The question that always comes up when the CBO enters the fray is, are they biased? The answer has to be 'of course they are', the federal government is run by the majority party, progressive socialists liberal Democrats, no matter who is president or controls congress.
The majority party is in control of every department of the government.
President Bush suffered during his two terms fighting the 'shadow government' that worked to thwart any proposal Bush want to do, stop any program on the war and released secret information to the press solely for the purpose of hurting his efforts.
If there was ever any question that this 'shadow government' existed, the disasters that are Benghazi, IRS attacks on Conservatives, attacks on the news media and the complete disintegration of the dept. of justice to mention just a few of the on going criminal activities of Mr Obama's administration, need wonder no longer. The progressives have come out of the shadows to work their magic by truing the entire country into Detroit.
The progressives know as long as Mr Obama is president they will have a free hand to disrupt and destroy as much of our federal government that was founder 235 years ago to form a free and prosperous nation, turning it instead into a socialist nightmare of dependence and poverty.
The bigger question may be, why is this so clear to many of us but lost on the majority that reelected Mr Obama and his ilk? Why is it that they cannot see the destruction of our way of life at the hands of the progressive socialist?
Congressional Budget Office Report: Flawed
Source: Curtis S. Dubay, "CBO Report on 'Tax Expenditures' Has It Wrong," Heritage Foundation, June 4, 2013.
June 13, 2013
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report on the distribution of tax expenditures that some are wrongly using to push for additional tax increases. This was inevitable because the report takes the wrong approach to the issue, says Curtis S. Dubay, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
The CBO misnames "tax expenditures." Congress has explicitly inserted these provisions (routinely called "loopholes") into the tax code. Some are designed to measure income properly, some to achieve a progressive tax system, and some to lower taxes. They are better referred to as "tax preferences" to stress the fact that they are intended to achieve certain goals. Nevertheless, the CBO calls these provisions "tax expenditures" (which implies that there is a meaningful relationship between actual spending and tax reduction) and explicitly compares tax preferences to spending in its report.
There is a huge moral and economic difference between the government taxing income away from citizens and then spending it, and allowing income earners to keep their money by reducing taxes through tax preferences.
The finding in the CBO report that some are using to make the case for new tax hikes is that high-income taxpayers receive the most benefit from the tax preferences the CBO considered in its analysis.
There is broad agreement that the country needs fundamental tax reform. However, by distorting the debate, this CBO report will hamper their efforts. Liberals will use it to argue for tax increases on the rich by eliminating their tax preferences without including pro-growth and revenue-neutral changes to the tax code. CBO analysis should be an asset, not a liability, when it comes to freeing the economy from the burdensome tax code.
The CBO misnames "tax expenditures." Congress has explicitly inserted these provisions (routinely called "loopholes") into the tax code. Some are designed to measure income properly, some to achieve a progressive tax system, and some to lower taxes. They are better referred to as "tax preferences" to stress the fact that they are intended to achieve certain goals. Nevertheless, the CBO calls these provisions "tax expenditures" (which implies that there is a meaningful relationship between actual spending and tax reduction) and explicitly compares tax preferences to spending in its report.
There is a huge moral and economic difference between the government taxing income away from citizens and then spending it, and allowing income earners to keep their money by reducing taxes through tax preferences.
The finding in the CBO report that some are using to make the case for new tax hikes is that high-income taxpayers receive the most benefit from the tax preferences the CBO considered in its analysis.
- An in-depth CBO report was not necessary to reach that conclusion, because it is wholly unsurprising. Of course tax preferences benefit high-income taxpayers more, because high-income taxpayers pay the lion's share of the tax burden.
- It is also self-evident because it is primarily upper-middle-income taxpayers who itemize their deductions.
- Naturally, policies that reduce taxes lower the tax bills of those taxpayers who otherwise pay the most tax.
There is broad agreement that the country needs fundamental tax reform. However, by distorting the debate, this CBO report will hamper their efforts. Liberals will use it to argue for tax increases on the rich by eliminating their tax preferences without including pro-growth and revenue-neutral changes to the tax code. CBO analysis should be an asset, not a liability, when it comes to freeing the economy from the burdensome tax code.
No comments:
Post a Comment