by Benjamin Sarlin Info
Benjamin Sarlin is Washington correspondent for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
Enter your email address:
Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas:
Message:
Enter your email address:
Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas:
Message:
Left: Retired Republican Senator Pete Domenici, co-chair of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Debt Reduction Task Force. Right: Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, co-chair of President Obama's deficit commission. (AP Photo; Getty Images.) Despite the anti-tax hysteria on the right, an influential group of former GOP lawmakers are breaking with their party. Benjamin Sarlin talks to Pete Domenici about restoring fiscal sanity.
Economic policy is pretty simple if you’re a Republican in Congress these days: Tax cuts good. Tax increases bad. The rest is details.
But outside the House and Senate, a group of former Republican lawmakers and officials are hammering out plans to reduce the deficit that are likely to include significant tax hikes.
Politicians calling for budget cuts from the safety from retirement is nothing new. But this group plans on releasing a comprehensive set of budget recommendations in November for bringing down the $13 trillion-plus national debt over the long term. Among them is retired Republican Senator Pete Domenici, co-chair of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force.
“It’s obvious that you have to look at the tax side,” Domenici says.
“We ran through all the cuts we can get and all the reforms to programs and, without going into details, I can tell you that you cannot get where you want to go with cuts and reforming entitlements,” Domenici, who represented New Mexico for 36 years before stepping down last year, said in an interview. “It’s obvious that you have to look at the tax side.”
Among the former lawmakers, bipartisanship is a constant mantra, and a willingness to put “everything on the table” is considered a basic prerequisite to negotiations. Domenici told The Daily Beast that he only agreed to participate in the task force if co-chairwoman and former Clinton OMB Director Alice Rivlin joined as well.
Other graybeard-heavy groups working on similar reports include the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform, which includes former Republican lawmakers and Democrats alike. That group will only offer recommendations on how Congress passes a budget, not what’s in it. President Maya MacGuineas, a former adviser to John McCain, has called for a major energy tax to reduce the deficit.
“There are some profiles in courage occasionally but they’re too few,” MacGuineas said of the current political scene. “I think that’s the role of these outside organizations. We're not elected to do anything, and it’s not like we have the power to implement anything, but by putting forward realistic policies it paves the way for lawmakers to make those tough choices.”
Then there’s President Obama’s deficit commission, co-chaired by former Republican Senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, who are set to release a report in December. Both the president’s group and the Peterson-Pew Commission include Rivlin.
Simpson is already under heavy fire this week for a salty letter he wrote to one critic, Ashley Carson of the Older Women’s League, in which he called Social Security a “cow with 310 million tits.” Simpson is no hero on the right either—he slammed Grover Norquist and other small-government activists as “a happy band of goofy warriors” for their resistance to tax increases and told Fox News host Neil Cavuto that “I don’t have to take that crap from those guys.” CNBC’s Larry Kudlow has blasted Simpson as a stealth Democrat and called his commission “an excuse to raise taxes.”
That Republican members of these groups would even look at the revenue side of the budget sets them apart from the overwhelming majority of current lawmakers and, given the scale of the deficit, is necessary to any realistic plan. Many of them were in office for President George H.W. Bush’s presidency-ending tax increase, which Domenici and Simpson both voted for, an act of fiscal responsibility that seems unthinkable in today’s GOP. Acknowledging the constraints faced by current politicians—including those on the president’s commission—Domenici noted that none of the members of his group hold office.
“We're not going to be embarrassed in what we represent and what we roll out,” he said.
But given the anti-tax hysteria of today, it’s a relatively low bar for Republicans to appear reasonable on the issue—and many on the left are worried that the commissions will provide a smokescreen for harsh spending cuts.
12 August 26, 2010 | 11:19pm Twitter Emails
Enter your email address:
Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas:
Message:
Well, let's stand well back as howls of outrage emanate from our DB conservative friends. Aslanleon, Holly, timeisnow - take over!
Don't leave out the twin rogues and the fake Rev.
My bad, sailaway.
AlanD We all know that you're a guy always looking for a free ride. Guess pride isn't important to you.
HollyK64-- Your posts have convinced me that your family bought you computer, sat you down in front of it, and told you to stay there. That way, you can make stupid comments to strangers on the web instead of to your family.
Holly If you are against "A Free Ride" then I take it you are supporting a Tax Hike right? If conservatives are so fiscally responsible as you suggest than obviously they are going to have to find ways to increase revenue...
mmarsh We all know, though Liberals are loathe to admit it, that the wealthy already pay more than their fair share of taxes. The top five percent in this country account for a huge percentage of the money taken in by the IRS. Obama's desire to redistribute wealth from those responsible to those who are irresponsible is a losing proposition for this country.
