ThinkProgress filed this report from a town hall in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Over the next three months, the fiscal super committee created by the debt ceiling deal will meet to craft a $1.5 trillion deficit reduction package that Congress will vote on by Dec. 23. As progressives advocate a balanced approach that includes revenue increases as well as spending cuts, Republicans have refused to consider any revenue increases, no matter how small. This was evident in the August Republican presidential debate, where every single candidate refused to support a deal that would have included $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue increases.

During a town hall meeting earlier this week, an Ohio constituent posed the same hypothetical to Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH). Chabot was initially hesitant to answer because “we’re never going to get that deal,” but then went on to express his opposition to raising revenues at all, saying, “I’m not for raising taxes.” When a constituent correctly noted that taxes are at their lowest level in more than 50 years, Chabot was skeptical, declaring, “I don’t really buy that that’s the case”:

CONSTITUENT: My question is, would you support a bill that would increase the tax revenues by $1 and got $10 in cuts?

CHABOT: [...] We’re never going to get that deal. I’d have to look at it at that time. I’m not going to answer a hypothetical question with a set of facts that are not going to happen. And I’m not for raising taxes.

CONSTITUENT: Why?

CHABOT: Because I think taxes are plenty high as they are right now.

CONSTITUENT: But again, they’re at the lowest…

CHABOT: I’ve heard that quote thrown around and I don’t really buy that that’s the case, that they’re the lowest. I know there’s some groups that have said there are. I’m not really convinced that’s the case. There may be some people that have it, but I don’t think that’s the case.

In fact, a recent USA Today analysis shows precisely that. In the beginning of 2011, the total tax burden dropped to 23.6 percent of all income, well below the 27 percent that individuals typically paid during preceding decades. If that average taxation burden still stood, there would be $500 billion in additional revenue, cutting the budget deficit by one-third.

With the United States facing a $14 trillion deficit and millions of Americans out of work, it’s clear that Congress needs to use every tool it can to address the problem, including raising revenue. But with congressmen like Chabot casting doubt on the fact that the current tax burden is at a historical low and using that doubt to justify why we can’t have any revenue increase at all, it’s difficult to imagine that Congress will be able to overcome Republican intransigence.

ThinkProgress filed this report from Newport, New Hampshire.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)

Throughout their fight to maintain corporate tax breaks and preserve the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, Republicans have continually blamed their opponents of attempting to wage “class warfare” against the rich. Most recently, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) — himself worth more than $200 million — blasted questioners at the Iowa State Fair, saying, “There was a time in this country when we didn’t celebrate attacking people based on their success and when we didn’t go after people because they were successful.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who received Romney’s endorsement during her 2010 campaign, took up that mantle at a recent town hall. She told a questioner who asked why corporations and the wealthy were being spared while government programs that largely benefit the middle- and lower-classes were facing cuts that there are ways to balance the budget without waging “class warfare”:

AYOTTE: My point is, we can do tax reform, I think, in a way that it’s not a discussion about class warfare or this or, I think we can do it in a productive way where we look at simplifying our tax code, and we do it in a way that would actually lower rates for everyone and be fair.

Watch it:

Ayotte stuck to the GOP talking points of increasing revenues without raising tax rates, bolstering her position on the intransigence that played a major role in Standard & Poor’s downgrade of the nation’s credit rating earlier this month.

But if there is indeed a class war taking place, it looks much different than the one Ayotte described. As ThinkProgress has noted, the income gap between the richest and poorest Americans has exploded to unprecedented levels as the richest Americans have seen their income quadruple even as their tax rates halved. Corporations are also paying some of their lowest taxes in history, with many of America’s largest companies paying little-to-nothing at all. Tax dodging by corporations cost the average U.S. taxpayer $434 in 2010.

Meanwhile, 23 consecutive polls show that Americans continue to support using tax increases on the wealthy to help pay down the nation’s debt.

Since the Obama administration came into office, it has been unsuccessfully trying to wrangle conservative congressmen into cutting the $4 billion in subsidies that are doled out every year to oil companies. Time and time again, Obama and the Democrats have proposed cuts to these unwarranted taxpayer giveaways, only to be rebuffed every time.

During a town hall in Prescott, Arizona, yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) recited a list of subsidies that he would like to eliminate from the federal budget, including those for ethanol and sugar. He failed to put oil subsidies on the list, but when challenged by a constituent, he conceded “you make a very good point” and said that he’s “for looking at everything”:

He called for a moratorium on federal regulations, a cut in the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, a payroll tax holiday, a tax holiday for corporations that bring their money back to the U.S. and use it, and simplification of the tax code that gets rid of subsidies on products such as ethanol and sugar.

Two citizens said he should add oil subsidies to that list. “You make a very good point,” he told one of them. “I’m for looking at everything,” except home loan mortgage deductions.

This is not the first time that McCain’s constituents have voiced displeasure at his failure to include oil subsidies on the list of items he’d like to see on the chopping block. As Marie Diamond noted, during a town hall in Tuscon earlier this month, “someone shouted ‘oil!’ when [McCain] failed to include it in his list of subsidies that should be ended.” As recently as May, McCain voted with the vast majority of his Senate GOP caucus to preserve oil subsidies, despite having “expressed openness to the bill” that would have ended them.

Several other Republicans have reacted to outrage over oil subsidies at their town halls by simply denying that those subsidies exist at all. At least McCain is willing to admit that they’re real, but it’d be even better if he would put his money where his mouth is and work to end them.