Bailout Bill: No Such Thing as a “Tax Earmark”


Center-Right, fiscal conservative movement mini-fracture over misleading term

So…recently there has been some discussion about “tax earmarks” and the Senate “bailout” package.

First of all, (must restrain the cursing), what in the world is a “tax earmark”? Who ever heard of such a term. That is as confusing as Stephen Colbert pretending to be a conservative; it makes my head spin!

This has sent a mini-fracture through some parts of the center-right, fiscal conservative movement.

But never-fear, the Taxplaya himself is setting the record stratight here, here, here and here. And now here, on RedState.

Rich Lowry and others are calling tax cuts in the Senate bailout package “earmarks” today.

Calling tax cuts “earmarks” is very unhelpful and completely wrong from a fiscal conservative perspective. There is no such thing as a “tax earmark.” Earmarks are spending. There are appropriations earmarks. There are authorization earmarks. There are no “tax earmarks.” To claim that there are puts tax deductions and credits (which is what we’re talking about here) on the same par as bridges to nowhere. Was the creation of HSAs a “tax earmark?” How about the home mortgage interest deduction? One might call for lowering the rates and broadening the base, but we should not fall into the trap of equating tax cuts and spending increases. That’s how some Senate Republicans got in such massive trouble over health care last year and energy this year vis-à-vis taxes.

This is precisely the same logic that Treasury’s Stanley S. Surrey used in the 1960s to create the “tax expenditure” concept. This faulty doctrine treats tax exclusions, adjustments, deductions, and credits as if they were the same as a federal appropriation. They are not. They might not be ideal tax policy, but they are federal revenue reductions—not budget increases.

I would exempt from my statement the outlay effects of refundable tax credits. Those are, indeed, spending and could rightly be sullied with the term “earmark.”

It’s this confusion between tax cuts and spending increases that I’ve found is the number one cause of well-meaning offices slipping into Taxpayer Protection Pledge violations. When I see things communicated that would contribute to this confusion, I try to jump all over it.

And that concludes today’s lesson on how not to make up silly words like “tax earmark”. Next you’re going to tell me that “price gouging” actually occurs in a free market, yeah, right.

Any questions class?


Category: , , , , ,

RSS feed

13 Comments Leave a comment

Chill,someone made up "earmark" didn't they n/t

Maggie_in_Indiana (Diary) Wednesday, October 1st at 1:22PM EST (link)

n/t

Maggie in Indiana

 

Then why won't they call it what it is in

Danielle Davis (ocleverone) (Diary) Wednesday, October 1st at 1:31PM EST (link)

the bailout bill – unnecessary expenditure of the taxpayer’s money.

To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it. — Margaret Thatcher

 

Brian, there is a large contingent that want this legislation to fail

Dave_in_Fla (Diary) Wednesday, October 1st at 1:31PM EST (link)

They are going to latch onto any rationale.

I considered writing something like this when I saw Erick’s post, then decided it wasn’t worth it. No one is listening any longer.

I just hope that next week, if this legislation has passed, we don’t have wails of “I refuse to vote for McCain now!”. If we do, then the Democrat strategy will have worked to perfection.

It is already shaping up to be an electoral tactic to rival the Mark Foley disaster in 2006.

“If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country.” – Joe McCarthy

Making up the word "earmark"

ConservativeDC Wednesday, October 1st at 1:54PM EST (link)

Someone made up the word “earmark.” They also gave it a definition–wasteful, pork barrel spending.

“Tax earmark” is a non-sensical phrase that means nothing.

Yes It Is

ConservativeDC Wednesday, October 1st at 1:54PM EST (link)

But that’s separate from the lunacy of the term “tax earmark.”

They?

ConservativeDC Wednesday, October 1st at 1:55PM EST (link)

For the record, ATR has not endorsed this bailout package. We’re clearing up a very bad messaging mistake some have made.

 
 
 
 

National debt is a tax!

AskMeLater (Diary) Wednesday, October 1st at 2:39PM EST (link)

All national debt is paid through taxes. Tax cuts without spending cuts causes more debt. Which will be paid by the taxpayer one way or another.

Think of it as deferred payment. They are going to let you keep a little bit of your money now (how nice of them). You’ll pay interest for years. Until a Democrat gets elected. He/She, along with a Democratic Congress, decides to simultaneously raise taxes and spend more taxpayer money on socialist programs that will create more debt in the future.

The position being taken is not to be mistaken
For attempted education or righteous accusation
Only a description just an observation of the pitiful
Condition of our degeneration

Maybe You Should Go to "The Next Left"

ConservativeDC Wednesday, October 1st at 2:47PM EST (link)

Because that Keynesian thinking is definitely in the Right’s past.

So it’s all the same, huh? Hillarycare and the employer health exclusion? Section 8 housing and the mortgage interest deduction? Those sets of things each have the same effect?

Wrong. One reduces government revenue. The other increases government spending. As conservatives, we like the former and abhor the latter. They’re not the same.

 
 

Ok, semantics aside, who inserted these provisions in the bailout bill?

stang (Diary) Wednesday, October 1st at 2:56PM EST (link)

Can anyone give me a specific answer to this question?

“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.”

John Locke

Extender Provisions

ConservativeDC Wednesday, October 1st at 3:14PM EST (link)

These passed the Senate a few months back. They’re the same extenders package (plus a few new extenders) that Congress votes on every year or so.

I'm aware of that. The question still stands unanswered.

stang (Diary) Wednesday, October 1st at 3:37PM EST (link)

Whoever inserted them is getting a second bite at the apple under the cover of the bailout. They were wrong then and they’re wrong to be included in this now.

“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.”

John Locke

Senate procedure

Sean Hackbarth (Diary) Wednesday, October 1st at 6:38PM EST (link)

Because of Senate procedures they need a bill to add the rescue package to. There’s already bipartisan support for the mental health bill so they are using that and adding the tax extender bill passed 93-2 last week. It’s not like anyone is sneaking anything past voters. It’s just a method to get the Senate to vote on the bill.

Whatever im done fighting for the

Xraxnd_Caracarn Wednesday, October 1st at 9:13PM EST (link)

^*&^%$% I will accually show up to vote but will skip him, gotta try to kill the property tax increases the city is trying to sneak thru.

He had a chance to live up to his retoric but again failed– epic fail even.

250k fdic insurance like it freeking matters.

I’m just plain ill both of these useless jerks are gonna && this country raw. But it will all be for our own good — puke.