A Tall Wall for the Deficit Cutters : House Republicans back dubious tax-vote rule

The Republican majority that will take control of the House of Representatives next month has big plans for changing the way some things are done, and for the most part its ideas can be warmly welcomed.

After 42 straight years of Democratic control some House-cleaning clearly is in order. Like every other institution that has been largely immune from pressures for change, the House has come to suffer from bloat, rigidity and a large measure of arrogant self-protectiveness. The Republicans say they want a leaner, more open forum. A lot of Democrats seem ready to support that aim.

Under the Republican plan three of the lesser committees and 25 subcommittees are to be abolished, certainly at no great harm to the nation’s well-being. That will help cut the House staff payroll by a full one-third, down to about 1,300.

At the same time the special-interest caucuses are going to lose their funding and official recognition. That won’t and shouldn’t prevent members who share interests from colloguing, but it will make at least a small dent in the House budget.

A TRUER ‘RECORD’: In the openness-is-the-best-policy category, closed-door committee hearings are to be banned except where national security or sensitive personnel matters are involved. All voting will have to be done in person, instead of using proxies as is now permitted. And the Congressional Record, the daily account of House proceedings, is actually supposed to begin reporting what’s said in debate as it was said. There’s to be no more late-night rewriting to make a member appear more eloquent, witty or wise.

So far, so good. Where the Republican reform agenda comes a cropper is in its proposal to require a three-fifths vote rather than a simple majority on any legislation that would increase personal or corporate income taxes.

The 60% requirement assures a minority veto over tax increases. Such increases are of course never popular. But neither are deficits, and it would be foolish in the extreme for the House to make it even more difficult to raise revenues in the future to deal with the deficit problem.

BALANCING ACT: A key part of the House Republicans’ “Contract With America” is, after all, a constitutional amendment to require that the federal budget be balanced. How? Bringing revenues into line with expenditures can’t be accomplished simply by slashing expenditures, especially since the Republicans have already ruled out any tinkering with Social Security. Further, the GOP favors various measures--a reduced tax on capital gains, a $500-per-child tax credit--that would shave revenues even more. If a three-fifths vote is needed to raise taxes, should a three-fifths vote be required to lower them as well?

The Republicans had better rethink their three-fifths plan. The contradiction between virtually ruling out new taxes while still posturing about balancing the budget is glaring. The Republicans have some useful and welcome ideas for reforming House rules. But the 60% tax vote requirement isn’t one of them.