Would House GOP actually vote for higher taxes?

This post originally appeared on Slate.

President Obama is adamant that he will only agree to a "fiscal cliff" solution that raises tax rates on those making over $250,000. The Republicans in the majority in the House of Representatives are adamant that they will not vote for those tax increases - Boehner chief among them. I asked a senior House leadership aide the chances were that Speaker John Boehner would be able to get a majority of Republicans to vote for a tax increase of any kind: "pretty close to zero."

• White House: Social Security should be off-limits in "fiscal cliff" talks
• Fiscal cliff looms as Congress, and lobbyists, return to work

If you get busy mailing your holiday cards, this issue of tax rates is the only one you need to check in on from time to time to earn your citizenship merit badge. Did Republicans in the House of Representatives agree to increase marginal tax rates? That would be news indeed. Just two years ago, the anti-tax Tea Party reinvigorated the GOP, but now its members would be voting for a tax hike. Or, if you hear the president has backed off his demand that taxes must be increased, that would be worth a Facebook posting, too. This was an election that President Obama says gave him a mandate to raise this specific tax: How could he give up so easily? Of course, if there's no movement on either side, you can return to your more fruitful personal pursuits free from worry that a resolution is aborning.

Play Video

Prominent Republicans open up to raising tax revenue

Play Video

Fiscal cliff: What congress needs to do

Using this three-part filter, we can examine recent news that Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham have expressed support for raising revenue through the tax code as a part of a deal that would avoid the automatic spending cuts and tax increases that will come after Jan. 1. Our model tells us that the first relevant fact is that they are senators. In this drama, being a senator is not very important. Democrats control the Senate, and the majority will go along with the president. The real action of the day is between Barack Obama and John Boehner. Is there a majority of votes for a tax increase in the House of Representatives? Senators can comment on that; they can send helpful memos; they can hand out mixed nuts during negotiations; but they are in the chorus, not on stage. A few select GOP senators --Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, conservative leader Jim DeMint--might influence House Republicans, but those men are also likely to be on the same page as House Speaker John Boehner.

The second problem our model points out for us is that Graham and Chambliss are not talking about tax rates. They're talking about revenue increases, which is quite a different thing. They'd consider closing loopholes and limiting deductions, which would increase the share of taxes paid by the wealthy but would not raise their marginal tax rates. This puts them a bit to the left of anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist but still much farther to the right than Barack Obama, who wants marginal rates to increase at the end of the year for those making over $250,000 as they are scheduled to. Sen. John McCain, who has also indicated he is open to revenue increases through the tax code, has also said he would not support a tax increase. Sen. Bob Corker is in this camp, too, but he wants to cut tax rates.

Still, isn't it a good sign for the president and an ultimate deal that Norquist is angry with Graham and Chambliss? Maybe, but not necessarily. Chambliss and Graham have clashed with Norquist before without corralling a host of followers in the GOP ranks. Plus, if a Republican says he is open to using the tax code to bring in revenue, they may very well hope that doing so helps them duck the accusation that they are ideologically immovable on taxes. Removed of that particular pressure, they can feel more free to ignore the president's entreaties to embrace the more politically painful increase in tax rates.

Norquist wants any loophole closures offset with a reduction in marginal rates. That's also John Boehner's position. If you're interested in the GOP vs. Grover Norquist Civil War, this is where the action is on the House side: Will a Republican member sign up for revenue increases that are not paired with a reduction in marginal tax rates? That too would put them at war with Norquist, but it still wouldn't put that Republican in the president's camp. It's a sign of how far apart the president and House Republicans are that the mark of GOP apostasy is closing loopholes without cutting taxes. Obama wants Republicans to close loopholes and raise taxes.

How is this all going to get solved? Our model tells us that House Republicans have to either get their way or be bought off. The president either has to cave, allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to stay the same for the wealthy, or offer something to sweeten the deal. House Republicans owe their majority to the Tea Party. Getting them to vote for a tax-rate increase is not going to come cheap. One solution is a promise from the president and Democrats to reduce tax rates at some future date when paired with comprehensive tax reform. (Obama wants taxes to go up on those making over $250,000 now but is open to having those rates come back down as a part of reform.)

Would Republicans buy such a promise about the future? Why on earth would they trust that these lower rates would ever come to pass? One possible offering the president could make would be a major concession on Medicare and Medicaid. White House spokesman Jay Carney said the president was committed to hard choices. If he's not going to bend on tax rates and has ruled out touching Social Security (as he essentially has), then there's only one place left where the president can find real money in the budget-cutting game: health care entitlements. That would show that he was serious about shared sacrifice, and if the changes the president agrees to are large enough, they'd give Republicans cover to accept tough tax changes.

It would also be pretty big news. So let's amend our model. If the president agrees to change the eligibility requirements for Medicare, that would be worth pausing during the office party. Then we'd have to see if House Republicans would buy it.

[jamie047]

They'll be kicked out in caucus next time around if they do.

[TimeToEvolve]

First the Republicons have to cut their allegiance to an unelected, unaccountable and unnecessary corporate lobbyist named Norquist. Of course that is how they keep their jobs, taking laundered dirty corporate cash from their billionaire handlers.

[TimeToEvolve]

Why are any middle class folks defending the greed ridden rich corporate rats? What have they done for you? The rat race is over and rats won.

