It is the rule of law: Only Democrats can raise taxes

Jonathan Cohn asks a question with an obvious answer:

Does anything matter to Republicans more than protecting tax cuts for the very wealthy? Developments of the last 18 hours suggest very strongly that the answer is no.

As you have probably heard by now, House Speaker John Boehner on Saturday evening informed President Obama that he was no longer interested in pursuing a “grand bargain” on deficit reduction.[...]

Such a large deal would have required Republicans to agree to new revenue, in some form. And at least some of that money would have come from higher taxes (in terms of total collections, if not rates) on the very wealthy. Boehner hinted that might be acceptable, as part of a compromise.[...]

But other Republican leaders, like Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and certain conservative agitators, like the writers of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, made very clear they disagreed. No matter how big the Democratic concessions, no matter how risky the prospect of postponing a deal on the debt ceiling, they were not willing to embrace a package that meant higher taxes, particularly taxes on the wealthy.

This should not be surprising to anyone, though major media outlets have to pretend that "both sides" are responsible for the stalemate. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, "The modern Republican Party is like a criminal-defense attorney with one client: rich people who want lower taxes. Most GOP candidates and office holders are paid to make the case for tax cuts, and their professional ethics prevent them from ever arguing otherwise."

(I may have understated the case by writing "most Republicans." Since then, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, formerly known as a moderate, has essentially joined the Tea Party.)

I honestly believe that most or all Congressional Republicans honestly believe that even if taxes must be raised, it is the job of the Democratic Party (i.e., the prosecution) to do it.

That's why this current mess is Barack Obama's fault. In the eyes of the GOP, he should have raised taxes during the brief window when the Democrats controlled the House and held a 60-percent, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Then the Republicans could have run against the tax hike and crushed the Democrats in the next congressional election (as they did after Bill Clinton passed a tax increase in 1993). In the 1990s, the country was better off both fiscally and economically after the tax hike, but the GOP could preserve its brand by arguing that things would have been even better with tax cuts for millionaires.

In 2010, the GOP played its part by whipping voters into an anti-tax frenzy, but Obama and the Democrats had irresponsibly neglected to raise taxes beforehand. So now we can't make any progress on deficit reduction until the Democrats again control the White House and both houses of Congress, which probably won't be for another six years. 

In photo: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor represents the accused.

 

Comments

[Frank Curran]

Can't wait to see how this all plays out - but I'm really afraid that what I will see will be most unpleasant. What is the mood of the rest of the country? Do a majority of Americans actually support NOT raising taxes on the wealthiest citizens, especially with the crises we face?

[Robert David Sullivan]

An April poll by the Washington Post found that "72 percent said they support tax increases on people with incomes of more than $250,000" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53455.html), and I've seen similar findings elsewhere. So, no, I don't think the GOP is reflecting the mood of the country, but the party is reflecting the wishes of its major contributors.