Holly If by "pay more than their fair share of taxes" that the bottom 95% of the country pays 67% of the country's taxes while the top 5% pay 33%, I guess that's acceptable, but I don't think that's an accurate way of looking at it. The top 5% control 85% of the country's wealth while the other 15% goes the 95% of the rest of us. To me, "paying your fair share of taxes" should be pretty proportional to how much wealth you have in order to safeguard social mobility.
"Influential?" They are out of office and until now out of mind.
All Americans remain wary of government spending. Most, regardless of which side of the aisle, believe strongly in free trade and are committed to lowering the federal budget, paying off national debt, and acquiring a balanced budget. Where fiscal conservatism gets more diverse in ideals is what steps should be taken to balance the budget: -Deficit hawks are more willing to increase taxes in addition to cutting spending to balance the budget. -Libertarians, who want to "starve the beast" by cutting taxes for the purpose of decreasing tax revenue which they hope will cause the government to spend less. -Supply-siders, who believe the best way to gain tax revenue is through deep across-the-board tax cuts that they believe will end up completely paying for themselves through the economic growth they cause. These are the approaches we are hearing to deficit reduction. I am not sure that the suppy siders have much of a leg to stand on, as during President Reagans 8 year tenure, when Supply Side and "deficits dont matter" came into existance, our Deficit rose from 26% to 47% of GDP. The country owed more to foreigners than it was owed, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. I am not sure many Americans want to continue this merry-go-round. Libertarians want all government shrunk..I believe when our economy is strong that perhaps addressing the bloated government issue is reasonable, however in times of severe economic roller coaster, where we are unsure that we will even have a viable economy, that now is not the time for major economic over haul... My sense is that in order to tackle this issue is that we have to address all things on the table. Yes there will need to be a tax increase. Unfortunately I believe that my tax bracket will be hit. Intitlement spending has to be cut, and in some sense we need to pare down government.. PAYGO--- should be revisited. MHO
Supply side can't work right now because Americans are too debt-laden for those kinds of tax cuts to bring any significant increase in demand to make up for the lost revenue.
It never DID "work". It's a myth that the top 2% create wealth for the rest of the country. They don't invest in the economy. They ship jobs overseas and protect their own wealth. The days of a thriving, growing economy where everyone benefits is over.
No tax hikes, smaller government, elimination of liberals. 68 days and counting.
Oh bulldog. Go ahead and look at this through your right-tinted glasses. But you haven't a clue of what you are talking about. Who are you going to trust? The politicians looking for votes? The blowhards from FOX and MSNBC? or independent/non-partisan commissions who are not influenced by votes lobbyists? Taxes will go up as they should. I'm not saying they should go up now, but certainly in the future. If you, like so many on the right are so adamant that tax should only stay flat or go down then please provide the ideal tax rates and how you arrived with that number. My math is simple....our debt is enormous and we need to pay it down. And yes, we should also significantly cut spending. Social Security needs to be changed. Almost certainly we will end up receiving less and at a later age. And medicare needs to be targeted as well. That one is a little more tricky. We can all agree there is a big problem. But again I ask, who are you going to trust to come up with the solutions? Based on your post I can tell you you're not listening to the right people.
Pat Toomey, The Club for Growth, Paul Ryan. There are plenty in DC; we just need to 'stimulate' them in the correct direction. Besides have you never heard of the multiplier effect. Don't permit yourself to be dragged down by slugs like Paul klugman of The Times.
I'm glad you mentioned Congressman Paul Ryan(R - WI), Bull. His proposed budget plan * cuts taxes on the rich by 50%. * raises taxes for the bottom 90% of all Americans, * eliminates Medicare, * privatizes Social Security, and * would not reduce our national debt despite all this. Ryan's a true-blue Republican. Help the wealthy and screw the rest of America. From "The Ryan Tax Plan: Higher Taxes for 90% of Americans, Less Revenue for the Government", by Matthew Yglesias [3/10/2010]: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/the-ryan-tax-plan-higher-taxes -for-90-of-americans-less-revenue-for-the-government/ (Remove spaces if you copy and paste this link.)
Pat Toomey? The guy who runs ads that falsely promises an economic recovery through cutting taxes and deregulation (you'd think he'd at least tweak this message) and doesn't make any substantial argument against Joe Sestak and instead just says "don't vote for him, he's a liberal"? Come on. He has absolutely no argument for how you increase demand among the general populace because he fails to realize how debt-laden the average American is. It doesn't stimulate the economy to give people a small amount of money that's just going to be used paying off credit card bills.
