WASHINGTON -- The only responsible way to spare the middle class, cut the deficit and avoid falling off the rapidly nearing "fiscal cliff" is to cut entitlement programs and craft a tax-reform plan that lets rates on the wealthiest Americans go back up, New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer argued Tuesday.
As part of the debate over how to balance the impending expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and other breaks with deficit reduction, Schumer argued that it's time for everyone to stop talking about the model set during the last tax reform in 1986, which included cutting rates across the board, and to set a new standard.
The model offered most recently in that vein came out of President Barack Obama's deficit reduction commission, headed by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles. Their plan was embraced by many in both parties, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Their plan called for lowering all tax rates, with a proposed high end of around 28 percent, to be paid for by closing tax loopholes, which would also cut the deficit.
The plan didn't spell out which loopholes would be closed in order to compensate for lower rates. But Schumer pointed to studies that suggested families earning around $100,000 would see their taxes go up by about $1,000 under Simpson-Bowles' "illustrative" plan.
"In order to raise enough money to both reduce tax rates and cut the deficit, you would need to slash deductions and credits on a far greater scale than we ever did in 1986," Schumer said. "Middle-income earners would not be spared."
His way out of that bind was to suggest letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top tiers, while keeping the cuts for everyone else. He would also let capital gains rates rise slightly from the current 15 percent, though not to the level they were before the Bush-era cuts.
Republicans have been adamant that the cuts must be preserved, but Schumer predicted they might be amenable to more revenue after the elections, simply because it would have to cost the middle class if the GOP spares the wealthy. He also said Democrats on their side could offer massive cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare.
"You can save hundreds of billions of dollars and still keep the benefit structure," Schumer said. "Now, it's tough medicine, lots of people won't like it, but you can do that."
Schumer's proposal comes even as a bipartisan "Gang Of Eight" senators has been meeting and working on ideas based around Simpson-Bowles. And it's the latest sign that Democrats see a chance to push tax reform during the lame duck session, after the election but before the newly elected Congress begins in January. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has also suggested a deal could be done before the new year, although many other lawmakers have been hinting that some sort of stopgap should be passed until the new Congress can go to work.
Initial reactions from Republicans were not positive.
"Senior Democrats are now openly acknowledging their plan to hold the economy hostage to massive, job-killing tax hikes, and espousing the fiscally irresponsible view that says the country should be driven off the fiscal cliff rather than Congress working toward bipartisan solutions to reform and strengthen entitlements without killing jobs," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in a statement. "He admits that Democrats don't intend to reform entitlements or our tax code as a means to restore fiscal sanity, create jobs, or protect our seniors, but rather to use the effort as a lure to entice support for even more job-killing tax hikes."
McConnell added that he and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) are calling for a one-year extension of all the tax cuts to buy time to work on a tax overhaul.
Schumer, however, suggested that dragging out tax reform would actually make it harder, giving special interests more time to put well-financed thumbs on the scales. And he argued that whenever reform is done, the arithmetic remains the same.
"It is an alluring prospect to cut taxes on the wealthiest people, reduce the deficit and hold the middle class harmless, but the math dictates you can't have it all," Schumer said.
He predicted that even if Republicans win at the polls in November, they'll still be in the same place.
"The basic math is still going to be there. They will have to abandon one of three points of the stool. They will have to abandon preventing tax increases on the middle class," Schumer argued. "I don't think they want to do that, or they'll have to abandon lowering rates on the wealthy, or deficit reduction. I think that if they're in charge, they're not going to want to have lack of deficit reduction on their shoulders."
Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.
Also on HuffPost:
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio)
Commenting on Occupy Wall Street and the redistribution of wealth on ABC's "This Week" recently, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-speaker-john-boehner/story?id=14892830&page=5#.TswHj3NPkqV" target="_hplink">House Speaker John Boehner said</a>: <blockquote>Come on. The top 1 percent pay 38 percent of the income taxes in America. You know, how much more do you want them to pay? Well, I'll tell you what: Let's take all the money that the rich have, all of it. It won't even put a dent in our current budget deficit, much less our debt.</blockquote>
Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.)
