More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Martin Lobel

Martin Lobel

Posted: April 15, 2010 12:52 PM

Newsflash: Tax Cuts Are Expenditures That Increase the Deficit

What's Your Reaction:

Cross-posted from Nieman Watchdog

Tax cuts are expenditures which increase the deficit. That simple fact, which is taught in every econ 101 course, seems to have eluded many Republicans, Tea Party members and the news media.

Tax expenditures, aka tax subsidies, special interest provisions, exemptions, deductions, credits, deferral of tax liability and preferential tax rates, mean the government collects less money that could be used to lower tax rates or provide for more accountable government spending. Although some tax expenditures can be justified on a cost benefit analysis, most cannot. Tax expenditures are not subject to the annual scrutiny appropriated funds receive and, even if they were, it would be very difficult to do a cost benefit analysis because of the lack of transparency and open ended nature of most tax expenditures. It's like signing a blank check for services, but without the ability to determine whether you are getting any services or what they're worth.

Tax expenditures cost the federal government over $1 trillion last year and the figure keeps growing faster than both mandatory and discretionary spending. That's real money, even by government standards. Yet, we see almost all Republican and some Democratic legislators calling for more tax cuts (tax expenditures) while railing against appropriated expenditures. Why? Could it be that tax expenditures are worth more for the wealthy, who fund campaigns, than for middle or lower income taxpayers who are in the lower brackets and who have seen their income decline while the rich's have increased?

This ability of the rich and powerful to get tax expenditures, which last long after any rational justification, is largely responsible for the common belief that "We have the best Congress money can buy." With oil at over $80 a barrel, does the oil industry really need about $14 billion of tax expenditures? But where are the media?

Aside from Tax Analysts, which publishes Tax Notes, and of which I am chairman (in the interests of disclosure), none of the media are covering these issues with any degree of regularity or even a modicum of sophistication. When was the last time you saw an article pointing out the hypocrisy of a politician calling for tax cuts and cuts in expenditures? As long as the media fail in their responsibility, we will have an increasing number of people seduced by false promises that by cutting taxes and appropriated funds we can cut the deficit.

If we are going to cut the deficit by cutting expenditures, the place to start is by eliminating most tax expenditures so that we can simplify the tax code, make it less economically distorting and perhaps even lower rates. Given the power of the rich and powerful, this cannot be done until the public understands the real economic issues. That won't happen until the media do their job.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 24
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CHICAGOSTYLE
01:36 PM on 04/16/2010
how about expenditures like the obscenity that are government pensions, expenses, perks and pork ? it isn't the fact that taxes need to be paid, it is that the politicians spend OUR money in such a reckless manner,,,,, and if you list out every tax and fee : federal and state income, state and municipal sales, taxes on transit, gasoline, nat gas, heating oil, cell phones, land lines, internet access, vehicle stickers, entertainment, sports, restaurants and anything else that these snakes can use to take more of our money, you would not be so flip
02:20 PM on 04/16/2010
Let's quit playing this idiotic game, OK? In 2009, discretionary spending accounted for 12% of the budget. Debt service accounted for 5%. Bush's TARP bailout cost taxpayers 4%. Military spending and entitlements accounted for 77% of the budget. People like you are picking at nits while you ignore the real problem.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:56 AM on 04/16/2010
Newsflash: you have to cut spending if you give tax breaks.
11:19 AM on 04/16/2010
Good point. The entire rationale for corporate tax breaks lies with the promise of jobs creation. Yet, overwhelming evidence that that does not happen is constantly ignored. At some point we have to realize that corporate welfare is not OK. Social welfare needs to prevail.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paolo Lim
12:38 AM on 04/16/2010
I wish we can say "GOP can't have it both ways if it wants a deficit cut." But is it true that among their mantra the only thing they have absolutely no problems spending for is defence-related items where they can borrow all they want as long as it is only on defence?

Who agrees the GOP misses this point: not everyone starts on equal footing hence the dems want to step-in to do just that? Who thinks that they advocate survival of the fittest without giving those who can't afford the opportunity to put themselves on equal footing with the "haves"
08:26 PM on 04/15/2010
Brilliant commentary. Obviously the Tea Baggers / Conservatives / Republicans need to go back to school for economics 101 class.
04:15 PM on 04/15/2010
Tax cuts are expenditures only if you start with the premise that everything is the government's to begin with.

