April 17, 2006
IF DEMOCRATS WERE SERIOUS ABOUT REPEATING 1994:
Even tax-writing lawmakers don't want to fill out tax returns (MARY DALRYMPLE, 4/17/06, The Associated Press)
When it comes to their own tax returns, many members of Congress who specialize in writing tax laws turn to professional preparers rather than completing the paperwork themselves."It's onerous and everybody knows it," said Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass. [...]
According to IRS statistics, that makes these members of Congress much like the public. More than 60 percent of taxpayers turn to a paid professional to prepare their returns.
The number typically increases a little each year.
Why the tax system keeps getting more complex (Martin Wolk, April 14, 2006, MSNBC)
The idea of simplifying the nation's tax system has broad public support, with 80 percent favoring major changes or a complete overhaul in one recent poll, and 52 percent saying they would give up some deductions to simplify federal taxes.By itself, the complexity of the nation's tax system imposes high costs on businesses and individuals. Just complying with the system through record-keeping, education and compliance costs the nation $265 billion, or 2 percent of the gross domestic product, said Chris Edwards, director for fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute.
"I think a bigger cost is in the way complexity interferes with economic planning," he said. On the business side, tax complexity has created an entire industry devoted to aggressive tax avoidance. National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, an internal IRS watchdog, talks of an "endless cycle" in which the complexity of the tax code creates loopholes that are exploited, leading to yet more regulations.
The reason the Contract on America was successful was because they were all items that polled that high with the public. However, they were also, not coincidentally, popular with the GOP base. If Democrats want a popular issue to run on they need something like tax simplification, but run into two major problems: (1) their leadership and base opposes it; (2) if they propose it the GOP will bring it to a vote. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 17, 2006 9:28 AM
How do you expect the GOP to have the courage to do Forbes-style tax overhaul, when the GOP-dominated House/Senate/Presidency are too timid to even extend the present tax cuts for 2 years?
Posted by: Gideon at April 17, 2006 10:46 AMIt's not about timidity, just about 45 seats.
Posted by: oj at April 17, 2006 10:51 AMI haven't checked, but I don't think Lyndon Johnson ever had 60 Democratic Senate seats.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 17, 2006 11:02 AMjim:
He actually had 2/3rds of the Senate for awhile, but even so, when Democrats controlled the Senate they had much tougher rules about these matters. You actually had to filibuster in person, for example.
Posted by: oj at April 17, 2006 11:11 AMJohnson had 65 seats from January 1959 through January 1961. Prior to that, he made do with 48 or 49 (a bare majority with 96 total seats). He wasn't going to pass civil rights legislation with the South united against it, but he established his reputation getting almost everything else through.
I have said before that Bob Dole or Howard Baker would have a much better record than Frist (or Lott). But it seems clear that Dole's power was enhanced because he could be 'against' Clinton. Frist doesn't have that luxury, although the GOP wet noodles evidently think they do.
So, what is the best way to deal with the GOP crying towels? Bribe them? Publicly humiliate them? Shun them? Gossip about them? Audit them? Joke about them? Embrace them?
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 17, 2006 2:01 PMJohnson passed Civil Rights legislation because of GOP votes, as Clinton got Trade and Welfare reform.
Lott and Frist have spectacular legislative track records including major tax reductions and no increases, education vouchers, HSas, a series of free trade treaties, etc. Not passing items that require 60 GOP seats isn't their fault.
Posted by: oj at April 17, 2006 2:07 PM