« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Saxby Chambliss Will Consider Tax Increases

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  March 15th, 2011 at 09:31 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Saxby Chambliss is the Republican point man on deficit reduction. He is working with his friend Mark Warner (D-VA) to come up with a “good government” plan to reduce the deficit.

“Good government,” by the way, is code for big government, bi-partisan compromise.

On Sunday’s Fox News Sunday, Chambliss used diplomatic speak to say he’d consider tax increases. Several of you have asked me for the exact language. You can see the whole transcript here.

The relevant portion is this:

We don’t believe in raising taxes.

But let me tell you, Chris — this is such a massive problem. As Senator McConnell just stated, a $14 trillion debt, that if we don’t get our arms around it now, and then we’re going to become a second tier nation. And we cannot allow that to happen.

So, it’s imperative that we put everything on the table for discussion.

Yes, he gives lip service to opposing tax increases. Then, however, he throws in the fateful “but” and laments the size of the problem. Following that, he throws in DC speak for tax increases. “It’s imperative we put everything on the table for discussion.”

Everything means tax increases.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.liberallyconservative.com Liberally Conservative

    Mr. “Neo-Democrat” Chambliss had to have Sarah Palin fly in to prop up his last election bid so now he is showing his other side, his true side, as he crosses the aisle and double crosses Conservatives.

    Welcome to the RINO parade.

  • ATLconservative

    After his email response back to me that pretty much defended NPR & PBS, his lackluster performance in the past, and then this – I’ll be contributing significantly to any seemingly capable primary opponent.

  • jaybo

    Why did I say that?

    Because they are the same thing when it comes to outcomes. If we allow taxes to become part of the equation before we deal with reducing the Federal Budget. They (congress) will never address the waste and redundancy in the federal bureaucracy if we allow our professional political class (republican & democrat) to play this game and preserve their own pet projects.

  • mbauer

    I thoroughly understand the idea that it is terrible to give ground now in hopes that the Democrats would pay back the favor later… on any topic. But, this budget is not going to get balanced on a party line vote… it absolutely aint’t.

    Let’s say Saxy and Warner come up with a bill that balanced the budget~ It hits entitlements, it hits waste, it hits the military, and whatever other spending cuts you can imagine. This gets them 80% of the way there. At the same time, tax code reform is done, but the net tax revenue increases get the other 20% of the way to the balance budget. Would this not be worth supporting?

    Or to look at it another way, Rand Paul and his 500 billion spending cuts bill wouldn’t be enough to balance the budget, but also won’t ever pass. If it could pass with tax hikes attached to it, would that not be a conversation worth having?

  • juumanistra

    I ask this because our own preferred policies more or less demand such.

    The Right wants fundamental tax reform, through a process of marginal rate-flattening and expansion of the base of taxpayers through zeroing out many deductions, exemptions, and credits. Given that large subsets of the population currently have no income tax burden, any attempt at base-broadening will invariably raise taxes on some segment of that population non-tax-paying population.

    Perhaps the barricades ought not be manned every time a Republican broaches the subject of tax increases. The red flags should only be flapping when the topic is tax increases without wider restructuring of the Internal Revenue Code.

  • LibertarianHawk

    …I think future tax increases are inevitable. The questions are when they’ll happen, how they’ll be manifested, and who bears the brunt.

    It’s not just Saxby Chambliss (who is hardly, IMO, a “RINO”). Sen. Coburn effectively blessed tax increases with his vote in favor of Bowles-Simpson. Paul Ryan says he would’ve voted for Bowles-Simpson, had it done more cost-cutting with healthcare policy. Sen. Corker has proposed a cap on federal spending that would obviously require considerable tax increases. Gov. Mitch Daniels has floated the idea of flattening the income tax and adding a VAT.

    I don’t think it’s realistic (or helpful) to tag every Republican who broaches the idea of higher taxes a RINO.

    And, besides, I’m relatively certain that the left is going to have to cede a lot more ground on fiscal policy than we are. We couldn’t afford the government largess we have if we wanted to.

    But we’re not going to go the entire distance on austerity, I’m afraid.

