Erick Erickson
Why Boehner must not fold on tax hikes
The White House knows that if they cannot get the GOP to vote to increase rates, they will get crushed on the tax issue in the midterms. Their red state Democrats need political cover before they can vote to increase taxes. That cover is a Republican cave.
The White House also knows that if they can get the GOP to vote to increase taxes once, it will be far easier to get them to do it again.
Barack Obama needs the Republicans to raise rates. If they do not get it before January 1, all of the Bush tax cuts will expire and the GOP will not permit any reduction without it being an across the board reduction. Moderate Democrats in the Senate and the few remaining blue dogs in the House will be in a very difficult position.
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
Oh, please. Boehner has already caved on tax hikes. All the rest is just window dressing. And should tax rates go up on January 1st, the notion that Republicans would stonewall anything other than an across-the-board reduction is ludicrous. When it comes to being blamed for things, the GOP is afraid of its own shadow. They’d quickly go along with Obama and lower taxes only on certain people to avoid being blamed for the tax increases.
Shump on December 7, 2012 at 12:16 PM
May he to Hades, pronto. He’s not a man.
Eunuchs, mainly just eunuchs roam in DC, from the very top on down.
Schadenfreude on December 7, 2012 at 12:16 PM
Problem is, most wage earners won’t even notice the increase until they do their 2013 tax returns in April 2014.
And even if the Bush rates expire, and some deal is struck later in the year and made retroactive to Jan 1, those people will never notice that anything happened at all (except that they may see taxes increase as a result of 0bamacare).
So I don’t see this being a problem for Democrats politically, especially the Teflon Dog Eater. Most voters just aren’t that smart.
UltimateBob on December 7, 2012 at 12:17 PM
For the life of me, I do not understand the conservative aspect of this. Raise taxes on EVERYONE, if you earn a dime a year from your labor, you pay a freaking penny in taxes. If we are going to have income taxes, everyone should pay. Particularly those who demand the most from government.
astonerii on December 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM
Squishy gop
*sigh *
cmsinaz on December 7, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Too late.
Steve Eggleston on December 7, 2012 at 12:36 PM
This argument is pure idiotic b.s. — the red state Democrats will have plenty of cover if no deal is reached because all they have to do is vote for a middle-class tax cut and then claim they would have voted for tax cuts for everyone. Their cover is potentially better if Boehner doesn’t cave.
Erickson, once again, proves he has no idea what he’s talking about.
Caiwyn on December 7, 2012 at 12:37 PM
Cheap suits, they fold, that’s what they do.
Rocks on December 7, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Let me explain the conservative aspect to you. The government collects plenty of money to do it’s job. Taxes should never be raised again, ever. Cut spending. What spending? All of it. Cut everywhere.
Rocks on December 7, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Folks will notice smaller pay checks in January, though that’s not due to the Bush tax cuts.
I can’t believe people are on board with continuing the cut in Social Security withholding (aka the payroll tax cut). Once again, what was supposed to be a temporary stimulus measure has turned into a permanent drain on federal finances. The GOP never explained to people that the temporary increase they saw in their checks was actually stealing money from Social Security.
hawksruleva on December 7, 2012 at 12:43 PM
No, he doesn’t. Nothing requires the rates to go up. The only reason Mighty Pharaoh wants the rates to go up is purely punitive. He just can’t abide passing up the chance to stick it to the successful for the sake of sticking it to the successful.
We punish success in the country now.
CurtZHP on December 7, 2012 at 12:43 PM
You’re right. But is cutting taxes really the core of conservatism? I thought it was smaller government. And currently, lowering taxes is doing nothing to shrink the government. Since that is the case, why object to taxes being raised?
To me, tax rates on the 2% is a minor issue that we shouldn’t go all-in over. The fight worth having is over spending, or debt, or the size of government. The tax fight, at this point, is just tangential to that fight.
hawksruleva on December 7, 2012 at 12:46 PM
That’s true. But I don’t see millionaires lining up, asking for our defense. I’m leaning to LIB – just like in California, where the rich voted to raise their own taxes. People need to see for themselves that raising taxes isn’t going to help anything. Maybe, hopefully, THEN they (meaning voters) will be ready to listen to reason.
hawksruleva on December 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM
Then objection to taxes being raised is that the additional revenue obfuscates the fact that spending must be decreased. Raising taxes is more about kicking the can then lowering the debt.
It’s hard to have a fight “over spending, or debt, or the size of government” if you think that the government is short of funds which is what raising taxes means.
Rocks on December 7, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Anybody notice how immensely important the Bush tax rates have suddenly become for the middle class?
And after years of being told by the very same people that they were “only for the rich.”
Amazing. The Democrats are accusing the Republicans of supporting huge tax increases. In fact, these increases next year are the result of Democrats insisting–at least twice in the legislative process–on “sunset” provisions for all the tax cuts.
