Who Elected Grover Norquist?

I find myself in agreement with no less a light than James Clyburn, Commy-SC, who asks the question: "How can eliminating a loophole be considered a tax increase?" How indeed? Loopholes and set-asides, by their very definition, benefit only very narrow slices of the American economy. And usually, only a very narrow slice of the American economy willing to hire very expensive lobbyists to go to Capitol Hill and grab our elected officials by the lapels.

The loophole that so offends Obama, for instance, is with regard to corporate jets. What's up with that? Accelerated depreciation was granted to the owners of corporate jets that allows them to write off the entire value of their private fleets in five years as opposed to the traditional seven years. A tiny industrial segment (manufacturers of private aircraft) and a large and important democrat constituency (trial lawyers) are the beneficiaries who come to mind first. [In all candor, Obama wants you to hate rich corporate officers first...] Despite Speaker Boehner's habit of holding press conferences to respond to Obama's press conferences, it apparently never occurred to Boehner to ask: "If corporate jet depreciation is such a drain on national revenues and such an affront to the average American, why did you include the accelerated depreciation on corporate jets in your failed stimulus program?". But that's just me. Believe me, if this accelerated depreciation were rescinded retroactively, the revenue wouldn't cover one day's debt service on the deficit.

What's more, a recent economic study (I can document it but do not have the details at my fingertips) showed that the thirteen states that showed the highest deduction on the federal income taxes of individuals due to state and local income taxes and also on mortgage interest deductions all voted for Obama in 2008. The eight states that showed the lowest deductions (including hapless WV) all voted for McCain in that same year. The net effect is that poorer states are subsidizing richer states with fat, unbalanced budgets and overwhelming pension debt obligations. But since the beneficiaries are the democrat rich, don't look for any reform in this area. This reform would actually make a dent (especially over time) in the deficit.

What does this have to do with Grover Norquist? Recently, Mr. Norquist criticized Tom Coburn, R-OK, for stating his opinion that the ethanol subsidies are wrong-headed and should be scrapped. Norquist's criticism was irrational and prurient and I cannot reproduce it here out of respect for your families. The ethanol subsidies consist of imposing duties on foreign-produced ethanol imported into the US and generous tax breaks for domestic ethanol producers. Ethanol does not burn as cleanly or efficiently as gasoline and the diversion of corn for ethanol production has caused price increases in our foodstocks. It is bad policy.

Norquist's criticism originates with his tax pledge wherein he asks Congressmen and women to sign a pledge to 1) not raise any taxes and 2) oppose the elimination of any loophole so long as there is not a commensurate decrease in tax rates. I cannot blame any candidate or incumbent who signed the pledge. On the face of it, it is harmless enough. But in practice, it gives this non-elected shadow-operator power over our elected officials. I might have a little more sympathy for Grover Norquist if he put an equal amount of energy into getting pledges signed to reduce spending. That's where the real problem is - that, and the bagmen from K Street.

I don't want us to raise taxes. I want us to pay our own way so that the staggering debt obligations are not put onto our children and grandchildren in the biggest "taxation without representation" outrage of the ages.

It sounds like Norquist is having a fit over the wrong tax. I favor eliminating most, if not all subsidies. Elminating a subsidy is not the same as raising taxes.

Where I would like to see a little more time and attention focused is on reducing the outrageous and counter-productive repatriation tax. If a housewife from Leon, West Virginia can understand that 7 or 6 or even 5% of SOMETHING is so much better than 35% of NOTHING (aside from all the other obvious economic benefits) how long do you figure it will take the Mensa candidates on Capitol Hill to figure it out?

Since it took them more than two years to censure Charlie Rangel you can figure they got lots of free time to dream up schemes to stifle our economy.