  • LibertarianHawk

    …the one where he mentioned adopting a VAT, what gets reported on less was that he paired that up with a major simplification of the income tax.

    He didn’t get specific about either one. How simple? Flat at what rate…and with what deductions maintained?

    We don’t know. But the thrust of his idea was that we offer to get on board with some form of tax hike, but demand the flattening and simplification we’ve been seeking to do so.

  • LibertarianHawk

    To me, most conversations on fiscal austerity and budget-balancing are moot and academic if they don’t involve significant entitlement reform.

    Boehner & Co. have been saying for a while now that their budget will get the ball rolling on entitlement reform…and it would seem the Democrats are salivating at the prospect.

    Conventional wisdom suggests that it’s a safe bet for either party, Democrats in particular, to demagogue the prospect of reforming entitlements.

    That may still hold true today. The polls still strongly suggest aversion to cutting entitlement spending. But maybe we’ve entered a new era where people will be willing to at least consider it.

  • juumanistra

    For embracing the VAT while also keeping the income tax, that is. Any general federal consumption tax is only acceptable if it’s incredibly small — i.e. on the order of a quarter-of-a-percent — or if the income tax is displaced by it. Given that the Left won’t let the latter happen, we’re stuck with the Internal Revenue Code for the foreseeable future.

  • cvtheis

    Taxes are like food – there is healthy, necessary, and acceptable range. Very modest tax increases may be necessary to get us out of this hole. There is an acceptable high and low range for rates, above which we kill recovery, below which we fail to generate enough revenue. if the increases are absolutely tied to spending/budget/debt reductions we have to consider them. Low-income folks need to have a little skin in the game also – make nobody exempt from taxes.

    Ceding some ground on taxes should be used to gain significant ground on spending and entitlement reform.

  • mbauer

    I can’t see us not raising taxes in the future either. If Republicans take the lad, it will be done on our terms, which would hopefully state with a reform/simplification of the tax code.

  • YnotNOW

    A lower rate has less impact on economic decision-making by private businesses and taxpayers, and lowers the incentive to seek loopholes. This may indeed cause the total tax RECEIPTS to rise, particularly as the economy is spurred to growth.

  • YnotNOW

    A lower rate has less impact on economic decision-making by private businesses and taxpayers, and lowers the incentive to seek loopholes. This may indeed cause the total tax RECEIPTS to rise, particularly as the economy is spurred to growth.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    1) No monies garnered ever get used for the promised purposes. (E.g. The rediculous IOMEs we have in the SS “Trust” Fund.)

    2) All we do by giving our current generation of vipers more money is feed the heroin junkies. They tell us this time they’ll fix the deficit. This time they’ll budget for sustainability. In the end, when we take the pressure off of these fops, frauds and prevaricators they just hand out the candy. It never changes. I’m not Charlie Brown. Don’t even try to suggest I kick that frikken’ football.

  • jaybo

    We are dealing with addicts and you people are talking about supplying them with the very narcotic that has fueled their addiction?!!!

    Are you crazy?!!!!!!

  • jaybo

    I am shocked to see these comments from posters that claim to be conservatives. We are just beginning to fight this battle and we are thinking of surrender?

    Have these posters forgotten that Sen. Chambliss was in The Senate when republicans lost their way? Personally I don’t trust him (even if he is a conservative) and would be willing to bet there is a pet project out there somewhere he is trying to preserve.

  • jimmyneutron

    That we would even consider tax increases right off the bat. We know that if we give in on tax increases (in an effort to be ‘reasonable’) that you will NEVER ever see a spending cut of any significance. The progressives whole plan has been to raise the spending baseline as they start adding their dream programs and then to raise taxes (via rate increases on the ‘wealthy’ and a VAT) to begin paying for our new utopian society.
    We can not fall for this on any level and if this is where we are beginning the conversation then we have already lost and there is no hope for the future at this time. I thought that enough people were finally seeing how bad things really were that there was incentive to deal with this head on – beginning by cutting spending significantly and realizing that there are no such things as entitlements in this world. There isn’t enough money to pay for everything promised to everyone – economic armageddon is right around the corner and if we don’t seriously deal with it by cutting spending, cutting gov’t regulations on the real producers in society and keeping taxes low then thel last one here can turn out the lights!
    Don’t we as conservatives understand that 1) the more you tax the ‘rich’ the less rich there will be and the more the rich will take their stuff and go play somewhere that they can keep their money and 2) telling the progressives that you will raise tax in an effort to work with them means the same thing ‘working with them’ always means – we do things their way.

