NY Times November 12, 2012
Democrats Like a Romney Idea on Income Tax
By JONATHAN WEISMAN

WASHINGTON — With both parties positioning for difficult negotiations to 
avert a fiscal crisis as Congress returns for its lame-duck session, 
Democrats are latching on to an idea floated by Mitt Romney to raise 
taxes on the rich through a hard cap on income tax deductions.

The proposal by Mr. Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, was 
envisioned to help pay for an across-the-board income tax cut, a move 
ridiculed by President Obama as window dressing to a “sketchy deal.” But 
many Democrats now see it as an important element of a potential deficit 
reduction agreement — and one they can claim to be bipartisan.

The cap — never fully detailed by Mr. Romney — is similar to a 
longstanding proposal by Mr. Obama to limit income tax deductions to 28 
percent, even for affluent households that pay a 35 percent rate. But a 
firm cap of around $35,000 would hit the affluent even harder than Mr. 
Obama’s proposal, which has previously gotten nowhere in Congress.

“Let’s just say there’s a renewed interest,” said Senator Kent Conrad, 
Democrat of North Dakota and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. 
“Part of it is people reflecting on Obama’s proposal, but when Romney 
said what he said, it just added fuel.”

“I was a little surprised Romney proposed a dollar cap when he did it,” 
Mr. Conrad added.

The attention on the plan is evidence that ideas on deficit reduction 
are beginning to take firmer form as the January deadline for dealing 
with expiring tax cuts and automatic spending reductions draws close. 
The lame-duck session that begins Tuesday could be one of the most 
pivotal in years, and the political atmosphere is considerably different 
than when lawmakers left in October for the fall campaigns.

President Obama has been re-elected convincingly. Democrats, once in 
danger of losing control of the Senate, instead gained at least one 
seat. House Republicans held control, but as many as 16 incumbents lost, 
including some of the party’s most uncompromising voices, like 
Representatives Joe Walsh of Illinois and Allen B. West of Florida, who 
refuses to concede his seat despite his continuing deficit in the vote 
count. The somber mood among Republicans could ease negotiations to 
avert more than $500 billion in automatic spending cuts and tax increases.

“The worst time to work together on a bipartisan basis is right before 
an election,” said Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of 
the House Republican Conference. “The best time to work on a bipartisan 
basis is right after an election.”

Returning lawmakers will find a long to-do list greeting them Tuesday 
and seven short weeks to do it. In the House, members may once again try 
to grapple with the farm bill, which expired during the recess. Dairy 
farmers in particular are clamoring for a resolution, and a year of 
record drought gave urgency to a bill.

Across the Rotunda, the Senate may once again take up a cybersecurity 
bill. An earlier measure that would have established optional standards 
for the computer systems that oversee the country’s critical 
infrastructure was stopped by a filibuster as some leading Republicans 
yielded to the concerns of major business interests; members from both 
parties would like to see a renewed effort on a bill as soon as 
possible. A military policy bill, which generally passes easily on the 
floor, was caught up in the fight over looming Pentagon cuts and did not 
make it to the floor.

But the most pressing task is averting the sudden expiration of all the 
Bush-era tax cuts, a payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits at the 
same time that across-the-board military and domestic spending cuts kick 
in. Most economists believe that “fiscal cliff,” if not mitigated, would 
send the economy back into recession. Democrats say any plan to avert 
the crisis must include a combination of tax increases on the rich and 
spending cuts. Republicans say they are willing to overhaul the tax code 
to increase federal revenue, but they refuse to raise income tax rates.

That has kicked off a scramble to find ways to raise revenue without 
higher rates by closing loopholes and tightening deductions and tax 
credits. Senior Democrats made clear Monday that the search for such tax 
changes should not be seen as a replacement for higher tax rates on the 
rich.

Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the top Democrat on the 
House Budget Committee, said the Romney proposal to cap deductions would 
work only in concert with allowing the top two income tax rates to 
revert to the level of Bill Clinton’s presidency, 36 percent and 39.6 
percent, up from the current 33 percent and 35 percent.

To come close to the level of deficit reduction needed to get the 
nation’s fiscal house in order, the presidential deficit reduction 
commission known by the names of its chairmen, Erskine B. Bowles and 
Alan K. Simpson, assumed those top rates would jump, Mr. Van Hollen 
said. But beyond those rate increases, more revenue will have to be raised.

“This is a promising idea for tax reform,” Mr. Van Hollen said, “if you 
start at the higher Clinton era rates for high-income earners.”

The idea gained currency when Martin Feldstein, a prominent Republican 
economist and former chairman of Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic 
Advisers, embraced it during the campaign to show that Mr. Romney’s tax 
plan was not as far-fetched as Democrats portrayed it. Maya MacGuineas, 
president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and 
something of a ringleader in the search for a bipartisan deficit deal, 
has also embraced the idea.

But with the presidential campaign over, it is taking on new salience. 
The Democratic centrist group Third Way has made it the centerpiece of a 
package of tax changes that it says could raise nearly $1.3 trillion 
over 10 years without raising rates.

The Third Way proposal would limit tax deductions to $35,000 but would 
exclude charitable giving. Universities, foundations and other 
philanthropies have been the biggest impediment to passing Mr. Obama’s 
more modest 28 percent limit, which did not exclude the charitable tax 
deduction.

Jennifer Steinhauer contributed reporting.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to