Will Repubicans Cave And Go For Tax Increases?

[red states rule]

I was afraid of this. Now R's are saying they might go for "new revenue" as part of a budget deal

I guess R's are now ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory





I’m a day late on this but it’s too intriguing not to blog (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/house-republicans-make-cross-party-pitch-to-embolden-debt-supercommittee/2011/11/02/gIQAhCBugM_print.html). You can read the actual letter, which is exceedingly tame, on Mike Simpson’s website (http://simpson.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=267262). Among the signatories: …Ron Paul.

The bad news? If this happens, some people might be paying a little more. The good news?

We’ll never have to read another “time for a grand bargain” column from Tom Friedman again. Dude, I think we should take the deal.


A group of 40 House Republicans for the first time Wednesday encouraged Congress’s deficit reduction committee to explore new revenue as part of a broad deal that would make a major dent in the nation’s debt, joining 60 Democrats in a rare bipartisan effort to urge the “supercommittee” to reach a big deal that could also include entitlement cuts…

Among those who signed were several dozen Republicans who had previously signed a pledge promising they would not support a net tax increase. Among the Democratic signers were some of the House’s most liberal members who have opposed entitlement cuts…

Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-Ohio) said if he had a nickel for every one of the Republicans who said they supported the letter’s goal but feared how [Americans for Tax Reform President Grover] Norquist would react, “I’d be rich and retired, and we’d have 200 signatures on the letter.”…

[S]everal Republicans who signed the letter were careful to note they were not endorsing a net tax increase — but rather a broad rewrite of the tax code that might close loopholes and lower rates, while still producing more government revenue.


Even more intriguingly, Boehner himself came out today and said “I think there is room for revenues” (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57318109-503544/boehner-debt-deal-will-include-new-tax-revenues/) in the Super Committee’s work while emphasizing that the GOP will only tolerate so much. When his staff was asked where, pray tell, these new revenues would be coming from, an aide suggested (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/04/us-usa-debt-supercommittee-idUSTRE7A27LV20111104) “increasing government fees, selling government assets and raising co-payments in government healthcare programs.” I.e. no tax hikes. So that’s that, right?

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/03/forty-house-republicans-sign-letter-encouraging-super-committee-to-consider-new-revenues/

[Thunderknuckles]

They have to RSR. That's the reality both politically and financially. We are too deep in the doo doo and spending cuts alone won't do it.
If they are smart about it they will at least go for tax increases that come with a sunset clause based on reaching some form of economic milestones. Taxes are usually more palatable that way and they are somewhat less likely to get thrown out of office.

[fj1200]

They have to RSR. That's the reality both politically and financially. We are too deep in the doo doo and spending cuts alone won't do it.
If they are smart about it they will at least go for tax increases that come with a sunset clause based on reaching some form of economic milestones. Taxes are usually more palatable that way and they are somewhat less likely to get thrown out of office.

That might be true if tax rates correlated to tax revenues but the reality is that revenues will return to historical norms when we achieve robust GDP growth and lower unemployment. And I don't recall tax increases ever having a sunset clause, tax decreases yes but that is because of some ridiculous 10 year budget rule; see the Bush cuts as example. Personally I think they need to push hard on the simplification angle rather than the targeted this/targeted that type of approach to which congress has become addicted.

[red states rule]

They have to RSR. That's the reality both politically and financially. We are too deep in the doo doo and spending cuts alone won't do it.
If they are smart about it they will at least go for tax increases that come with a sunset clause based on reaching some form of economic milestones. Taxes are usually more palatable that way and they are somewhat less likely to get thrown out of office.

No they do not. There is no reason to raise taxes until the budget has had some serious REAL cuts in spending

Look at the spending going on right now - and these are the lastest examples I could find - but the waste contniues

BTW the list is way too long to post so clink on the link for the rest





$29,992,000 by Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) for 27 projects, including: $4,000,000 for the Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center, Stoneville; $1,500,000 for Berryman Institute, Jack Berryman Institute, Utah and Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station; $1,002,000 for Mississippi Valley State University, curriculum development; $939,000 for the Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center; and $231,000 for e-commerce research, because no one knows how to go online

.$15,614,000 by Senate appropriator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) for 12 projects, including: $2,000,000 for the Appalachian Fruit Laboratory, Kearneysville; $1,500,000 for the Dunloup Creek Watershed project; $500,000 for agriculture waste utilization research; and $400,000 for a computer vision engineer in Kearneysville.

$12,500,000 by Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) for 13 projects, including: $2,750,000 for polymer research; $1,000,000 for wheat genetic research; $1,000,000 for a phosphorous reduction cooperative agreement through the Kansas Livestock Foundation; and $250,000 for workforce development and out-migration through the Kansas Farm Bureau Foundation (KFBF). In addition to the appropriation, KFBF has also applied for a $7 million stimulus grant for rural broadband deployment. To add insult to injury, the Kansas Farm Bureau, which is conveniently located at the same address as the foundation, had a fund balance of $98 million at the end of 2007

$12,423,000 by Senate Agriculture Subcommittee Chairman Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) for 11 projects, including: $4,000,000 for the Dairy Forage Agricultural Research Center, Prairie du Sac; $2,500,000 for the Dairy Forage Research Center, Marshfield; $950,000 for nutrition enhancement research; and $400,000 for the Institute for Sustainable Agriculture. One of the institute’s projects is promoting “Slow Food.” As an answer to fast food, “Slow Food” has been, according to the institute’s website, “expanding over the past decade from dealing with issues of quality in cooking to include environmental and sustainable agriculture, social justice, and food sovereignty, among others.” It is not clear how Americans can eat social justice.