Rep. Larry Bucshon <a href="http://gcdailyworld.com/story/1786079.html" target="_hplink">said in an interview</a> with a local Indiana paper that the tax code needs to be simplified, and he invoked the Republican party line that the wealthiest Americans are creating jobs: <blockquote>I'm not for raising taxes on one sector of the economy. I think right now when you have a high unemployment and you raise taxes on the higher income earners, and they are not going to create any jobs. Arguing right now that the higher income earners aren't paying their fair share is not true. The data shows that. The top 1 percent of income earners are paying about 38 percent of the taxes. The top 10 percent are paying about 70 percent of the taxes.</blockquote>
Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.)
During an House Education and the Workforce Committee markup, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEArFmRDtrw&feature=youtu.be" target="_hplink">Rep. Mike Kelly made a plea</a> to "stop railing against the really wealthy": <blockquote>I've got to tell you something. As a guy who has had to pay his own way his whole life, I am greatly offended by the idea that somehow somebody in Washington knows how to spend my money better than I do. That somebody in Washington knows how to regulate me to the point where I can't even borrow money anymore. You want to talk about people who are afraid? The small banks. They're scared to death to do anything. Why? Because their government has such onerous regulations on them anymore that they don't know about the rules and the regulations that have been put through or haven't even been written. So when you want to sit back and talk about these wealthy, evil people ... you want them to spend money? Make their future certain.</blockquote>
Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.)
Commenting on President Barack Obama's proposed jobs bill in September, Rep. Scott DesJarlais also <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:uHUJCTcKdokJ:www.wbir.com/rss/article/183289/2/TN-lawmakers-reaction-mixed-on-Obama-speech-+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a " target="_hplink">used the "job creators" line</a>. The congressman argued that wealthy Americans are "shouldering the burden" by "already paying the lion's share of taxes, and taxing them more is going to hurt jobs."
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas)
Two months ago, a handful of local Democrats protested outside Rep. Blake Farenthold's office in opposition to the proposed Buffett Rule Act, which would allow taxpayers to make donations with their income tax returns to help pay down the federal public debt. The bill was named after billionaire Warren Buffett, who has said he should be paying more in taxes. GOP lawmakers responded by suggesting wealthy Americans voluntarily donate extra money when they file their tax returns. "I think everybody is paying their fair share," <a href="http://www.kiiitv.com/story/15591779/local-democrats-stage-protest-on-congressman-farenthold" target="_hplink">Farenthold said</a>, adding, "And before we look at raising taxes on anybody, we've got to get the government spending under control. There's no point in pouring more money into something when it's hemorrhaging out the other end."
Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.)
In March, months before the Occupy Wall Street movement arose, Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle <a href="http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/half_applaud_half_jeer_at_rep.html" target="_hplink">expressed sadness</a> at the class warfare in America. "The middle class is being screwed," said the congresswoman at a town hall meeting, but added that the wealthy aren't to blame. "Why do we have class warfare?" she said. "Why do we want to punish the rich? They worked hard for their money."
Rep. John Fleming (R-La.)
Rep. John Fleming made more than $6 million last year, according to the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>. In September on MSNBC, he <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/09/tea-party-rep-only-400000-left-after-i-feed-my-family/" target="_hplink">used himself as an example</a> of why he opposes raising taxes on millionaires: <blockquote>The amount that I have to reinvest in my business and feed my family is more like $600,000 of that $6.3 million. And so by the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over to invest in new locations, upgrade my locations, buy more equipment.</blockquote> MSNBC's Chris Jansing responded that the average American makes more like $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000 a year, to which Fleming responded: <blockquote>Again, class warfare never created a job. That's people that will not get jobs. This is all about creating jobs. It's not about attacking people who make certain incomes. You know, in this country most people feel that being successful in their businesses is a virtue, not a vice. And once we begin to identify it as a vice, this country is going down.</blockquote>
Rep. Dan Benishek (R-Mich.)
In August amidst the heated debate over raising the debt ceiling, Rep. Dan Benishek <a href="http://www.petoskeynews.com/news/pnr-benishek-delves-into-debt-ceiling-vote-federal-budget-during-forum-20110824,0,4643945.story" target="_hplink">addressed federal spending</a> at a public forum in Michigan. The congressman said that he would like to ease up on taxing corporations' foreign earnings and that he disagrees with raising taxes on oil companies. <blockquote>I think oil companies pay their fair share. I can understand where the oil company wants to deduct the cost of drilling a well. That's one of the tax breaks for oil companies, the subsidies. They get to deduct the cost of the well the year you drill.</blockquote>