The April Fools Budget

by publius

There’s a lot more that must and will be said about the GOP’s April Fool’s Day budget.  But there’s one hilarious tidbit that needs mentioning. 

As we already knew (because it was the one specific detail in the last “budget”), the plan has a massive tax cut for the wealthy – lowering the highest marginal rate to 25%.  Higher-earning taxpayers can, however, voluntarily opt to pay the old higher rate.

Here’s the kicker – the GOP’s deficit assumptions assume that everyone will opt for the older higher rates.  Take it away Steve Benen:

The hilarious angle to this is that the House Republicans run enormous budget deficits while assuming the top earners would voluntarily pay the higher rate.

Ryan Grim adds:

A Republican budget committee aid said that the revenues assumed in the GOP budget are based on the current tax structure that resulted from those cuts.

In other words, Republicans are assuming that given the choice between a higher rate and a lower rate, Americans will choose the higher rate.

I got nuthin'.  My powers of snark are unequal to the task.

Oh yeah, it also proposes to scrap Medicare for people under 55.  More to come!

Comments

[wonkiemycatlilycharliewrenjimmyskyetc]

Those unforgivable assholes.

It makes me mad. One of my clients is on Medicare. He's in his forties. A tree fell on him during a storm and now he is paralyzed from the arm pits down. There is no way his family could pay for his care.

But he doesn't matter to the Rzpebulicans in Congress who clearly are in Congress for onnly one purpose: represent the rich.

That's all that nasty evil corrupt in every sense criminal organizagtion desiguised as a political prty exists to do: protect the rich from taxes.

WHere's my pitchfork?

[Warren Terra]

My favorite bit of April Fools Republican policy had been this Ezra Klein post:

Problem solved. Just as health insurance protects you from changes in your health spending, insurance insurance -- sorry, health status insurance -- protects you from changes in your insurance premiums. And if health status insurance ever grows too costly or unpredictable, we can always insure that, too. The adaptability of the market is infinite. If I could clap through my computer, I would.

But the idea that the Republicans introduced a budget that when it pretends to make predictions does so by using tax rates from a totally different plan is kind of mindblowing.

Still, it shouldn't be ignored that the Republicans' tax "plan" scoring is being done in-house, not by the CBO, so even if they were pretending to score their actual plan the results wouldn't be worth the pixels needed to display them.

[A.L.]

Here's my question. We've been told repeatedly by Republicans that lowering marginal tax rates actually increases revenue. This is like gospel truth among conservatives. But if that's true, why give people the option to pay higher rates? Doesn't that option actually harm the supply side effect and thereby hurt the economy? Wouldn't it result in lower revenue than not giving the option? How can Supply Side Jesus work his magic if people are voluntarily paying higher rates?

And for that matter, doesn't the assumption that people will voluntarily pay a higher rate (i.e. act irrational from an economic perspective), completely undercut the foundational premise of supply-side theory, i.e., that people's behavior and productivity is directly tied to their marginal tax rate? Just saying.

[Martin]

There's actually something fundamentally richer going on here. Let's recap -- the Republicans insist on lower tax rates but then feel free to make projections based on higher tax rates.

Someone explain to me how this is not an argument that higher taxes are superior to lower taxes.

Think about it: how can the Republicans now argue that lower taxes are better for government? They show very clearly that all the charts relating to governmental functioning look a lot better if you assume higher tax rates.

And how can they argue that lower taxes are better for people? They assume that people will choose them.

They don't know it, but they're setting up camp to the left of the Obamaites. Ssh, everyone -- don't tell them.

[Catsy]

Someone explain to me how this is not an argument that higher taxes are superior to lower taxes.

Martin wins the prize!

If the Democrats are smart--and that's never the safe way to bet, but bear with me--they will give this Republican budget as much attention as possible.

And whoever came up with it in the first place... let's just say that they shouldn't give up their day job for political consulting. (And if they are a Republican political consultant, maybe they /should/ give up their day job.)

[Rian Mueller]

Sadly, I can't tell if this is supposed to be an April Fools' Day joke or not.

[J. Michael Neal]

What do you want to bet that it was released today so that the GOP can judge the reaction, and then declare it an April Fool's Day joke if it bombs?

[The Crafty Trilobite]

Note the scathing rejection by House Majority Leader Hoyer:
"It's hard to believe you can get to where they say they're going to get to without doing some things the American people would reject."

Yep, that'll rally the masses, alright. Our House Leader, folks, he'll be here all year.

Can we PLEASE replace the Democratic Party's collective spine? Maybe a confrontation training course? Itching powder? Viagra?

[russell]

the idea that the Republicans introduced a budget that when it pretends to make predictions does so by using tax rates from a totally different plan is kind of mindblowing.

It's like the Mack Sennett version of an opposition party.