Hoyer, GOP have some differences on tax reform

In his piece in Politico, Hoyer (D-Md.) asserts that “members of both parties can agree that a tax code that unleashes economic productivity, creates middle-class jobs and reduces the deficit would be a major boost to our economic future.”

The minority whip would probably not find much disagreement on the first two points. 

But at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Thursday, Republican members and the chief executive of Procter & Gamble looked to push the point that it was more important for a reform package to allow American businesses to be more competitive than to initially break even revenue-wise. 

“I know, whenever tax reform is brought up, it’s around simplicity, fairness, the complex arguments that we heard about today,” Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minn) said. “But I’m pleased that a lot of the conversation today obviously is about economic growth and competitiveness, without a doubt.”

Republicans like Rep. Tom Price (Ga.) have argued that reducing corporate tax rates would lead to the government collecting more revenue. Meanwhile, other Republicans have declared that revenue shouldn’t necessarily be much of a consideration in an overhaul of the tax system. 

“Our problem is not a lack of revenue, so I don’t want to see tax reform that ends up raising people’s taxes,” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said recently. 

Prominent figures on both sides of the aisle have endorsed taking a look at tax reform. But the issue of how much revenue to collect in a reform package could prove to be a sticking point as Republicans and Democrats start to discuss the tax code in more detail. 

For their part, the president’s fiscal commission and the Bipartisan Policy Center both put closing loopholes and reducing tax rates in their deficit-reduction plans.

In his op-ed, Hoyer embraced the bipartisan center’s plan, drafted by a panel led by former Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Alice Rivlin, a budget director under President Clinton. He also wrote that tax revenues last year accounted for their lowest share of the economy since 1950. 

“I’ve always believed that there’s no way — either politically or substantively — for our nation to get out of debt unless we pay attention to both the spending and revenue sides of the equation,” Hoyer declared. “So as we take a serious look at the spending that really matters — not symbolic cuts but real challenges like entitlements and defense — we also have to find a way to raise revenue.”