Monday, March 27, 2017

Bernstein: Does the health reform fail mean tax cuts unlikely? I strongly doubt it. [feedly]

Does the health reform fail mean tax cuts unlikely? I strongly doubt it.

I and my CBPP colleagues will have much more to say about this in coming weeks, but there's no rest down here at Dysfunction Junction as we move from health care to taxes.

If you go by this AM's papers, there's a meme developing that tax reform looks just as hard as was health care reform. From this AMs NYT (my bold):

Picking themselves up after the bruising collapse of their health care plan, President Trump and Republicans in Congress will start this week on a legislative obstacle course that will be even more arduous: the first overhaul of the tax code in three decades.

"It's like asking whether climbing Kilimanjaro or another mountain of equal height is harder," said Mr. Graetz, who was a Treasury Department official in the early 1990s. "They are both very hard…"

Hmmm. I'm not sure this is right.

Obviously, and especially after last Friday, betting on this Congress' ability to legislate is not exactly a safe bet. But here are some mitigating points to consider:

–Perhaps the most important point is that while the Republican caucus is far from united on what health care reform should look like, they're far less divided on health care. They really have no idea what they want to do re health care–their "bill" made absolutely no sense to anyone and was really a big tax cut, thinly disguised as health reform. But they know what they want to do with taxes, which is cut them, preferably for everyone, but mostly for the wealthy.

–How can I say the R's are united on tax cuts when they disagree about the Border Adjusted Tax, or BAT? Again, I think tax-reform-watchers are overplaying this card. Yes, this is a complicated, contentious idea favored by Brady and Ryan, and yes, it scores as raising needed revenue to partially offset the cuts. But when it comes to following his guidance, Ryan's stock is low and falling, and if you think an R tax cut hinges on getting the BAT, I urge a rethink.

–Based on the failure to cut $1 trillion (over 10 years) in taxes in the health bill, the difficulty moving the BAT, and the need to move tax reform without D votes (meaning adding to the deficit outside the 10-year budget window is disallowed), ambitious tax reform facing challenges for sure. But that leaves less-ambitious reform, ala George W. Bush. Cuts in rates, sure, but smaller than they'd like. No permanent reform, but a sunset after 10 years. Lots of dynamic scoring and magic asterisks ("assume a bunch of loophole closing"). EG, I see the corp rate coming down from its current 35 percent to ~25 percent instead of the 15 percent in Trump's plan. Maybe tax cuts ultimately amount to 1-2 percent of GDP versus the 2-4 percent Trump and the R's originally craved.

–How, then, do they pull this off if they lose their big payfor? Easy: larger deficits. Check out this quote from an influential R (from the Times piece linked above):

In a rare shift, Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, whose House Freedom Caucus effectively torpedoed the health legislation, said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that he would not protest if tax cuts were not offset by new spending cuts or new streams of revenue, such as an import tax [ie, the BAT].

"I think there's a lot of flexibility in terms of some of my contacts and conservatives in terms of not making it totally offset," he said. "Does it have to be fully offset? My personal response is no."

Remember, many R's do not care about deficits and only feign concern to block spending plans and shrink government. The idea that even deep seas of red ink will dissuade them from cutting taxes seems awfully naive to me.

So I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but if you're thinking the failure to repeal and replace means the odds of passing a tax cut are well below half, I suspect you're wrong.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

No comments: