John Boehner, the top Republican in House, calls a recent proposal by GOP?members of a deficit-cutting super committee to be a "fair offer." The speaker is at least half correct.
Reportedly, some conservatives have complained the offer would include higher taxes. If true, that criticism provides evidence in favor of the Boehner's view. If a compromise involves give and take, he would be at least half right in considering the proposal to be "fair."
What remains to be seen is whether the proposal would give less, too, in the form of federal spending. The political give-and-take needs to add up to $1.2 trillion over 10 years, and soon.
The deficit-reduction committee faces a deadline of next Wednesday to reach a deal, but due to the time needed to craft a plan into proposed legislation and have it reviewed by congressional fiscal analysts, an agreement really needs to be reached this week.
The preferred way to increase revenue would be for the economy to grow. More economic activity would mean more jobs and more revenue, without raising rates or adding taxes.
Less preferable would be more taxes and higher rates, which could leave less money circulating in the economy in ways that produce value and wealth more efficiently.
Americans for Fair Taxation released information Tuesday claiming the group's favored FairTax plan would have generated $171 billion more in revenue in 2009 than the federal income tax, and an additional $267 billion in 2010. FairTax calls for replacing federal payroll taxes with a 23-percent national sales tax.
As the FairTax backers suggest, it's becoming more apparent that a long-term solution to our fiscal woes would involve more than simply raising revenue and cutting spending. Fundamental changes to taxation and federal programs are needed.
Perhaps this week we'll also learn of a "fair offer" to reduce -and revamp - federal expenditures, too.