    Our biggest problem right now as conservatives is that the leadership of the party we are counting on fight for us does not seem to want to have this fight and they are letting the other side set the terms and define the fight and muddy up the message. Someone needs to be the adult here and tell the people of this country that there really isn’t a free lunch and things are going to either change dramatically via a plan or they will change drastically via a slow or fast slide into economic stagnation and decline.

  • LibertarianHawk

    That’s like saying that the Dems should follow the lead of Jan Schakowsky (who voted against Bowles-Simpson) rather than Dick Durbin (who voted for it).

    Trust me, I’m not in favor of higher taxes. Not in the least. Make me king for a day and I’d slash so much spending we wouldn’t recognize the government.

    But that’s not the real world.

    I think Bowles-Simpson set a benchmark of 75% spending cuts, 25% tax hikes. I think we should fight to get that to 85/15 or 80/20.

    But saying that the gap has to be closed with 100% spending cuts, or else we’ll walk and hang every Republican who suggests otherwise, is implausible, impractical, and would probably prove counter-productive.

    The reason I mentioned such Republicans as Coburn, Ryan, and Corker above is that few would consider them RINOs of the Snowe and Collins ilk. They’re solid conservatives and anybody who tries to claim otherwise is a fool.

    Right now, we need Democrats who will be willing to step up to the plate and accept significant entitlement cuts instead of demagoguery. We also need Republicans who will face the fire on taxes.

  • jaybo

    “But that?s not the real world.”

    Many of our congressional representatives in Washington DC have no idea what “the real world” is.

    The analogy of a drug addict or alcoholic is much more appropiate.

    Addicts have a distorted view of reality and will not see or think rationally until their addiction has been addressed.

    Giving money in the form of taxes is like giving more narcotics to an addict in the hopes that he/she will eventually get clean.

  • LibertarianHawk

    We’ll never get the spending concessions we need from Democrats until and unless we’re willing to give them something on taxes.

    I appreciate what you’re saying and, as I said, if I were king for a day I’d cut spending ferociously. But the notion that righting our fiscal ship can be done by just one party is a fantasy.

    Both will need to be on-board, because it will require doing some very unpopular things. And no party is going to do very unpopular things by themselves.

    I do agree, however, that the cuts should come first. In the end, though, I think the prospect of keeping effective tax rates roughly where they are now over the next few decades, at least, is roughly zero.

  • mbauer

    Here’s a better question to ask ourselves. Would we rather our budget be where it was today, or where it was in 1996, with tax rates higher, less military spending, and a surplus, on the path to paying off our entire national debt.

    Granted, it’s not an apples to apples comparison. The economy isn’t what it was, and the international situation isn’t the same at all.

  • Diogenes314

    And raising revenues. At least in the interview in the OP. It was Grover Norquist (and others) who translated this into a ‘tax hike’.

    CHAMBLISS: Well, we can increase revenues without increasing taxes, per se, Chris. And as a matter of fact, that our proposal does is to reduce the effective and direct tax rates all the way across the board. And we do that by making a significant reform in the tax code. And every time, we?ve made a significant reform in the tax code, whether it was under Reagan in ?86 or Bush in 2001, what we?ve seen is reduction in rates and increase in revenue.

    WALLACE: What you?re basically talking about is doing away with about $1 trillion in deductions that are currently in the tax system. But Grover Norquist, head of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, says what you?re talking about means that you?re still breaking your pledge ? and he?s obviously going to hold this against all Republicans who support it ? breaking your pledge not to raise taxes.

    Not a big Chambliss fan, BTW. Just like truth in advertising.