Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
‘Read My Lips’ Won’t Happen Again
Trading immediate tax hikes for promised spending cuts is a sucker’s bargain.

By Ryan Ellis


Archive Latest RSS Send
Text  

In 1990, Washington, D.C., was in a panic. The deficit would kill us all. The Japanese (the Chinese of the era) would eat our lunch. Foreign creditors would own America within a decade. Democrats and Republicans in Washington just had to do something, said the mainstream media. Wars, natural-disaster relief, and bailouts were handled without regard to looming entitlement crises. Tax increases were obviously on the table for anyone with half a brain. Sound familiar?

Back then, the solution was practical and obvious to Beltway types, who had been here before in 1982’s TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) tax hike: Democrats would promise future spending cuts in exchange for Republicans’ agreeing to immediate tax increases.

Advertisement

That’s exactly what happened. In October of 1990, Pres. George H. W. Bush agreed to a five-year, $137 billion tax increase. In exchange, House speaker Tom Foley (D., Wash.) and Senate majority leader George Mitchell (D., Me.) promised to cut spending by $274 billion over the FY1991–1995 period. In total, this $2-for-$1 deal was supposed to cut the budget deficit by $411 billion over this budget window. Almost three-quarters of the House GOP conference — 126 representatives — voted against their president’s deal, citing the promise they had made to their constituents when they signed the then-new “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” maintained by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. It was not enough. Washington had won, and taxpayers had lost.

The deal turned out to be a disaster for President Bush. By breaking his “read my lips” promise at a summit with Congressional Democrats (famously held at Andrews Air Force Base), he lost his political support and likely the 1992 election. Undoing the seminal Tax Reform Act of 1986, he raised the top marginal income-tax rate from 28 percent to 31 percent — and also phased out some deductions and exemptions. He hiked Medicare payroll taxes. He raised excise taxes on gasoline, cigarettes, beer, wine, and other common goods. He famously added a 10 percent “luxury tax” on yachts, which had to be repealed three years later since all it served to do was put boat makers out of business, causing layoffs.

These tax hikes became a setup for the 1993 Clinton tax hikes, the cornerstone of which was raising the top individual rate to 39.6 percent, the level President Obama wants to return to after the 2012 elections. In many ways, the conservative movement is still paying the price for Papa Bush’s stupid mistake.

Surely, though, all those spending cuts must have done some good; after all, the deal promised twice as much in spending cuts as it delivered in tax increases. Think again. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected before the deal that 1991–1995 spending would total $7.07 trillion. In fact, total spending for this period was $7.09 trillion. In other words, in return for agreeing to tax hikes, Republicans got $22 billion in extra spending rather than the promised $274 billion in cuts. This was despite the fact that there was another “spending cut” deal in 1993 — the Clinton tax-increase budget.

Sadly, this wasn’t even the first time this happened. Back in 1982, President Reagan agreed to $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. Inflation projections make the analysis difficult, but it seems clear (and President Reagan believed) that almost none of the promised spending cuts materialized in real terms.

There is a clear lesson from these budget deals: Tax increases are real — they become law immediately — but promised spending cuts are illusory. There is always an S&L bailout, a Hurricane Andrew, or a Gulf War — or a financial meltdown, a string of tornadoes, and a three-front War on Terror. After a while, the spending-cut promises are forgotten, and all that remains is higher taxes on the American people.

This should be obvious to anyone who knows the history, including thinking Republicans in Washington. For the most part, it is. All but six of the 239 Republican representatives — including Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) and the rest of the House GOP leadership — have signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, in which they rule out net tax hikes. Even in the more moderate Senate, 40 out of 47 GOP senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.), have taken the pledge.

Yet there are several GOP senators who don’t quite get it. Formerly known as the “Gang of Six” (now known as “Five Guys” because Tom Coburn left), this group includes Sens. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) and Mike Crapo (Idaho) — both pledge signers. The point of this group was to put legislative meat on the bones of President Obama’s “Simpson-Bowles” debt commission. Bragging of at least a $3-to-$1 spending-cuts-to-tax-hikes ratio (sound familiar?), this plan was a ten-year net tax hike of either $1 trillion (the commission estimate), $2 trillion (House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan’s estimate), or $3 trillion (the Heritage Foundation’s estimate). The political strategy of the Democrats is to get GOP fingerprints on a tax hike, and ultimately to do a repeat of 1982 and 1990 — real tax hikes coupled with spending-cut promises that don’t come to fruition.

Official Washington is shocked that the old playbook isn’t working this time. For all but a few Republican senators, the reason is obvious: “I promised my constituents that I would not raise their taxes, and I’m honoring that promise.” Lucy has pulled the football away from Charlie Brown twice already, but congressional Republicans have finally gotten the message that tax hikes are a sucker’s bet.

— Ryan Ellis is tax-policy director of Americans for Tax Reform.

Text  

You Might Also Like...

Symposium: Polling Life

Malkin: Obama’s Land of the LOST

Lowry: Unleash Biden!



COMMENTS   8

EXPAND  

   06/13/11 08:30

The joke is that the Left's concept of compromise is that you give up your principles to do what they want.

Here, we have a more subtle arrangement: negotiation where both sides seem willing to give up something, but only one side of the bargain involves a tangible concession.

"Tax increases are real — they become law immediately — but promised spending cuts are illusory."

The same difference is found in foreign policy as it is in budget matters. Israel is constantly being pressured to trade land for peace, but that's a deal where they give up tangible land IMMEDIATELY only for the ephemeral promise of peace -- EVENTUALLY.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
bobbytwotimes
   06/13/11 13:13

Um, didn't Clinton balance the budget thanks to his and Bush's tax increases?

I'm pretty sure he did, before Republicans decided our surplus was too big so we needed a huge tax cut to get rid of it. And then spending also went up..... and we know how that turned out.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/13/11 19:34

Clinton never balanced the budget.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/13/11 14:09

In Washington, the definition of bipartisan has always been Republicans and Democrats working together to implement the Democrats agenda.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
bubbareagan
   06/13/11 14:30

are tgere statistics on how many jobs have been created by the private sector through the tax reductions ?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Russ Davis
   06/13/11 16:21

If they're that dumb to think there will be real spending cuts I've some Kansas City oceanfront property they'll love. When it comes to spending, drunken sailors are far more trustworthy!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/13/11 17:05

"There is always an S&L bailout, a Hurricane Andrew, or a Gulf War — or a financial meltdown, a string of tornadoes, and a three-front War on Terror."
yes. and if they are not met, there is literally no point at all in there being a government.
none, except of course the moneyed establishment parading itself for itself.
what would the "debt" and "deficit" (both being accounting tricks) be if bush the younger had stated the honest fact--and acted on it--that he could not have his wars while his social class got their tax breaks?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   06/13/11 22:47

Pretty good points here, I must admit.

I think the most important point made is that there is always something unexpected that NEEDS financial weight thrown at it. It can't be budgeted for. You listed many, and I suspect they will continue. It's unfortunate that those are usually the things, as someone rightly points out, that the people in general really DO expect the government to do something about.

It's all the other stuff that should be on the table and debated about.

Americans have to be honest, though. If every line item in the budget is a sacred cow to enough of the population, nothing can get cut.. and that's pretty dangerous if those same people want taxes to go down. Eventually, we end up like Greece.

A lot of people need to come to terms with the fact that they DO have to give something up.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact