Our guest blogger is Seth Hanlon, Director of Fiscal Reform at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

2012 GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich is outdoing his Republican rivals in promising enormous tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans. According to an independent analysis by the Tax Policy Center, Gingrich’s plan would violate basic notions of fairness by requiring middle-class families to pay higher tax rates than millionaires.

But that’s not all that’s wrong with it. Gingrich’s plan is by far the most fiscally reckless plan to be released by a major 2012 contender. The magnitude of the tax cuts he is proposing to the wealthy and corporations would drive the debt to unprecedented and dangerous levels even if federal spending is cut drastically.

Gingrich has not proposed specific levels for federal spending, so to analyze the effect of his plan on the debt, we assumed that he adopts all of the draconian spending cuts in House Budget Committee Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget. Gingrich originally dismissed the Ryan budget as “right-wing social engineering,” but later said he would vote for it.

The spending levels in the Ryan budget are unrealistically and irresponsibly low. And yet Gingrich’s tax giveaways are so enormous that there wouldn’t be nearly enough revenue to fund even this extreme conservative vision of government.

The Gingrich plan would reduce federal revenues by $1.28 trillion below CBO’s baseline, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, resulting in revenues of about 13.2 percent of GDP. That is an absurdly low level. Unsurprisingly, therefore Gingrich’s plan would pile up debt shockingly fast. Ultimately, Gingrich’s plan would:

– Result in perpetual trillion-dollar deficits: The budget deficit is expected to be 6.2 percent of GDP in the current fiscal year, but projected to decline in the coming years. With Gingrich’s tax plan in place, however, deficits would be even higher in perpetuity. In the best year under his plan, fiscal year 2015, the deficit would be $1.2 trillion, or 6.6 percent of GDP. Annual deficits would continue to mount, reaching $2 trillion in just over a decade. Again, this assumes that drastic spending cuts also take place.

– Explode the debt to historic levels: Under the Gingrich plan, the publicly-held debt would double by 2019, and triple by 2024. By the end of a second Gingrich term as president, the debt would reach $25 trillion, or more than 100 percent of GDP. The United States will have added about $12.5 trillion in debt during that period, with no end in sight.

– Commit the United States to trillion dollar interest payments on the debt: By enacting a tax plan with grossly inadequate revenues, the U.S. would be committing to pay ever-increasing sums of money to creditors like China. Under Gingrich’s plan, by 2021 the United States would be paying more than $1 trillion every year just in interest on the debt. Interest on the debt would represent nearly a quarter of all government spending.

Of course, if Gingrich can’t get spending down to the Ryan level, his deficits would be larger and his debt higher. In short, Gingrich’s tax plan simply cannot be taken seriously. As fiscal policy goes, it is every bit as ridiculous as his nutty proposals to replace school janitors with child laborers or colonize the moon.

While Republicans and Democrats continue to fight over how to reduce America’s debt and deficits — moving from near-government shutdowns to failed super committees and opposition to both spending cuts and tax increases — the government of Belgium may have inadvertently provided Congress with an example of how to fix the problem: do absolutely nothing.

After 536 days without a government, Belgian opposition parties struck a deal today to form a new coalition led by Socialist Elio Di Rupo. On this side of the pond, 563 days without any congressional action on fiscal or budgetary measures would go most of the way toward achieving the deficit reduction Congress is longing for. As Center for American Progress Director of Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden has pointed out, if Congress were do to nothing between now and January 2013 (just 397 days from now), the federal budget deficit would fall to just 1.6 percent of gross domestic product and continue dropping after that:

Similarly, debt as a share of GDP would fall to just 61 percent by 2021:

Such reductions would take place primarily due to the expiration of the budget-busting Bush tax cuts, which cost roughly $2.5 trillion over 10 years. The spending cuts triggered by the inability of the supercommittee to reach a deal would also take place, and multiple policies that Congress generally kicks down the road, like the alternative minimum tax, would also take effect.

Of course, there are policies Congress could enact to actually help unemployed Americans and the struggling economy, like passing laws that would create jobs and stimulate growth while addressing much-needed improvements in infrastructure and other areas. But if the goal is only to reduce debt and deficits, perhaps it’s better if members take their cue from the Belgians and just go home for a year or two.

Super committee Republicans proposed a deal last week that includes only $300 billion in revenue increases, all in the form of deduction eliminations, a paltry concession that was vastly outweighed by the massive tax cut for the rich the plan also included. While the proposal was an attempt to make Republicans look like they were actually considering revenue increases as part of a deal, it was quickly dismissed by Democrats. Even anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist saw through the plan, dismissing it as nothing more than a “negotiating position.”

Super committee co-chair Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) made that clear yesterday, suggesting to CNBC’s Larry Kudlow that “any penny” in revenue increases would be a deal-breaker for the committee’s Republican members. “But listen, any penny of increased static revenue is a step in the wrong direction,” Hensarling said.

Now, however, with Democrats rebuking Hensarling’s comments as “unhelpful,” and even some Republicans agreeing that the party may need to concede on taxes, Hensarling has walked back those comments, suggesting the GOP would consider new revenues in exchange for deeper concessions — in the form of entitlement cuts — from Democrats, the Hill reports:

Republicans on Wednesday signaled they would consider higher tax revenues to win a supercommittee deal if Democrats offer deeper cuts to entitlement spending. [...]

Briefing reporters on Wednesday, Hensarling said Republicans would be “more than happy to negotiate” around a new offer from Democrats, pointedly declining to say whether $250 billion was the maximum in new revenue the GOP could accept.

“I’m waiting for the Democrats to put fundamental reform on the table,” Hensarling said.

According to the Washington Post, the GOP is beginning to undergo an “identity crisis” when it comes to taxes, as members have realized that reaching a super committee deal and balancing the country’s budget is impossible without raising new revenue.

But while Hensarling’s new position may seem reasonable on its face, it’s unfortunate that he and his party continue to hold vital entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security hostage while supporting massive tax cuts for the rich, even as a growing number of millionaires are begging the GOP to raise their taxes to help address the nation’s debt. Those actions are particularly troubling in the face of recent reports from economists who warned that such austerity measures will only push the country closer to the brink of another recession.

Forty House Republicans joined 60 Democrats today in a letter calling on the congressional super committee to consider “all options” in crafting a deficit reduction package, including increasing revenues. As the AP notes, the “letter puts about one-sixth of House GOP lawmakers on record as saying the supercommittee should consider collecting more taxes.” From the letter:

We write to you as a bipartisan group of representatives from across the political spectrum in the belief that the success of your committee is vital to our country’s future. We know that many in Washington and around the country do not believe we in the Congress and those within your committee can successfully meet this challenge. We believe that we can and we must.

To succeed, all options for mandatory and discretionary spending and revenues must be on the table. In addition, we know from other bipartisan frameworks that a target of some $4 trillion in deficit reduction is necessary to stabilize our debt as a share of the economy and assure America’s fiscal well-being.

Republican Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) organized the letter, which included conservative signatories like Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and some freshmen Tea Party lawmakers like Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY).

So far, the Republican leadership has shown little interest in even discussing the revenue side of the balance sheet, let alone raising the necessary tax revenue, even though experts agree that reducing the deficit will require both spending cuts and more money coming in.