I don’t get it, really. Here’s part of Issa’s statement from Katrina’s post below:
“While my vote will ultimately depend on the final bill brought to the floor of the House,” Issa told Politico, “the flawed last minute consideration of this proposal underscores the need for Congress to act decisively in the new year to support job creation, curb government spending and enact permanent tax reform.”
Meanwhile Mitt Romney makes similar complaints, recycling the argument that extending the current tax rates “costs” a lot of money. No, the spending that is in excess of revenues costs money.
Regardless, we’ve had that argument before. What I don’t get is why “the need for Congress to act decisively in the new year to support job creation, curb government spending and enact permanent tax reform,” in Issa’s words precludes voting for this package.
Obama has already said he wants to pursue fundamental tax reform between now and 2012. In other words, our tax system, rates included, is going to be revisited before this deal expires no matter what (at least I hope that’s the case). Or to be more specific there’s nothing in this agreement that says taking up tax reform before it expires is prohibited. Or is there?
The chief benefit of this deal is that it prevents taxes from going up in about two weeks. Why not just see it that way while you plan for the bigger battles ahead?