Attempts were made by Republicans over the years to make the rates permanent (income taxes, capital gains, death taxes). Democrats stomped these attempts.
Now the Democrats are holding a gun to the dog’s head, a gun they created, and are blaming the Republicans for wanting to see the dog shot.
In fact, Democratic leaders now apparently believe that they can go over the cliff, then restore Bush’s tax rates for everyone except the rich, and that they can then call the restored Bush rates the “Obama Tax Cuts.” Seriously. Hell, I’m already seeing media references to “Bush/Obama” tax cuts.
Good thing for the Democrats that there’s a lot of uninformed voters out there. They’ll probably get away with it.
tbrosz on December 7, 2012 at 12:51 PM
He’ll fold faster than Superman on laundry day.
Chuck Schick on December 7, 2012 at 12:54 PM
Taxes will either go up now or they will go up in 2015. If Boehner doesn’t allow them to go up, the Republicans will be kicked out of Congress and the Democrats will raise them. Currently, MOST people in the US *want* higher taxes on “the rich” and digging in heels on the issue just feeds the meme that the Republicans are simply out “for the rich people”.
For example: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84319.html
They want it? Give it to them. Then in 2014 show them the damage it does. But if we don’t, in 2014 they are going to throw us out and do it anyway because they are convinced that it will work. It won’t, but that’s what they believe.
crosspatch on December 7, 2012 at 12:55 PM
By negotiating and capitulating, Boehner puts the GOP and conservatives in the worst possible position in 2014 and beyond. Because if it leads to stagnation and failure (hint: it will), then the GOP will be identified as the source of the blame (hey, we all know that this plan wasn’t Obama’s plan, so it must have been the GOP’s plan – and if, by some crazy fluke of luck it doesn’t result in abject failure, Obama will get the credit).
Given Obama’s obstinance and refusal to negotiation in good faith, the only options are to give Obama exactly what he says that he wants (GOP can’t be blamed for that when the tautological implosion occurs), or let it go over the cliff (higher risk, but a good case can be made at this point that Obama wasn’t acting in good faith – but the press will obviously fight this narrative tooth and nail – and we all know that the GOP is absolutely incapable of presenting a rational, coherent narrative to the public).
besser tot als rot on December 7, 2012 at 1:35 PM
Talk about “revenue” obfuscates where government resources come from.
besser tot als rot on December 7, 2012 at 1:39 PM
I think some of them are simply afraid to ask for defense. They’ve been so vilified they don’t dare. It’s sort of like the kid getting pushed around by the schoolyard bully. He’s afraid to tell the teacher because that will only provoke the bully to beat him harder.
CurtZHP on December 7, 2012 at 1:41 PM
I’m at the point where I can’t even follow these arcane arguments and speculation. And the people who voted for Obama, who got off the couch and put down the bong, aren’t even trying.
Reality will rule. It always does.
Prepare.
PattyJ on December 7, 2012 at 2:00 PM
Here’s the deal: the truly rich are fine with this. They pay exactly what they want to pay due to all the loop holes and deductions.
Buffet pays 16% tax rates even though AMT should make him pay 28% if it actually did what it was supposed to. It’s because he donates appreciated stock that costs him absolutely nothing, then takes the full amount as a writeoff against his personal income. Plus the donations are to his own foundations, so you can imagine the scam he’s pulling with then.
If Obama were to propose real tax reform as he should be, then you’ll see them squeal and start sending their money offshore.
Chuck Schick on December 7, 2012 at 2:18 PM
That works great if you have a moral and religious people who are not demanding that everyone else backstop them for every conceivable negative life event through the power of government.
Unfortunately, we do not currently have that people right now. The main reason is that those who are getting this backstop benefit from government are not paying government to provide that backstop. Instead they are demanding that everyone else pay for their benefit.
We have two problems right now. One, people demand big government. Two, people demand the government soak someone else to pay for it. Now we have five basic choices at this point. Keep going the way we are going and eventually destroy the economy. Soak the rich and still eventually destroy the economy. Make those demanding the backstop pay a much larger portion of that backstop and thus be invested in it and face a large backlash at the polls. Take the backstop away from those demanding it and face a massive backlash at the polls. Combine the make those demanding pay for it along with significant cuts to the backstops.
The ideal thing would be to get rid of the welfare state completely. It is not possible as long as people do not realize how much it costs. They will never understand how much it costs unless they are made to pay for it. Once they are made to pay for it, they will start to evaluate it based on the real monetary cost and will want less and less of it. Then we can cut it back.
Until we make the lower income people PAY for what they get, there is no political solution to cutting welfare at this time.
Let Bush’s tax cuts expire.
astonerii on December 7, 2012 at 2:21 PM
Heh, some people still think that Boehner can grow a pair.
Amazing.
HondaV65 on December 7, 2012 at 3:11 PM