Dave Camp’s Plan for the Expired Tax Provisions: An Almost-Good Idea

By :: March 25th, 2014

House Ways & Means Committee Chair Dave Camp (R-MI) has a plan for what to do with scores of now-expired tax subsidies that are sitting in Congress’ lap. He wants to review each one on its merits and either make it permanent or (by implication at least) kill it. Camp is on to something, although his strategy would have some very important—though complicated and troubling-- political and fiscal consequences.

Camp’s strategy puts him at odds with Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden (D-OR), who wants Congress to quickly restore all the expired provisions for a year or so. And Camp’s schedule, which anticipates a long round of hearings and mark-ups, pretty much guarantees that Congress won’t act on these mostly business subsidies before the November elections.

I’m mostly with Camp on this one. My TPC colleague Donald Marron cleverly—and accurately—refers to the temporary provisions as tax expirers, not tax extenders. In fact, they've been off the books since last Dec. 31(making them the tax expired, as it were). And Congress ought to treat each just like any proposal for a new tax cut. Hold a hearing, decide whether it passes equity and efficiency tests, and pay for it.

Camp promises to do most of that—except for the all-important pay-for-it part. No promises there. And that’s where he and I part company.

By making these subsidies permanent, Camp would put all the restored tax breaks in the long-term budget baseline. The cost of doing so would be dramatic—roughly $900 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Research Service. Permanently restoring some of these subsidies would make the real long-term fiscal price transparent, but only if Camp offsets the cost with specific tax increases or spending cuts.

This is especially important because it has huge implications for tax reform. In effect, it would make a big chunk of that $900 billion available to pay for tax rate cuts. To see how, let’s walk through the intricacies of budget scoring.

For decades, lawmakers manipulated the system by continuing these tax breaks one year at a time--and only occasionally paying for them. Because the Joint Committee on Taxation provides a 10-year score for all legislation, lawmakers could spread the cost of a one-year extension over a decade, making it seem far cheaper than it really was.

This bit of legerdemain has been critical for pols who wanted to avoid paying for the tax cuts. After all, it is a lot easier to explain away adding $50 billion to the deficit over 10 years (the cost of restoring the expired provisions for one year only) than adding $900 billion (the cost of resurrecting all the same breaks for a decade). And, of course, they’ve done this year-after-year.

But making the tax cuts permanent would turn this practice on its head. If you want to do broad-based tax reform, as Camp does, you need the full 10-year cost of these subsidies in the baseline. Why? Because when you need to pay for tax rate cuts, you’ve got up to $900 billion (depending on which cuts are made permanent) instead of a mere $50 billion. Think of it as fattening a pig before you slaughter it.

But Congress still has to pay for restoring those tax cuts. Rolling them into the long-term baseline does not make their cost disappear. We have to borrow the same $900 billion to pay for them.

Making some of these tax breaks permanent would have significant consequences. The folks at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget took a close look yesterday at one—a measure that allows firms to take very generous first year tax deductions for the cost of new plant or equipment. This was supposed to be a temporary tax break aimed at stimulating the economy after the Great Recession. But even though many firms are swimming in cash and business investment is strong, lawmakers want to bring back this “bonus depreciation.”

A one year restoration would add about $5 billion to the 10-year deficit. But CRFB estimates that making it permanent would add $300 billion in red ink over 10 years.

Camp is right to put the real 10-year cost of these tax preferences in the budget baseline. But Congress’s review of their merits needs to be more than perfunctory. And any restoration of these subsidies needs to be paid for. Doing any less would merely substitute one budget gimmick for another.

 

 

13Comments

  1. Eugene Patrick Devany  ::  8:27 pm on March 25th, 2014:

    A review of the tax extenders is a good idea. All should be removed from the tax code and Those that pass muster should be converted to spending programs and reviewed each year with the budget.

  2. Michael Bindner  ::  3:27 am on March 26th, 2014:

    The cynical (myself among them) would say that this is the ultimate shake-down. Indeed, if this exercise means one is permanently in or permanently out – the stakes for throwing money the leadership’s way (and they are likely more desparate than they let on publicly) are high as well.

