The Democratic leader of the Senate has introduced a measure asking the wealthy to make a large contribution to deficit reduction.
The resolution offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday asks lawmakers to sign off on a "Sense of the Senate" that "any agreement to wealthier taxpayers should reduce the budget deficit should require that those earning $1,000,000 or more per year make a more meaningful contribution to the deficit reduction effort."
And then you have Republican Senators waxing poetic about how the corporate jet tax break is a really great thing:
Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) dismissed ending the tax break as just “code for much broader, large tax increases,” saying that the jet tax break is “not the issue we’re debating here.” ... Sen. Marco Rubo (R-FL) meanwhile, told the National Review that Obama was suggesting corporate jet owners earn too much money. “[D]on’t go around telling people that the reason you are not doing well is because some rich guy is in a corporate jet or some oil company is making too much money,” he said. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) spokesperson defended the tax break without really addressing the issue on its merits, quipping to reporters, “Interesting that he keeps pointing to corporate planes and oil/gas.”
You can tell that these guys want to change the topic—corporate jet tax breaks are a perfect symbol of how upside down our tax code has become, and Republicans have firmly entrenched themselves on the wrong side of the debate about whether to fix it. As Joan noted Friday morning, the American public is firmly on the Democratic side of this debate. Maybe they're just better at math than Republicans, but most Americans understand that you cannot have a balanced deficit reduction package without increased revenue from millionaires and billionaires.
So here's the question Republicans need to answer: are they really willing to destroy the American economy in order to save tax breaks for super wealthy individuals and corporations? And if they are, how in the world do they expect to explain it to their constituents?