I was dismayed that The Post regarded House Speaker John Boehner’s remarks on taxes as somehow suggesting a willingness to compromise on the looming fiscal cliff [“Boehner opens door to a deal,” front page, Nov. 8]. His exact words were that he is willing to consider higher tax revenue “as a byproduct of a growing economy, energized by a simpler, cleaner, fairer tax code, with fewer loopholes, and lower tax rates for all”.
But this is Mitt Romney’s tax plan — cut tax rates, limit deductions and then assume that a surge in economic growth will magically produce higher revenue. Why is it “conciliatory” for Mr. Boehner to express a willingness to adopt Mr. Romney’s tax plan, a plan firmly rooted in Arthur Laffer’s fantasy land, where tax cuts pay for themselves?
Moreover, Mr. Boehner’s willingness to consider this so-called compromise is contingent on Democrats’ willingness to cut entitlement spending. This, too, is a fantasy. Why should Democrats agree to a plan that alienates AARP when Republicans won’t agree to anything that alienates Grover Norquist?