Eli Lehrer has an article on the FrumForum entitled “Five Revenue Raisers the GOP Should Back.” He argues it would be good to get rid of preferences such as the state and local tax deduction and the mortgage interest deduction, and he also asserts that there should be “user fees” for things such as transportation.


As an avid supporter of a flat tax and market pricing, I have no objection to these policies. Indeed, I would love to get rid of the state and local tax deduction so that taxpayers in Texas and Florida no longer have to subsidize the fiscal profligacy of politicians in California and New York.


But there is a giant difference between getting rid of certain tax preferences as part of revenue‐​neutral (or even better, tax‐​cutting) tax reform and getting rid of tax preferences in order to give politicians more revenue to spend.


The former is a noble goal. Who can argue, after all, with the idea of getting rid of the corrupt and punitive internal revenue code and replacing it with a simple and fair flat tax? Lots of loopholes are eliminated, so there are plenty of tax‐​raising provisions in tax reform. But every one of those provisions is offset by provisions that lower tax rates and get rid of double taxation of saving and investment.


The latter, by contrast, is an exercise in trying to lose with minimal damage — sort of the “French Army Theory” of taxation, surrender gracefully and hope that your new masters give you a few crumbs after their celebratory feast.


What is especially strange about this approach is that the Republicans who advocate higher taxes claim that they are political realists. Yet if we look at real‐​world evidence, the moment Republicans show their “realism” by putting taxes on the table, the entire debate shifts.


Instead of the debate being tax‐​hikes vs. no‐​tax‐​hikes, it becomes a debate over who‐​should‐​pay‐​more‐​tax. Republicans win the first debate. They get slaughtered in the second debate.


Remember when the first President Bush agreed to enter into tax‐​hike negotiations in 1990? He set out two conditions — that there should be a reduction in the capital gains tax and that there should be no increase in income tax rates. So what happened? As everyone with an IQ above room temperature predicted, the capital gains tax stayed the same and income tax rates increased.


Last but not least, this conversation only exists because some people have thrown in the towel, acquiescing to the idea that there is no way to balance the budget without higher taxes. Yet the Congressional Budget Office data shows that the budget can be balanced by 2020 simply by limiting annual spending growth to 2 percent.