海角大神

The trimming the cost of a bill intended to continue expiring tax cuts鈥搕he so-called 鈥渆xtenders鈥� bill. Trouble is, they鈥檙e not willing to actually trim the actual 鈥渆xtenders.鈥�

In fact, the 鈥渆xtenders鈥� are such legislatively-sacred cows that they are used as a vehicle for other policies that are (oddly) not considered as sacred鈥搇ike extension of unemployment benefits or even extension of the so-called 鈥渄oc fix.鈥�

What the Senate is tinkering with right now are these hitch-a-ride attachments to the extenders bill and the various revenue offsets designed especially to help pay for the extenders. (Note that unemployment benefits would qualify as 鈥渆mergency spending鈥� and hence are allowed to increase the deficit, and the 鈥渄oc fix鈥� is explicitly exempted from deficit-neutral/鈥漃AYGO鈥� requirements under the now-statutory PAYGO law.)

So the House and Senate have both complained that extending the extenders is 鈥渢oo expensive.鈥� But both the House and the Senate have yet to contemplate this: if we鈥檙e not willing to put up with the offsets required to pay for these tax extenders, then maybe this tells us these tax extenders are not worth their cost!

My boss this week on Concord鈥檚 Tabulation blog (emphasis added):

Beyond economic efficiency and political cover there are more fundamental questions. Do the extenders really accomplish their goals and are those goals worth the cost? No one really knows because no one ever asks.

The only question that comes up with regard to the extenders is how they can be offset to comply with the pay-as-you-go law. That鈥檚 an important consideration 鈥� it is certainly better to have paid for waste than unpaid for waste 鈥� but it ignores the question of whether the extenders are wasteful to begin with.

As Congress is forced to dig deeper into its bag of tricks to pay for the extenders, this exercise is prompting even some in the business community to ask whether the extenders are really worth the trouble. For example, the current bills use almost $60 billion of permanent tax increases to cover just a one-year extension of the extenders. It will require even deeper offsets in the years ahead.

Before going through this painful exercise, it would be best to look more closely at the extenders. While most of them have a laudable purpose, such as encouraging investments in new technologies or in economically distressed areas, Congress has not taken the time to examine whether they have been successful enough to justify raising taxes elsewhere or cutting other spending programs.

I think we鈥檙e now seeing some 鈥渞evealed preference鈥� in Congress on this issue. Perhaps these tax extenders aren鈥檛 all 鈥済ood enough鈥� to justify the offsets Congress clearly isn鈥檛 willing to make.

The trouble is, not being willing to pay for things hasn鈥檛 stopped Congress from continuing to spend on them, and like other 鈥渆ntitlements鈥� that seem impossible to 鈥渢rim鈥� once we鈥檝e been promised them, these 鈥渢ax expenditures鈥� are just like a whole bunch of mini entitlement programs that grow monstrous and uncontrollable over time. (Like the monstrous hair extensions from the , shown above鈥� in case you were wondering. Talk about 鈥渦nruly鈥� hair鈥�)

[UPDATE 10:30 pm: By the way, we re-live this every year, and nothing ever changes--as my post from two years ago indicates. If you've never read my story of the House Ways and Means member who years ago very plainly explained to me why these extenders must continually be extended (instead of being made permanent or allowed to expire), check it out.]

.

------------------------------

海角大神 has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.