Bulldog17. So did govt. increase or decrease under Reagan and Bush? And what happened to the deficit under both? Both parties spend too much money, the Dems just are more willing to pay for it. You must have forgotten that it was Bush who started TARP (which isn't nearly as costly as you might pretend), who advanced a huge medicare program that was unfunded, who started a war of choice that has cost over 1 trillion directly and estimates are 3 trillion long term costs. So yeah, a return to the halcion days of the reps in 68 days will fix everything, right? I would also ask you to educate yourself on the debt. The vast majority of it can be linked to decrease revenues from the recession which began sometime before Jan. of 09, to continuation of Bush policies (the war and tax cuts, things I am sure you are for) and only a small percentage is due to "Obama" policies. It is hard to have a functioning democracy when my former party is made up of know nothings and that party has no interest in anything but retaking power.
dabouv, surely you don't expect facts to change Bull's mind, do you? As with most of our other DB conservative friends, Bull lives in an alternate reality.
dabado, You are confused. No one, certainly not me, is suggesting that the GOP is perfect. However, it is equally clear that the GOP is nearly always superior to the Dems when it comes to the key issues of national defense, economic well being and social values. Higher taxes help no one except to make people more dependent on government and to prop up elected officials in the Democrat party. Here is yet another reason for the GOP to win...an axiom: Any institution not reinforced from the right, will over time drift to the left.
bulldog17 "it is equally clear that the GOP is nearly always superior to the Dems when it comes to the key issues of national defense" What, like declaring war on the wrong guy? Spending gazillions on the military instead of back here at home where it's needed. The Republicans look after their own, making their rich friends richer still. As for the rest of America, the Republicans couldn't care less, just as long as they're profiting from Mr and Mrs Average. Why is the right always so damned wrong?
bulldog, you're pretty set in your ways so I'm not sure it's worth any kind of effort here, but nevertheless.... In my earlier days of falling prey to media and political party manipulation I bounced around from right to left to right to left. But then it became increasingly obvious to me that both parties are bought and sold by big business and that most of their decisions are made for the sole purpose of self-preservation. In the current political environment self preservation now means catering to the extreme ideologues and marching in lock step in opposition to the other party. And I have to say that in my independent view of things that your party in particular has been the greatest offender. You are falling prey to the republican side an have been brainwashed to believe that they are far superior in issues of "national defense, economic well being and social values". Do I really need to go into details about how miserable your party has been in these areas? Can you tell me what their plans are going forward? And I will ask you AGAIN.....if you believe we can only lower taxes how low should we go? Can you not agree that at some point we get to zero which is too low? Do you realize that the top tax rate in the 1950 was over 90%? Even I can agree that's absurd. So the general trend has been to make the rates lower and lower. At what point on our way to zero do we say "ok, that's just right"? You need to answer that question before you can claim that we can never raise taxes.
"social values" and that's what scares me most about Republicans like you. You claim that liberals want to control everything when it is precisely your "social values" platforms that propose controlling people's personal lives. You want to tell me what I can and can't do in my own home (ex. drug policy), whom I can and can't associate with as I please (ex. gay marriage), and how I can and can't express myself (ex. flag burning). To be sure, the Democrats also hold a couple of these views, but they don't go around touting them as major legs of their platforms.
If you're waiting for a rational response from Bull, JohnnyAces, you'd better not hold your breath...
It is hard for me to know where to begin with you liberal fools, which confused argument to defuse. Let me just say a couple of things here: 1) The debt only increased under Bush substantially beginning in 2007 when the dumb Democrats, in spite of themselves, recaptured congress. If you really believe the Dems are better at managing the economy, well there's always that bridge in Brooklyn still for sale. 2) Federal taxes should be flat--two levels at most--at about 15 & 20 % period. If you current day libs had any sense at all you would have embraced the Bradley/Gephardt concept of a couple decades ago but you choose to think government is the solution to everything. Pretty dumb. The shadows will soon find you. 3) The debt/deficit issue is not taxes but rather spending. You want the plan for the future...savagely cut the spending. And when that is completed, cut it again. Here's where: cut 20% from the trillion of defense/intelligence; eliminate the departments of education and energy; take an axe to medicaid; offer private options on social security, roll back Obamacare. 4) Follow the election, gather liberals together and send them to just one re-training camp for efficiency. Here is today's axiom: when republicans win, everybody wins.
Gee a piece on TDB that finally suggests what most economists knew for a long time. Why we need a commission to do what needed to be done a decade ago is beyond my scope of imagination. Yes, we need to increase taxes and cut spending. Let get the plan going. No we can't do it today, but the plan is needed now for the time we can execute it.
Read Full Article »