The Corner

Lee-Rubio and the Rich

Jonathan Chait complains about the supply-side features of the plan and criticizes “reform conservatives,” including me, for our “acquiescence” to provisions that would enrich the already-rich. Acquiescence? I’m enthusiastic about those provisions.

Bob Stein originated the basic idea of the Lee-Rubio plan, and I first wrote about it in NR in 2005. I talked then about cutting the top income tax rate, moving to a two-rate structure, and reducing the double taxation of saving and investment. Stein wrote up an updated version of his idea in National Affairs in 2010. The current proposal differs in some respects from those earlier ones, but the basic outline is the same.

Future versions may include further revisions that leave that basic outline in place. Take, for example, the plan’s treatment of capital gains. Lee-Rubio takes the tax on them to zero. I favor that policy as an ideal matter, but proponents of the plan may end up having to retreat on that issue at some point. And as I said the other day, the plan should either be modified or coupled with entitlement reforms to reduce its impact on the deficit. But if the plan is to keep its basic structure, many rich people will get large tax cuts from it.

And that’s ok as far as I’m concerned. The point of the plan has never been to avoid cutting taxes for the rich, or to avoid criticism from liberals for cutting taxes for the rich. It has always been to improve the tax code in a way that offered tangible benefits to large numbers of middle-class voters. Chait writes, “Perhaps the reform conservatives have capitulated completely in the name of party unity. Or maybe they were misunderstood from the beginning.” Maybe! But we have not exactly been keeping our ideas a secret.

Ramesh Ponnuru — Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg View, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More

Romney Is a Misfit for America

Mitt’s back. The former governor of Massachusetts and occasional native son of Michigan has a new persona: Mr. Utah. He’s going to bring Utah conservatism to the whole Republican party and to the country at large. Wholesome, efficient, industrious, faithful. “Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

What the Second Amendment Means Today

The horrifying school massacre in Parkland, Fla., has prompted another national debate about guns. Unfortunately, it seems that these conversations are never terribly constructive — they are too often dominated by screeching extremists on both sides of the aisle and armchair pundits who offer sweeping opinions ... Read More

Fire the FBI Chief

American government is supposed to look and sound like George Washington. What it actually looks and sounds like is Henry Hill from Goodfellas: bad suit, hand out, intoning the eternal mantra: “F*** you, pay me.” American government mostly works by interposition, standing between us, the free people at ... Read More
Film & TV

Black Panther’s Circle of Hype

The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) first infantilizes its audience, then banalizes it, and, finally, controls it through marketing. This commercial strategy, geared toward adolescents of all ages, resembles the Democratic party’s political manipulation of black Americans, targeting that audience through its ... Read More