However, a quick recap is in order. Tax "reform" has a specific definition. Our tax code is ridiculously complex. Why? The last time we simplified the code was in 1986. Each year, we add complexities, usually in the form of benefits for some narrow constituency, because some Member of Congress is catering to a constituency within his or her district and wants to be able to point to something that he or she has done for them. David Mayhew pointed to this type of behavior as an example of "credit-claiming." (See Congress: The Electoral Connection). With this type of thing happening year after year, the tax code gets incrementally more complex, and eventually you wind up with a monstrosity. Which... we have. As I have pointed out before, there really is a technocratic case for reducing nominal rates while eliminating credits and deductions, keeping everything at the same total revenue level, but sparing people the time and resources spent managing the vileness of the tax code itself. That's why the 1986 reform actually was bipartisan. Difficult as all fucking hell to pass, yes, but bipartisan.
Why is it so difficult? Because every deduction and credit benefits someone, and whoever it benefits won't want to give it up. Every Member of Congress who inserted a benefit for some constituency did so for... a constituency. Every proposal to simplify the tax code has winners and losers. A technocratic reform is difficult precisely because it involves tradeoffs. That's why it doesn't happen very often.
And that's why it has absolutely zero chance of happening now. The people who can't pass a "repeal-and-replace" plan because they can't manage tradeoffs in the healthcare system won't be able to pass an actual tax reform package because they don't want to make tradeoffs.
What do they want? TAX CUTS! When do they want them? NOW! See? Free speech and protests. All good.
In yesterday's post, I pointed out that the GOP had trouble with healthcare because of the theory of "conditional party government." A party won't delegate power to party leaders when they aren't ideologically homogeneous. On healthcare, there is no unity within the GOP on outcome goals. That's why McConnell wasn't given room to maneuver. A party leader is only as strong as the caucus will let him be. On taxes? The entire GOP agrees. Cut them.
Linguistic rant time. "Fiscal conservative." I hate this term. Why? It doesn't mean a fuckin' thing. "Fiscal." Of, or relating to the budget, when discussing politics. "Conservative." Um... what this means has changed so much over time, particularly in "fiscal" terms, that... fuck...
Anyway, to conserve money, or manage a budget in colloquially conservative terms would mean balancing budgets, which is what self-described "fiscal conservatives" sort of want you to think. Of course, there are two ways to do that. High taxes and high spending, or low taxes and low spending. Self-described "fiscal conservatives" could, in principle do either, but would generally, supposedly favor the latter.
Long ago, there used to be people in the GOP called "deficit hawks." They had names like Senator Ka... BOB Dole. His eventual running mate, Jack Kemp, used to say of Dole, "he never met a tax he didn't hike." Of course, that changed in Dole's 1996 campaign, when he ran on a flat tax proposal, but that was after Poppy Bush's broken "no new taxes" pledge, and after the GOP underwent its purge of deficit hawkery.
Today, the actual fiscal policy of those who describe themselves as "conservative" in any way is as follows: cut taxes. What's that you've got there? A tax? Cut it. The idea of connecting taxes to spending is verboten in conservative policy circles, and the deficit is a topic of discussion only when the president is a Democrat.
The Republicans in both chambers are truly unified on the concept of tax cuts. What may divide them? Which taxes to cut. There are lots of them. This could be a sticking point. Corporate taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, individual income taxes... Then, there is the question of which deductions go, and which spending provisions they cut in a feign towards balance, but their bill will increase the deficit. And that leads to the next point.
Byrd rules. The GOP will use budget reconciliation again. Why? Because they aren't going to get Democratic votes for a tax cut. They aren't going to try for another 1986-style reform. That would be hard. They just want tax cuts. The Byrd rule says that you can't use reconciliation to increase the deficit for more than 10 years. This was why the 2001 Bush tax cuts expired in 2011, creating part of the "fiscal cliff" negotiations right after the 2010 midterm elections. This is a tradeoff, though. The GOP could go for permanent tax cuts, using reconciliation, if they could balance the cuts with spending cuts elsewhere. Here's the problem. Too much of the budget is stuff that they won't touch-- defense, Social Security, Medicare... The GOP seems to be deciding that a large tax cut that expires in 10 years is better than a smaller, permanent one. (Permanence in policy being relative anyway). But, they are unified on that concept. And that's the point.
The devil is in the details, though. The complexity of the tax code means that there are a lot of ways to cut taxes. The House? Paul Ryan can pass a bunch of big, ambitious tax cuts there. Passing a tax cut in the House will be trivially easy. As usual, watch the Senate. Watch for Collins and Murkowski to be marginalized because the GOP can do without them. If they start getting squirmy, McConnell won't care. As the Drama Club in the Senate keeps pulling things rightward, it will be hard to find any McCain-like objectors, partly because the party won't feel the need to avoid the committee process anyway, which was McCain's bugaboo.
Yes, big tax cuts are probably coming. Probably slowly, but this will be much easier. Reform, though? No chance.
Related Posts :
Iranian-Backed Hezbollah Brigades And Iraqi Police Clash In Baghdad
A Trump - Putin Summit In July
Tweets For Today
Key Member Of The Norwegian Nobel Committee Is Making It Clear That President Trump Will Not Get A Nobel Prize For Beginning The Peace Process On The Korean Peninsula
A Group of U.S. Senators Will Travel And Celebrate Independence Day In Moscow Later This Month