I knew I’d hear from the Harris campaign – their reaction is at the end. Also Marc has added his usual good commentary as well in the “comments” section.
It’s sort of sad that I have to point something like this out when he and I are in the same party, but unfortunately my Congressman, Wayne Gilchrest, has strayed from the GOP orthodoxy so often this term that he’s rapidly earning the moniker “Wrong-Way Wayne.”
But I’m one to give credit where it’s due and give his side of the story where appropriate. The other day I got a press release from the Gilchrest office discussing the Bush tax cuts. Entitled in bold capital letters, “Gilchrest supports making Bush tax cuts permanent”, the press release stated:
As Congress begins to debate the future of President Bush’s tax cuts, Congressman Gilchrest has cosponsored legislation that will make them permanent.
“Those tax cuts have helped stimulate our economy and kept it going strong in the face of some of difficult times,” Gilchrest said. “To repeal them now would be a disaster, and would hurt families across the country.”
Gilchrest this week cosponsored HR 2734, the Tax Increase Prevention Act, which makes the tax cuts the President introduced and Congress passed into law in 2001 and 2003 permanent. Currently they will expire in 2011 if Congress does not act.
“If we don’t make these tax cuts permanent, income tax rates will rise substantially in each tax bracket, and low income-taxpayers will see the 10-percent tax bracket disappear,” Gilchrest said. “Married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return, and taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits.”
He has also cosponsored HR 2380, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act. That bill would eliminate the estate tax, or so-called “death tax”, which can be crippling to families struggling to keep second and third generation farms and businesses alive.
“I think it’s pretty clear that this tax policy has helped our economy thrive, with steady job creation and strong economic growth. To change course now would be short-sighted and damaging to our economy and to jobs.”
Earlier this year, Gilchrest voted against the Democrat-sponsored budget because it sought to increase taxes by more than $200 billion. Instead, he voted for a Republican alternative that would have made the President’s tax cuts permanent. That alternative budget vote, however, failed.
While very little is “permanent” inside the Beltway (even the Constitution is routinely ignored), the idea behind making the 2001/2003 Bush tax cuts permanent is sound, as it would prevent the chaos bound to occur 3-4 years hence when the present tax rates and categories expire. The only reason I would want to see the Bush tax cuts expire is if the Sixteenth Amendment were somehow repealed and the FairTax put in place. Call me a doubting Thomas, but I don’t see that coming about before the end of 2010.
One thing I was trying to find out in doing a quick bit of research was why these tax cuts weren’t made permanent in the first place. While I didn’t locate a specific reason why, something tells me that the moderates on the GOP side, especially in the Senate, were appeased with this sunsetting measure because there are still a few so-called deficit hawks out there who’ve failed to learn the Reagan-era lesson that tax cuts INCREASE revenue. And it practically goes without saying (but I will anyway) that Democrats are always against people having more money in their pocket unless there’s a federal government program or targeted tax cut putting it there. While those on the left have the mantra about the “Bush tax cuts for the wealthy” they conveniently omit the fact that the top quarter of all taxpayers pay 85% of the freight – thus that group would naturally get some additional benefits in an across-the-board cut.
In getting this press release I wondered, well, what would Wayne’s First District opponents say? For example, I’m sure that since the Andy Harris campaign reads monoblogue they’ll add their two cents, but all I found on the tax issue from the Harris website was the terse statement:
Andy has signed ATR’s No New Tax Pledge. He opposes all new taxes and all increases in taxes.
Andy will fight to lower taxes every change (sic) he gets as a Congressman.
Meanwhile, Democrat opponent Frank Kratovil is silent on the tax issue, but calls for additional “resources” for environmental measures and universal health care – so I’d not paint him as a tax decreaser by any means. The other Democrat in the race, Christopher Robinson, bills himself a “fiscal conservative” and talks about “bring federal spending under strict control” but fails to mention anything about not picking our pockets in the meantime.
In this instance, where Wayne is hoping to use this press release to differentiate himself from the GOP challenger, there’s really no difference. The decision will be made on the GOP side because of a host of other issues – taxation won’t be a deciding factor in the primary race. A correct stance on the tax issue doth not a conservative make.
The Harris campaign’s reaction:
Michael,
As I read your blog today I was very surprised to see you praising Gilchrest for NOW supporting the president’s tax cuts. A month ago, in an Examiner interview Gilchrest states when asked about whether he supports the president’s tax cuts “I’ve actually supported most of the president’s tax programs. Not all of them. I’m probably up there about 90 percent in support of them.” Why is the congressman changed his mind about supporting Bush’s tax cuts? I think it is because he is seeing support for Andy’s message of Consistent Conservative Leadership resonating with voters.
Andy Harris supports all of the president’s tax cuts and all future presidents tax cuts as well. He has a long record of not only fighting against new taxes and tax increases, but also against wasteful government spending. In the last 3 weeks, Democrats have increased the appropriation requests submitted by the president. When Republicans put in amendments to limit the growth of government and to elminate the extra pork Pelosi has put in the appropriations bills, Congressman Gilchrest voted against the the amendments. He is opposing Republicans attempts to reign in wasteful government spending and siding with the Democrats. Andy in contrast, has voted against 6 of the last 9 state budgets including the last budget under Governor Ehrlich because he believes the growth rate was too big (8% in one year). The contrast between Andy and Gilchrest on fiscal issues could not be more clear.
Andy’s statement on his website is short and simple because that is how it should be in regards to taxes. Andy opposes all new taxes and all tax increases. He signed the ATR “No New Tax” Pledge because he believes government is too big and people are taxed too much. (Note: Gilchrest has also signed the No-New Tax Pledge and has broken it just in the last month with a vote on the appropriations bill for the Department of Energy) When politicians make their positions on taxes complicated, it usually results in you and me paying more in taxes. If you would like more information on Andy’s positions on a wide range of specific taxes, we will be more than happy to get it to you.
Thanks,
Chris Meekins
Political Director
Andy Harris for Congress
The tax cuts were not made permanent because of budget rules and Senate rules. Budget resolutions are not subject to filibuster, so if you have a controversial measure relating to revenue, Congressmen try and get that put in the budget resolution. If it stays in the budget resolution, then the actual vote on the revenue measure (this time, tax cuts) needs only a majority in the Senate. Bush’s tax cuts weren’t going to be supported by a filibuster-proof majority, so they passed them as part of the yearly budget resolutions. The drawback to that, however, is that the tax cuts last only as long as the budget resolution. In the case of most of Bush’s tax cuts, it was ten years (for some, it was five).
Basically, it’s all due to Senate rules and how the budget process works. I probably haven’t explained it very clearly here, but I can do better in person if you want me to discourse on Senate rules next time we see each other.
I don’t think the Gilchrest’s position on taxes is an attempt to paint himself as a conservative but is only a reflection of his support of this core Republican value.
I was going to say exactly what Marc said, but he beat me to it. The tax cuts are not permanent because they could not get 60 votes (and avoid a filibuster) to pass the tax cuts outside of the Budget process, which only needs a simple majority….