WSJ: Some Republicans Debate Stance on Taxes

[question everything]

Some Republicans Debate Stance on Taxes

By JOHN D. MCKINNON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 22, 2005; Page A5

(snip)

Mr. Bush's refusal last week to rule out lifting the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes reflects the shifting tenor of debate within his party. In the Senate, where Republicans aim to gain enough Democratic votes to advance Mr. Bush's plan for private Social Security accounts, Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg of New Hampshire says that "You are going to have to generate some revenues" to achieve that goal.

House Republicans' continued opposition to talk of tax increases was evident in their barbs about Mr. Bush's trial balloon last week. But former Speaker Newt Gingrich says the administration's commitment to shoring up Social Security's solvency means that, "at the end of the fight, there will be a tax increase on the core Republican base."

(snip)

If nothing else, the change in sentiment means it may not be easy to gain congressional approval for making the president's first-term tax cuts permanent. Unless Congress acts to extend them, for example, the breaks on dividends and capital gains end in 2008 and the rate cuts and estate-tax relief in 2010.

(snip)

If tax increases are the price, it may not happen. At a recent meeting of about 50 House Republican conservatives, "I would say the opposition to a tax increase or new taxes was deafening," says Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee. But some conservative activists say they would be willing to accept a tax increase in return for achieving such longtime conservative aims as overhauling Social Security, which was established under President Franklin Roosevelt. "If you can take 10 steps forward in exchange for three steps back, that's not unreasonable," says Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, which generally favors lower taxes to encourage economic growth.

(snip)


Write to John D. McKinnon at [e-mail]

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110903245754660411,00.html