[cntrygirl3]

Let the Bush tax cut albatross at last break from around the neck of America and sink into the sea. America has gone no where but down since the cuts were put in place. The republicans rather than repeal them when Bush started the war with Iraq as they should have done, merrily spent along and borrowed from China. Yes there will be a recession but it will be shallow and short. Our economy will be so much stronger on the other side. We certainly must make cuts and reign in the spending the republicans put in place in their six years in charge and yes we must reform the tax code, and yes there must be reductions in entitlement spending now not later. And a lot more people will be paying taxes as it should be. A country will not survive with only 50% of its people paying income tax. We can get out from under this debt with decreased spending AND increased revenue. Mr. President do not back down and Mr. Reid you and Mr. McConnel keep doing the same miserable job you have been and never let any of this come to a vote. After all doing nothing goes a very long way to starting to solve our problems.

[arthanyel]

HILLZAGAIN: Is the debt and deficit a problem that should be solved, and the budget balanced? I assume your answer is yes.

So here is the very simple question:

Completely separate from what else to cut and how much, why NOT let the tax rates on the rich go back to where they were in 2000? They can afford it - we need to cut the deficit.

Or are you saying you would rather throw poor people out in the streets to starve than ask Mitt Romney to pay what he was paying in 2000?

[hillzhaveays]

As I indisputably explained to you arth, the increase you talk of, which I agree is affordable for the rich, does absolutely nothing.

And yet it is Obama's centerpiece. Clear evidence that the man in only focused on class warfare and has no idea what he's doing. If he expended this energy on something that would actually provide a benefit to the country - maybe trying to lead for once - we'd be a lot better off.

You have no justification for the increase.

[hillzagain]

A_Canadian_Opinion replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
TYPEZ - there is no satisfaction in observing dumb people. But, I guess that is what I am observing as I tune in to US news. And, I fear there will be a lot of unpaid doctors and losing lives if the US government goes the same way of the USSR at the end of the 1980's. A $16,000,000,000,000 debt (and growing) is no easy financial problem to deal with, especially when the citizens with the cash want to run and hide (thank goodness for the few with some smarts, like Warren Buffett). I would say that dumb down "a bit" is quite an understatement, and Hillz is proof of that.
__________________________________________
Been here before...lib + facts = denial.

Prove anything that I have said is not a fact, but use actual facts as I have. Pay attention and read my evisceration of arth before you do.

Warren Buffett, whom you seem to admire, pays no more tax than he possibly can, and not even that, if the IRS is to be believed.

Someone who does not pay as much or more than their share of taxes, according to you and your friends, is a traitor.

Therefore, you admire a traitor. Nice.

Again, prove that the benefit of a 2% increase in taxes on incomes over $250K is greater than letting the country go off the cliff (in case you are too stupid to understand, this is Obama's premise).

Don't bother, you can't LOL this makes Obama's stance a detriment to the county. My country that is. You can go back to your backwater, eh?

[hillzhaveays]

Sure they can afford it. It won't do anything.

[WhereisOT]

Come to think of it....Have to ponder about those "others" who are pro life or the hard core "unapologetically pro-life" crowd...

Does that include standing for the "rights" of all colors, genders and sexual orientations while still in the womb...

Their old white mens club "policies" prove otherwise...as does their comments of urban voters/not so bright/lazy/takers idiocy...

Come on zillionaires, best start investing in cloning snow white morons to carry the torches and pitchforks into the future...

[WhereisOT]

Are you watching World...
What not to do...Allow this idiocy to occur...

The losing party for the "rich" who "stand for" no Gay Rights, no Women's Rights, No Minority Rights, No Workers Rights, Just the "Rights" of those yet to be born & $$$$$ & Only those who "need" billions more, is under the thumb of a Government hating freak of nothingness who shares a name with a frickin muppet...

So much for "Land of the Free & Home of the Brave"

[arthanyel]

HILLZHAVEAYS: Opy, read my post above and then tell me why, exactly, a "projected" reduction of .7% in the deficit over 10 frigging years makes this 2% tax increase so important?

----- cut here -----

Because your math is wildly wrong. A increase of 160B per year in revenues from the top 2% (the 1.6T over 10 years Obama wants) would reduce the deficit with NO OTHER CHANGES by 14.6% OR MORE - not 0.7%.

This takes basic division to understand, so I will spell it out for you as you may not grasp it:

160B (in revenues) / 1,100B in deficit = 0.1454 or (rounded to three significant digits) 14.6%.

Of course the projected deficit is LOWER than 1.1T going forward as the economy continues to improve, and as other cuts are implemented - with no other changes (but counting the sequestration totals) the deficit will be below 900B which would make a 160B revenue increase a 17.8% reduction.

If you ware typing in this forum you have access to a calculator - try using it.

[hillzhaveays]

steel, you just don't get it.

Obama is threatening to let the cuts expire over something that is a MARKETING PLOY. If it is insignificant in its impact, it has no use, other than marketing class warfare.

Something that accomplishes nothing and is insignificant is not "taking steps to reduce the deficit".

Your so-called point, referencing CSR, claimed:
"the extra revenue raised could be used toward reducing the deficit and financing additional programs to further stimulate the economy"

Well, which is it? Are we going to spend it? Or are we going to pay down the deficit? Both?

You're telling me you didn't see this and realize that now what used to be an insignificant contribution of .7% in deficit reduction is being proposed to get whittled down even further? So that it's what? More useless?

That makes about as much sense as letting the country go off the cliff over a useless, class envy tax increase.

[A_Canadian_Opinion]

Hillz - go back to school. Start back up at grade 7, and keep going. Better yet, go to a school outside of the US, where they teach more than just US history. Study hard and don't forget to do all the homework.

And remember, you don't make more than $250,000 per year, so Obama is trying to help you.