Commentaries
|
 By Any Reasonable Standard De-Fanging the Special InterestsHeaven help any politician who honestly attempts to bring the deficit under control. Listen Now | Download
By any reasonable standard, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma is one of the most conservative members of the United States Senate. His anti-big government credentials are unimpeachable. While his Senate colleagues were willing to look the other way regarding the infamous “bridge to nowhere” and other monuments of excess, Coburn opposed earmarks. He lost, but he made it clear that he heard the “rumble” made by “hard-working Americans... getting increasingly angry with out-of-control government spending, waste, fraud, and abuse.” This is why I can’t overlook the outrageous efforts being made to impugn his commitment to fiscal responsibility and his personal integrity. Coburn, you see, is part of the Gang of Six -- three Democrats and three Republicans working to find a workable solution to the nation’s deficit. Everything is on the table as it has to be. Any solution needs to look at both spending cuts and increased revenue. But you can increase revenue not only by raising taxes. You can eliminate tax loopholes, or a combination of both. On Meet the Press, Senator Coburn stated his preference: “taking away tax credits, lowering the tax rate” and economic growth “that will actually increase the revenues to the federal government.” What kind of credits does he have in mind? One example is the now-infamous ethanol tax credit which costs the taxpayers $6 billion a year. It primarily benefits a few agro-business giants, and its real-world result is higher on food prices, not energy independence. He has also proposed limiting the mortgage interest deduction on mortgages more than $500,000. By some estimates, the various tax breaks and loopholes in the Internal Revenue Code amount to $1 trillion a year. The vast majority of these measures have two things in common: They are staunchly defended by the special interests who benefit from them, and they make taxes higher than they otherwise would be for the rest of us ordinary Americans. For having the gall to state the morally and fiscally obvious, Coburn was accused of lying to his constituents by super-lobbyist Grover Norquist. In Norquist’s worldview, closing a loophole, no matter how egregious (like hundreds of billions in corporate welfare), is the same as raising tax rates. Anything that results in a net increase in government revenues, even if middle-class taxpayers in Peoria wind up paying less in taxes, is a violation of Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge.” And woe to any conservative politician who doesn’t see things Norquist’s way. That raises two questions: Which “taxpayers” are Norquist and company out to protect? Agro-business giants, or the ordinary citizens? The second question is: Who is serious about reducing the deficit and not saddling our children and grandchildren with an unforgivable, immoral legacy of debt? The six Senators, Coburn among them, or those like Norquist, whose only concern is maintaining the unsustainable and shameful tax status quo? Folks, it is time to get serious, to decide what it is we want government to do and how we fairly pay the bill for it. That will demand a passion for the common good on both sides of the aisle. Coburn and the Gang of Six, even in the face of savage opposition, are setting a good example, showing the courage to do the right thing. Further Reading and Information
Tax Breaks and Loopholes that Cost Us $1 Trillion a Year Have Staunch DefendersEdmund L. Andrews and Lori Montgomery | The Washington Post | May 02, 2011 Tom Coburn Traps Grover Norquist Jonathan Chait | The New Republic | March 30, 2011 Negative on the Deficit Historic Opportunity |
Discover more: Search our family of websites.
PRINT
RSS
Comments:
I like your writing style and ability to make sense of an array of varied different topics. I do however, somewhat disagree somewhat with your article By Any Reasonable Standard, May 5, 2011. First of all, describing any type of tax reduction using the term “costs the taxpayers x number of dollars” follows along with the liberals doublespeak way of thinking that all money belongs to the government. Tax cuts are not a cost to the government (or the people). Second, any increase in taxes, either by direct increase in rates or by reducing tax deductions or exemptions, will eventually make it way back to consumers. I do, however, strongly believe we need to simplify taxes and get the government out of social engineering by way of tax modification.
In regards to the tax credit to the agro business, I am opposed to it, but the real problem is the requirement to use ethanol. I understand that ethanol use actual increases oil usage due to the farming and transportation involved, not to mention the increased cost of food due to a higher demand for corn. Without the subsidies, the price of ethanol would be higher. No matter how you look at it, the consumers pay a higher cost, either at the pump or in taxes.
I also think that the tax system is incredibly wasteful. Businesses spend millions on calculating taxes, maintaining records, making payoffs (I mean donations) to politicians or advocacy groups to obtain advantageous tax treatment. I’d like to see the elimination of all Federal taxes on businesses. We the consumers pay it anyway, one way or another. Taxes on businesses create a greater burden on the poor who pay those taxes and the administrative burden via higher food, utility and consumer product purchases.
God Bless and keep up the good work.