It's time for Grover to update his tax pledge in a way that supports fundamental tax reform

Ryan Streeter

The Examiner's editorial today on Grover Norquist's ATR tax pledge is worth highlighting in light of the public spat-turned-brawl between Norquist and Tom Coburn.

The editors' point is threefold:

1. ATR's pledge has done a good job getting members of Congress to oppose tax hikes.
2. The pledge commits members to oppose removing deductions and credits without an offset provided by lower taxes.
3. But the pledge has failed on the 2nd point by not opposing new credits and deductions, which have exploded since ATR was founded (14,400 tax code amendments have been added since).

 The editors write:

Raising rates is not the only way government can "control one's life" through taxes. Credits for electric cars, solar panels, and first-time home buyers all use government power to influence citizen behavior. How are they any morally different than higher income tax rates? Worse, without a credit/deduction opposition plank, the pledge actually undermines real tax reform. Why should a senator fight for lower tax rates for everyone when he can tailor a tax deduction just for the businesses in his state? Eliminating tax credits and deductions is just as difficult as eliminating government spending programs.

The editors are right that eliminating the deductions will be tough. Most tax code provisions are essentially government programs run through the IRS rather than the government agencies we typically think of as the bureaucratic homes of federal spending.

This is where Norquist's acerbic critiques of Coburn fall flat. ATR has done very little to oppose the explosive growth of deductions, credits, and exemptions over the past 20 years. If eliminating a wasteful teacher training program at the Department of Education doesn't have to be offset by a tax cut, should we really treat the elimantion of an ethanol subsidy in the tax code any differently? Doing so, at least, shouldn't be called a "tax hike."

Paul Ryan's budget calls for a simpler code in a way that is consistent with the ATR pledge - that is, offsetting the elimination of credits with lower rates. That's the way to go, for sure. Let's hope we can get there. But let's not defend every last deduction and credit in the tax code along the way if we end up with reforms that are less than perfect.