount of deductions available to American companies dwarfs what is available in other countries with lower rates.

Sure. So let’s leave in place a system that encourages companies to employ racial-minority dwarves to weave wicker baskets underwater because some politician wanted the crucial racial-minority underwater wicker basket weaving dwarves vote — while punishing the company that is developing an innovative, game-changing technology across the street for not weaving wicker baskets or employing racial-minority dwarves to do it.

The current tax code is an assertion that the government knows what is best for businesses to be doing. Given GSA spending, I would say that their definition of “best” can be outdone by a tic-tac-toe-playing chicken.

For individuals, we all know the 47% who pay no income taxes. But the other 53% don’t pay that much either at least not until you get to the top 5-10%. It’s not that hard to make $100K and pay practically nothing to the federal govt with a house, a couple of kids, a 401k, etc.

The only people that pay any significant amount of tax are the evil rich.

angryed on April 4, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Ah yes. So here’s the deal; you work hard, you be innovative, you come up with great and new products — and guess what, you get to carry the load for yourself and everyone else because you can afford it.

Reward the lazy moocher, punish the productive.

northdallasthirty on April 4, 2012 at 1:57 PM

No, it is not. It’s time to restate, double down, whatever, on why tax increases are bad for everyone.

One word: Europe. I live here. I see the results. Every day.

And if you are seriously arguing for tax increases then, yes, maybe you should blog for CNN or somebody else instead.

Ed Snyder on April 4, 2012 at 2:00 PM

They are indeed going to demagogue this relentlessly no matter what symbolic concessions the GOP makes. Maybe if Ryan is on the ticket he can explain that at the rate we are going there won’t be enough money in the entire United States of America to dent the government’s unfunded liabilities.

Seth Halpern on April 4, 2012 at 2:00 PM

We’ll never know if we don’t try.

angryed on April 4, 2012 at 1:19 PM

As already pointed out, we did try, on way more than one occasion. Has not worked so far, each and every time. You can’t make deals with a side that never even intends to keep to their side of an “agreement”.

riddick on April 4, 2012 at 2:01 PM

The Boomer generation insists that it doesn’t have to pay the cost of it’s excesses, that only the younger then 55 should bare the costs. I say screw that drain your bank accounts and live on social security. That’s all you are leaving for the rest of us.

Zekecorlain on April 4, 2012 at 2:02 PM

At first my thought was NO NO NO NO NO.

But you know what, we do have room for compromise.

Here’s the compromise: we cut spending now, and in 10 years, we’ll raise taxes. No spending cuts? No tax increase.

That way, we’ll have plenty of time to repeal the taxes while the spending cuts go in immediately.

Do you think the Dems will go for that? No? Then why should we accept the opposite offer of immediate tax increases for spending cuts drawn out over 10 years!??!??

makattak on April 4, 2012 at 2:08 PM

If Romney is elected, I’m sure we’ll be talking about tax increases and all sorts of other Progressive objectives. That is why I refuse to vote for him. Instead, we should phase out every single thing the Progressives have ever done. For example, no income tax, no alphabet soup Federal bureaucracies (e.g., no EPA, no FBI, no FDA, etc.), and no case law.

Ceteris Paribus on April 4, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3