Earlier today, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin joined Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace to discuss the ongoing tax debate.  To watch the exchange with Paul Ryan, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, and Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the next Ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-oc6RVeTB0  

Highlights:

Regarding Rep. Chris Van Hollen’s efforts to stop a bipartisan agreement to prevent tax increases because it does not go far enough to increase taxes [3:30]:

And so they’re willing to hold up all the tax breaks, all of the other tax rates on middle-class families and small businesses so they can get this smaller tax increase in the estate tax? I’m not going to get into the ‘who’s a hostage-taker’ discussion here.  What is the estate tax? It’s a double-tax on death.  Economists will tell you that it’s really not a tax that just soaks the rich, but it’s a tax on capital that deprives business investment, and therefore job creation.

 

Going to a 35% [estate tax] rate is not enough for Chris [Van Hollen] and other House Democrats, and so they’re willing to scuttle the entire agreement – an agreement which has bipartisan support in the Senate, an agreement with the President of the United States – an agreement to prevent tax increases from hitting our economy.

 

If the President bows to this pressure and participates in scuttling this deal, then what does that say about our ability to have confidence and bipartisanship in this new era of divided government?  How well will we be able to reach agreements that will stick if people are angry in parts of their party, and he unravels these deals? 

 

We are not interested in changing this deal.  We’re interested in passing this through.  We already have an agreement with the President and Senate Democrats.  If the Democrats in the House scuttle this deal, the first thing we do is to prevent these job-killing tax increases, which will have to be done retroactively after the first of the year.

Regarding mischaracterizations of the bill and what is at stake [6:17]:

This is a compromise, and there are parts of this bill I do not like.  The worst thing we can do is hit this economy with an across-the-board tax increase on everybody in January.  I don’t see this bill as a ‘stimulus.’  I see this bill as preventing further damage to the economy, not injecting growth into the economy.  If we don’t pass this, then we will have damage inflicted on this economy.

 

Only in Washington is ‘not raising taxes’ considered a ‘tax cut’.  We’re not cutting taxes. We’re preventing tax increases from occurring. We don’t see this as particularly stimulative; it just prevents bad policies from going forward.

Regarding Van Hollen’s admission that “we’re not going to hold this up at the end of the day” [9:49]:

I think Chris [Van Hollen] just made some news.  That’s fairly noteworthy because as of just a day or two ago, we were thinking they were going to do a ‘take it or leave it’ approach and scuttle this entire agreement.  If what Chris Van Hollen is saying is true and let this agreement come to a vote, and not rig the rules in the amendment process, then we might be able to move forward here.  That’s interesting to me.

Regarding Democrats’ continued rhetoric of division [10:11]:

Class warfare might make for good politics, but it makes for rotten economics. At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves a question in this country: are we interested in treating the symptoms of poverty and economic stagnation through income redistribution and class warfare – or – do we want to go after the root causes of poverty and economic stagnation by promoting pro-growth policies and prosperity?  That is the difference of opinion here.

Regarding the urgent need to get a grip on spending and tackle the looming debt threat [11:20]:

We need to cut spending.  I find it sort of interesting that after this massive spending spree that took place over the last two years, the creation of two new health care entitlements, now there is concern about deficits when they have a chance of raising taxes.  We are not interested in raising taxes.  We’re going to come out of the gates going after spending – spending cuts, spending controls, and reforms to the structure of spending.

Regarding renewed interest in tax reform [11:57]:

If we get to the point of doing tax reform, which I think is important, we should go with a broader base and lower rates for economic growth.  Erskine Bowles, Alice Rivlin and other centrist Democrats agree with that premise.  I would love to see the chance of getting a compromise so we can have good pro-growth tax reform, not tax increases, but lowering rates so we can have economic growth in America.  That’s a step in the right direction.

To watch the full interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-oc6RVeTB0