Will the Baucus-Hatch plan trigger tax reform? Probably not.

Senators Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Orrin hatch (R-Utah) are pushing forward a blank slate rewrite plan, but Gleckman says they are off target. Tax reform will come with a specific set of rates and limited preferences — not a blank slate, Gleckman argues.

Charles Dharapak/AP/File
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), accompanied by the committee's ranking Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) speaks in Washington, D.C. on May 21, 2013. Gleckman is skeptical the blank slate plan Baucus and Hatch have proposed will push forward tax reform.

Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the chairman and senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, tried to jump-start the drive towards tax reform today with what they call a blank slate rewrite plan. Trouble is, it is not exactly a plan. And it isn’t quite a blank slate.

Their idea is to get senators to tell them by July 26 which tax preferences are worth keeping and which should be scrapped. So Baucus and Hatch adopted a zero-base budgeting approach.

In a letter to fellow senators, they said they plan to start their reform exercise by assuming that nearly all tax preferences are repealed. They’d then restore those that meet at least one of three tests: “(1) They help grow the economy, (2) make the tax code fairer, or (3) effectively promote other policy objectives.”

Unfortunately, the first two are in the eye of the beholder and the third, well, I have no idea what the third means.

I do know their plan will be a massive summer windfall for lobbyists and trade groups that are already gearing up to find senators to defend their tax subsidies (cell service on the Vineyard is dicey but it will have to do). Within an hour of the release of the Baucus-Hatch letter, I was getting calls and emails defending various tax breaks.  

Mortgage interest deduction? Well, of course it helps grow the economy. Charitable deduction? What could be more fair? Special deductions to promote U.S. manufacturing? That’s got to be an “other” policy objective.

And it won’t be hard for those lobbyists to find senators willing to defend these preferences. What price would they pay for doing so? 

Baucus and Hatch make their job even tougher by acknowledging in their letter that “some existing tax expenditures should be preserved in some form.” They don’t say which ones (and may not even agree on the list) but they are signaling that cleaning out the code may not be quite so easy. 

Their zero-based budget strategy isn’t new. Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of President Obama’s ill-fated fiscal commission, engaged in the same exercise back in 2010.

But Bowles and Simpson started with an overarching goal: They wanted to generate about $1 trillion in new revenues over 10 years to go along with about $2 trillion in non-interest spending reductions, and they wanted to reduce tax preferences enough to also buy some politically attractive rate cuts. In the end, even they could only come up with a set of alternative tax reform scenarios rather than a single concrete proposal.

Baucus and Hatch (and House Ways & Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI)) have no such bottom-line plan. They can’t agree on whether tax reform should generate any new revenue at all. As a result, they are asking senators to pitch various tax expenditures in a vacuum.

Take one example of why this is so hard: A lawmaker might be willing to tax capital gains at ordinary income rates if the top rate is cut to, say, 25 percent. She might not be so willing if the top rate is going to be 35 percent.

Baucus is scrambling to build some momentum behind reform before he retires from Congress in 18 months. And he knows he’s got less time than that with the congressional campaign season likely to start in a year.

Baucus is in a tough spot, and any reform effort faces severe constraints in today’s political environment. But he needs to start with a plan, not a blank slate.  A chairman’s mark with a specific set of rates and limited preferences would focus the Senate’s collective mind. But this isn’t that.    

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.