That being said, I would be very much in favor of perhaps three flat tax rates with no deductions. However politicians will never allow that because it doesn't allow them to bestow tax relief on their buddies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wespenn56
Conservative does start with "CON"
04:43 PM on 04/15/2010
I would like 20% on everything above $20,000 / single $40,000 married, with a possible exemption for the house you live in only.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Jannsmoor
05:05 PM on 04/15/2010
Yes, we would all like that. You have to decide what government services you wish to terminate before you give the rich even more tax cuts.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Jannsmoor
05:01 PM on 04/15/2010
The point the author was trying to make is that if you give a corporation a tax break, that tax break has to be made up for somewhere else. Since the Republicans will not cut spending when they're in power, and the Democrats can't right now, because of the economy, that means someone else has to make up for the lost revenue.
03:06 PM on 04/15/2010
The real problem is a lot of Americans want a smaller government, but no politicians are willing to actually cut the size of government. Those same people often believe in supply side economics, so they see tax cuts as inevitably leading to spending cuts. As America does not require balanced budgets, the correlation between the two has been weak.

If we could have Republicans actually cutting spending to pay for tax cuts and Democrats raising taxes to pay for new spending, maybe Americans could actually see the costs of services and have honest debates about whether or not the government service is cost effective and worth spending extra in taxes to obtain. But I don't see how that will ever happen as it is far more politically popular to just spend lots of money, cut lots of taxes, and run gigantic deficits.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Jannsmoor
05:04 PM on 04/15/2010
The problem is that a lot of Americans think they want smaller government, but when it comes time to actually start cutting government programs, that means they actually have to know something about what government spends the money on. Since most people who want less government don't know what government actually provides, they don't know what to cut.
Hence the difference between the rhetoric and reality. What do you want the government to stop providing?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:20 PM on 04/15/2010
exactly - all the Tea Baggers in Florida were out there demanding INCREASED GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON THE SPACE PROGRAM, not decreased government spending - Obama is essentially privatizing development of spacecraft and they are flipping out, saying that no other government program offers as many benefits as the space program - I'm serious!

Where were they when Bush wanted to waste our money and national integrity on illegal wars of aggression which cost us trillions? Those folks making their kids hold up signs about how they are footing the bill should consider that the BushBots who lowered taxes on the rich, engaged us in 2 pointless wars and created a global economic meltdown fueled by greed created the worst possible future for those kids - one of endless war, terror, inflation, degraded infrastructure, expensive education and healthcare, and universal hatred of Americans. Where's your kid's sign about THAT future?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:41 PM on 04/15/2010
But the tea baggers WANT to cut taxes for the wealthy.... and they WANT them to have off shore tax havens...... and they DON'T want to afford education 'cause they don't need it....... and they do want to force women to have children so that our society continues to raise ignorant and arrogant future tea baggers. They DON'T want that hopey changey thing that will help so many people's lives. They just wnt to remain the suppliers of the slop for their corporate masters and overlords, and by god, this president is not going to stop them. They know their rights! They KNOW what they're fighting for......and this is it..... .you betcha!
DUSAA-1775
never moon a werewolf
09:13 PM on 04/15/2010
i am pleasantly surprised by the maturity of most of the posts on this article. Some thought and suggestions rolling in from the left and the right. The occasional blithering idiot to be sure, but that drivel can be swept up into a pile in the corner.
02:14 PM on 04/15/2010
An excellent example of the need for extensive tax reform. Get rid of the complications and just tax people a simple percentage. Then cut all the entitlements we can't afford.
Grunty1
Micro-bio this
02:45 PM on 04/15/2010
Starting with corporate funding and our bloated military budgets, right?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Jannsmoor
02:55 PM on 04/15/2010
I'm with you. Exxon made $30 Billion in profit and didn't pay a dime in federal income tax. And the mililtary is the most wasteful department in the history of mankind.
11:35 PM on 04/15/2010
Sure plenty of cuts to be made there, although I would personally start by eliminating truly useless depts like HUD, Education and Welfare.