POLITICS

How the Tea Party Raised Taxes

The great irony of the fiscal-cliff deal: The tea party forced the tax hike.

Updated: January 2, 2013 | 6:18 p.m.
January 2, 2013 | 9:07 a.m.

Activists raise flags and banners showing their support of the tea party ideology. (Chet Susslin)

The great irony of the fiscal cliff deal is this: The tea party forced the tax hike. Had the tea party, whose American Revolution-inspired name was all about tax cuts, not forced a fight over the debt ceiling, none of this would have happened. Yes, Obama's fierce urgency to raise rates on wealthier earners was an essential part of what happened. Surely, a President Romney wouldn't have allowed it. But by pushing the country to the brink in 2011, the tea party discovered the law of unintended consequences--forcing a sequester that Democrats argued, and Republicans tacitly conceded, required tax hikes.

(RELATED: Why the Tea Party Lives On)

Had there been no debt ceiling fight, would taxes have gone up anyway? Maybe. 

The Bush-era tax cuts were due to expire, true. But the threat of sequestration made the need for new revenues all the more urgent.  

 Without sequestration Republicans would have had a stronger hand to argue that extending the Bush cuts was the right thing to do--and something that president Obama readily agreed to in 2010. In other words, the threat of sequestration--which would not have loomed without the 2011 debt-ceiling fight--helped drive the tax hikes.

Now we have the first tax-rate hikes since 1993, albeit coupled with an Alternative Minimum Tax indexing and some other baubles. And unlike the Clinton era, when the hikes passed without a GOP vote, this time their fingerprints are on it. 

Democrats have long seen the effect of unintended consequences in social programs--welfare programs that hurt more than they helped, for instance. Now it's Republicans who lacked the foresight to see what they wrought--the very  tax hikes they so adamantly opposed. 

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.


Leave A Comment
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus
Follow National Journal
Expert Opinions
Transportation Experts

Do We Suddenly Hate Driving?

5:16 p.m.

Latest Response by Phineas Baxandall: It's About Waste, Not Hate

Transportation Experts

Do We Suddenly Hate Driving?

3:19 p.m.

Latest Response by James Corless: Time to adapt to the new reality

Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

11:51 a.m.

Latest Response by Bill Cooper: U.S. Should Quickly Approve Other Apps

More Expert Opinions »
Columns
Charlie Cook: The Cook Report

No Wonder Republican Criticism of Obama Isn’t Working

8:05 p.m.
They’re attacking the president where he’s least vulnerable at a time when they have minimal credibility.
Ronald Brownstein: Political Connections

Smaller Schools Aren’t Always Better

8:05 p.m.
The universities best able to expand access to education are the ones with the most students.
Reid Wilson: On the Trail

Parties Push For House Retirements

May 23, 2013
Campaign committees utilize scare tactics to pressure members to step aside.
More Columns »