海角大神

Rep. Paul Ryan鈥檚 new budget doesn鈥檛 contain minute tax reform details. That鈥檚 not really his job 鈥� the Wisconsin Republican heads the House Budget Committee, after all. Taxes are the purview of House Ways and Means, whose chairman, Rep. Dave Camp (R) of Michigan, has vowed to produce a plan to remake the tax code at some point in the near future. Ryan鈥檚 waiting to follow Camp鈥檚 lead.

That said, the Ryan plan contains an interesting tax outline. Ryan鈥檚 laid out some revenue and reform goals that in some ways are more interesting than many of his spending top lines.

鈥淭he Ryan tax reform is totally fascinating this year!鈥� said Ezra Klein of the Washington Post鈥檚 鈥淲onkblog鈥� in a Tuesday video discussion of the plan.

First, there鈥檚 the revenue totals. Ryan鈥檚 fiscal year 2014 plan assumes collection of about $3.2 trillion more in taxes than did last year鈥檚 FY 2013 version. Partly that鈥檚 because the economy is getting better and producing more tax payments, per the Congressional Budget Office predictions that underlie Ryan鈥檚 work. But the Republican former vice presidential candidate also assumes that Uncle Sam will be corralling a bigger share of the US economy in coming years.

In 2023, when Ryan鈥檚 budget is supposed to reach balance, he has the US government getting taxes equal to about 19.1 percent of that year鈥檚 GDP. That鈥檚 higher than the equivalent number from last year鈥檚 Ryan effort, 18.7. Two years ago Ryan figured the government would be getting 18.1 percent of GDP in taxes 10 years out.

Republican orthodoxy is that taxes as a share of GDP should be going down, not up.

What鈥檚 happened here? Well, Ryan vowed that this time his budget would balance within a decade, and that鈥檚 a tough thing to accomplish. Look at it this way: his budget would repeal Obamacare, including its taxes on top earners meant to fund government health-care subsidies for those less well off. Ryan鈥檚 plan also would remake the income tax code so it only has two rates (more on this in a second). The top rate would be 25 percent as opposed to today鈥檚 39.6 percent, which was just established in the fiscal cliff deal. Yet Ryan still counts the cash the Obamacare tax and 39.6 percent top rate would bring in.

鈥淭hus this budget now accepts the extra revenues (though not the specific taxes) that Ryan and Hill Republicans so vehemently opposed just two months ago [in the fiscal cliff battle],鈥� writes the Urban Institute鈥檚 Howard Gleckman in a Tax Policy Center analysis.

OK, now to the income tax. As we said he鈥檇 remake it into a two-tier system, scrapping today鈥檚 seven bracket rates. This is supposed to bring in the same amount of money as today鈥檚 system via reform that makes it 鈥渟impler and fairer,鈥� in Ryan鈥檚 words. But he makes no mention of exactly what deductions and/or tax preferences would have to go to pay for the lower rates. He does not even explicitly commit to such broadening of the tax base.

Really this may be more aspiration than hard proposal. It鈥檚 cleverly done, too. Ryan鈥檚 budget does not explicitly say the top rate would be 25 percent. It says that鈥檚 the 鈥済oal,鈥� leaving open wiggle room if it鈥檚 too hard to make the numbers add up.

And it would be hard to get them to add up.

鈥淚f you were going to get to a rate like this you would have to clean out almost everything in the tax code,鈥� said 鈥淲onkblog鈥檚鈥� Klein.

In that sense Ryan鈥檚 rate plan isn鈥檛 so much a plan as a manifesto, a statement of principles he鈥檇 like the nation to work towards.

It was another Midwestern GOP congressman of fiscal bent, Michigan鈥檚 David Stockman, who publicized the phrase 鈥渕agic asterisk.鈥� As Ronald Reagan鈥檚 first budget director, Stockman grew embarrassed about answering questions dealing with future deficits. He took care of them by inserting unspecified future budget reductions into the books 鈥� 鈥渕agic asterisks.鈥� (He credits Sen. Howard Baker (R) of Tennessee with actually inventing the term.)

Does it matter that some might judge Ryan鈥檚 tax calculations replete with magic asterisks? The Atlantic鈥檚 Matthew O鈥橞rien thinks that it does.

鈥淵ou鈥檙e not alone if you think magic is more fun than math. Paul Ryan certainly agrees,鈥� O鈥橞rien wrote Wednesday.

But not all pundits agree, even if they鈥檙e generally critical of Ryan and the House GOP.

鈥淭his is a budget, not a tax reform plan,鈥� writes political scientist Jonathan Bernstein at 鈥淎 plain blog about politics.鈥� 鈥淎s long as the tax cuts proposed in the budget are only intended 鈥� and will only be implemented 鈥� as part of revenue-neutral comprehensive tax reform, then who cares (from a budget point of view) whether it鈥檚 going to be possible to come up with enough offsets to make it work? If it doesn鈥檛, then (presumably) tax policy just reverts to the status quo.鈥