Whew! Conference report on tax reform is (mostly) as good or better the originals

The only question now is whether everyone who needs to vote for it will be able to show up


Whew! Conference report on tax reform is (mostly) as good or better the originals The highest rate is not as high. There are still seven brackets, which is six too many, but at least the rates are lower than they were. We're still repealing the ObamaCare individual mandate. We're still opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. We're still dramatically cutting the corporate tax rate - although a tiny bit less than in the original plan - and we're still going to get 100 percent immediate expensing, although only for five years. We're still going to stop tax repatriated profits.

We're going to cap the deductability of state and local taxes, although not eliminate it entirely. At least the whole country won't be subsidizing the cost of living in high-tax states and cities as much as we were. We're still doubling the personal deduction. That's good. We're expanding the child tax credit and making most of it refundable (i.e., if you don't owe enough income tax to need it, the government cuts you a check anyway). That's absolutely vomit-inducing terrible policy, but without it Marco Rubio and Mike Lee would have bailed and we wouldn't get any of the good stuff. I used to think I might some day like to vote for Marco Rubio for president. Now I will never support him for the nomination under any circumstances and I hope I'm not stuck between the choice of him or a Democrat in a general election - unless Rubio learns his lesson about economics. At the moment he's an economic imbecile. And I used to think better of Lee but I guess I didn't know as much as I should have about him. Anyway: The whole package represents the most significant tax reform since the deal Ronald Reagan cut in 1986, and almost all of it makes things better and sets up the country for faster and healthier economic growth:
The bill’s biggest achievement is reforming at long last the self-destructive U.S. corporate tax code. The top U.S. rate of 35%—highest in the developed world—will fall to 21% on Jan. 1. Cash currently held overseas will be taxed at a 15.5% one-time “deemed” repatriation rate, and America will move to a territorial system that allows money to be taxed where it is earned. The bill includes rules to prevent companies from concealing taxable income, especially on intangible assets such as intellectual property. And it sweeps away billions of dollars worth of industry-specific loopholes that misallocate capital. All of this will go a long way to restoring American competitiveness that has eroded over several administrations. Even Barack Obama acknowledged this problem, though he declined to do anything lest some large business end up with a tax cut.


The same economists who presided over the weakest recovery since World War II now say none of this is needed with the economy finally growing at 3%. But the faster growth never materialized when they were in power, and this expansion has been notable for slow business investment and weak productivity growth. This GOP tax reform—including five years of 100% immediate business expensing—is aimed directly at that weakness to keep the expansion going even as the Federal Reserve raises interest rates. This isn’t a demand-side “sugar high.” These business tax changes are supply-side reforms that will increase the economy’s productive capacity. Reducing the cost of capital should raise business investment and invite a capital inflow to the U.S. More investment means more hiring and more productive workers, which is what increases wages. Especially with a tight labor market, the share of income that goes to workers should increase. After eight years of trying to redistribute income through higher taxes and more subsidies, why not try a return to growth economics? . . . Yet Republicans deserve credit for at least trimming the top rate on individuals to 37% from 39.6%. The conferees dumped the House’s bubble bracket that slammed some folks with a 45.6% top rate. The 2.6-point top rate cut won’t increase the incentives to work by all that much, though the move is significant as a matter of principle that tax reform means lower rates for everyone. And lowering the top rate took political courage amid tendentious attacks from left and right. A lower top rate also offers relief to productive earners in high-tax states who will lose most of the state-and-local tax deduction. That subsidy for progressive politicians in Sacramento and Albany will be capped at a $10,000 write-off for property, income and sales tax. A full repeal would have been better policy, but the accommodation brings along Republican Members in New York and California.


There appears to be little if any danger that anyone who voted for either of the original versions will tank the conference report. Bob Corker was a no on the Senate version and could be this time. That would still leave us with 51 votes. You always worry about John McCain because he's so unpredictable and loves the media adulation he gets when he shatters Republican's homes and dreams. But even if McCain bails we would still get 50 and Mike Pence would break the tie in favor of passage. Susan Collins seems to be on board. Lisa Murkowski is definitely on board because the ANWR drilling is a big win she can bring home to Alaska. The bigger concern honestly is the health of McCain and Thad Cochrane. Both have been hospitalized of late, and you can't vote via Skype (although I wonder if we'll see that some day). Supposedly Mitch McConnell is going to schedule the vote some time this week, and I'm sure he wouldn't schedule it without being absolutely sure he'll have the votes he needs present and in the chamber. The main criticism of this bill from the right is that it's just a reshuffling of the same flawed tax code. You still have the graduated rates and you still have an awful lot of exemptions and deductions. You still tax way too many things and you do it in far too complicated a manner. Let's talk about that: First, just about everyone can play the game of "if it was up to me," and I can play it too. If it was up to me, we'd have one very low tax rate and no exemptions or deductions. And any tax on business would be a) microscopic; and b) taxed on gross receipts so there was no incentive to hide capital in tax shelters. You would not pay higher rates as your income increased. You would not pay a tax on inheritences or investment income. And we would spend a lot less so we would need to raise a lot less. That if it was up to me.

Since it's up to 536 people, none of whom are me, we're going to get something other than that. What we got has some excellent changes in it, particularly the lowering of the corporate rate. That's the best change to the tax code in my lifetime. I expect it to unleash growth to a far greater degree than what you're hearing people talk about. Most of the other changes are steps in the right direction even if they're more marginal. So my advice to those who want the whole enchilada and are disappointed that this isn't it: Take the progress and keep marching. See the growth that comes from this and use it to argue that we can cut even more, that we can simplify even more, and that we should continue to go in this direction because it's yielding good results. Some conservatives want to win this battle all in one fell swoop and have it be over, never to have to be fought again. That would be great. But that's not where the country is and that's reflected in the current makeup of Congress. It will take a lot more work to get the ball to the goal line you want. So stop complaining about having to do the work and settle in for a long but worthwhile challenge. If you want it as much as you always say you do, then the effort is worth it, right?

View Comments

Dan Calabrese——

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.