    The less cynical interpretation is that we might as well enact some or all of these permanently instead of pretending not to each year. If we are simply honest about these provisions being permanent in essence then we can end this annual publicity stunt – albeit with another one.

    As far as tax reform – it won’t happen and should not short of the adoption of a consumption tax with the raising of the standard deduction in the income tax to $100,000 for joint or widowed filers, with businesses paying the VAT and all of the business extenders going away (or not) depending on whether they help the economy. Of course, more breaks mean higher rates – even and indeed especially if we do the VAT on a regional basis (which would require an Amendment to the Constitution). The think that would make reform most worthwhile would be a refundable child tax credit of $12,000 per year per child, payable with wages as an offset to the VAT or VAT-like net business receipts tax. If we ever want to solve our demographic issues, more children with a middle class life style are a must.

  3. Michael Bindner  ::  3:32 am on March 26th, 2014:

    412 Precondition Failed on Facebook.

  4. Tax Roundup, 3/26/14: Using Bitcoins regularly will get you a really long Form 8949. And: underpants! « Roth & Company, P.C  ::  9:30 am on March 26th, 2014:

    […] Howard Gleckman, Dave Camp’s Plan for the Expired Tax Provisions: An Almost-Good Idea (TaxVox) […]

  5. Taxes: On Cuts, Sins, and Severance | Collins Consulting Service  ::  4:30 am on March 27th, 2014:

    […] them. He wants his panel to decide whether each should be permanent or killed on its merits—an “almost good idea” that, in Congress’ hands, might be perfunctory at best, and not paid for at […]

  6. Taxes: On Cuts, Sins, and Severance  ::  2:02 am on March 28th, 2014:

    […] them. He wants his panel to decide whether each should be permanent or killed on its merits—an “almost good idea” that, in Congress’ hands, might be perfunctory at best, and not paid for at […]

  7. Congress Passes Up Yet Another Opportunity to Reconsider Tax Giveaways  ::  8:06 pm on April 3rd, 2014:

    […] neither be allowed to be extended en masse so long as they’re paid for (as some commentators have called for), nor should they be extended and indiscriminately be allowed to add to the deficit. Instead, those […]

  8. Congress Passes Up Yet Another Opportunity to Reconsider Tax Giveaways | The Socialist  ::  8:16 pm on April 3rd, 2014:

    […] neither be allowed to be extended en masse so long as they’re paid for (as some commentators have called for), nor should they be extended and indiscriminately be allowed to add to the deficit. Instead, those […]

  9. Why Most Tax Extenders Should Not Be Permanent  ::  2:01 am on April 6th, 2014:

    […] as my colleague Howard Gleckman suggests, we need to rigorously examine the merits of each one. But after paring out those we don’t want, […]

  10. Out of Committee, Across the Globe, and Due West  ::  2:02 am on April 9th, 2014:

    […] hearing tomorrow will explore whether it’s better policy to make such breaks permanent. TPC’s Howard Gleckman and Gene Steuerle have differing […]

  11. Find your Attorneys and Lawyers » The Tax Extenders: Yes, Virginia, They Really Are Tax Cuts  ::  4:08 pm on May 1st, 2014:

    […] can argue about whether the better pro-growth policy is to restore them or leave them for dead, but not about […]

  12. Die Steuer-Ergänzungen: Ja Virginia, sind sie wirklich Steuersenkungen – Nachrichten Heute Deutschland | Nachrichten Heute Deutschland  ::  5:22 pm on May 1st, 2014:

    […] können über argumentieren, ob die bessere Prowachstum Politik, sie wieder herzustellen oder sie für Tote zu lassen ist, aber […]

  13. business owner  ::  2:55 pm on July 26th, 2014:

    My brother recommended I may like this web site. He was once totally right.
    This submit actually made my day. You cann’t consider simply how a lot time I had spent for this info!
    Thanks!