$9,355,000 by House Agriculture Subcommittee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) for 10 projects, including: $1,454,000 for mosquito trapping research/West Nile Virus, Gainesville, Florida; $401,000 for the Food Marketing Policy Center; and $300,000 for the Massaro Community Farm. This newly classified nonprofit organization brags about the USDA grant on its website: “This is another major milestone crossed in 2009: barn renovations, $300,000 USDA grant, and Family Fun day are just a few others. We certainly have much to be thankful for this year. Let’s not forget one more reason to be thankful, the opportunity given us by the Massaro brothers to continue their agricultural heritage.” They should really thank the taxpayers.

$4,841,000 for wood utilization research in 11 states requested by 13 senators and 10 representatives. This research has cost taxpayers $100 million since 1985. According to one of its sponsors, Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), “current research topics and their benefits include: producing better wood composites, reinforced wood panels and lumber, improved strand placement in panel products, improved utilization of biomass for bioproducts including conversion of wood into new fuels and bioplastics to reduce our country’s dependence on foreign energy sources.” One would think that after 25 years of research all of the purposes for one of the world’s most basic construction materials would have been discovered. According to the website of the American Forest and Paper Association, “The US forest products industry accounts for approximately 6 percent of the total U.S. manufacturing GDP, placing it on par with the automotive and plastics industry. The industry generates more than $200 billion a year in sales and employs more than one million people earning $54 billion in annual payroll.” Taxpayers should not be sapped into subsidizing another multi-billion dollar industry.

$2,908,000 for shrimp aquaculture research in seven states requested by two senators and five representatives. Since 1985, $74.5 million has been appropriated for this research.

$2,573,000 for potato research in four states requested by five senators and four representatives. A September 23, 2009 article on MSNBC.com called McDonald’s “the holy grail for potato farmers.” The article stated, “Because McDonald’s buys more than 3.4 billion pounds of U.S. potatoes annually, it has the power to dictate whether a variety sprouts or winds up in the less-lucrative supermarket freezer’s crinklecut bin — or worse yet, banished to become dehydrated taters.” With such a vested interest in keeping the potato market alive, the private sector should pay for the research. Every taxpayer should get fries with that $2,573,000.

$775,000 for the Institute for Food Science and Engineering (IFSE) requested by Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee member Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Rep. John Boozman (R-Ark.). One of IFSE’s research areas is called “Pickle Science and Technology” which the institute’s website boasts, “is dedicated to increasing product value by improving production and quality of pickled vegetables. The program, which enjoys significant industry support, includes the annual national evaluation of pickled vegetable products.” With the continued spending of taxpayer money on initiatives like these, it is not surprising that taxpayers are in a financial pickle of more than $12.7 trillion in debt.

$693,000 for beef improvement research in Missouri and Texas by Senate appropriator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and House appropriator Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas). According to beef.org (the beef industry’s website), “Consumers’ love of great steaks and burgers, their confidence in the safety of U.S. beef and their renewed interest in the nutritional benefits of protein help create strong demand for beef. Consumer spending on beef was $76 billion in 2008 and has grown $26.9 billion since 1999. Per capita spending for beef in retail and foodservice was about $249 in 2008 — up about $50 from 2001. In 2008, per capita consumption of beef was 59.9 pounds, compared to 59.2 pounds for chicken.” Taxpayers have a real beef paying for this big fat earmark.

$349,000 for swine and other waste management by Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), House appropriator David Price (D-N.C.) and Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-N.C.).

$206,000 for wool research in three states (Montana, Texas and Wyoming) by Reps. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas). Since 1995, CAGW has uncovered 14 earmarks worth $3,623,453 for wool research, always in those three states. According to the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, “Shorn wool production in the United States was approximately 33 million pounds of greasy wool in 2008, down 5 percent from 2007… the average price paid for wool in 2008 was 99 cents per pound, with a total value of $32.5 million.” Congress shouldn’t wooly bully the American taxpayer.

$175,000 for urban horticulture and marketing requested by Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee member Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.) and Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.). According to USDA, “The goals of Windy City Harvest (WCH), a supporting organization of the Chicago Botanic Garden [CBG], are to provide Chicago’s North Lawndale neighborhood with urban agriculture training for low-income young adults with few job skills, access to locally-grown organic produce at area farmers markets, and a ‘green’ campus for the enrichment and enjoyment of all its residents.” At the end of 2007 (the latest IRS Form 990 available) the CBG had a fund balance of $120 million.

$98,000 for perennial wheat research requested by Senate appropriator Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), House appropriator Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.). Since 2003, there have been six earmarks worth $725,000, making this earmark perennial.

http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/