The Washington Post

The GOP’s ideologically incoherent approach to the debt limit debate

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) says he won't consider cutting tax deductions, loopholes and other exemptions written into the tax code that benefit favored taxpayers, unless taxes are also reduced elsewhere. The idea is that anything that raises federal revenue must be a tax increase, even if it’s cutting these “tax expenditures.” And Cantor’s current position seems to be that he is willing to refuse a truly sweet debt deal for Republicans based on this logic. This isn’t just bad policy. It's ideologically incoherent.

(Charles Dharapak/AP)

Yet, now, Republicans such as Cantor turn around and claim that this tax expenditure charade is built on high principle, not political gimmickry, even though they would do more to reduce government’s influence over economic activity by revoking tax expenditures and putting the savings toward debt reduction, not by defending them. So much for small government.

The debate should be a mirror image of what we are having now. Those benefiting from the special treatment and their allies should have to demonstrate why they deserve it, instead of blasting any effort to revoke their benefits as an economy-killing tax increase. Republicans should be eager to eliminate the rampant inefficiency in the tax code, not demanding concessions for doing so.

Don’t believe me? Why not take the word, then, of the most revered living conservative economist, Martin Feldstein, who has made the case to cut tax expenditures over, and over and over again.

Cantor has also argued that getting rid of tax expenditures only produces a small amount of revenue. That's true — if you limit yourself to cutting minor tax expenditures. Feldstein points out that tax expenditures are the largest form of non-defense spending in the budget, other than Medicare and Social Security. President Obama and congressional Republicans aren’t really going after the big ones, which include backdoor taxpayer subsidies of homeowners and of America’s bizarre system of employer-sponsored health care. These are popular. And just the sorts of things you’d want to curtail if you were serious about fairer, leaner, more efficient government.

Stephen Stromberg is a Post editorial writer. He specializes in domestic policy, including energy, the environment, legal affairs and public health.


Success! Check your inbox for details. You might also like:

Please enter a valid email address

See all newsletters

Show Comments
Most Read


Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Your Three. Video curated for you.