On Budget Conference Committee, Even Small Proposals Generate Arguments

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 29: House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) listens to testimony from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Marilyn Tavenner during a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee in the Longworth House Office Building October 29, 2013 in Washington, DC. In the wake of the troubled launch of the Healthcare.gov website, Tavenner testified about the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
National Journal
Sarah Mimms
See more stories about...
Sarah Mimms
Nov. 25, 2013, 12:59 p.m.

Both Re­pub­lic­ans and Demo­crats on the budget con­fer­ence com­mit­tee agree that if the pan­el reaches an agree­ment at all, it is likely to be a small one. And so far, they’re not kid­ding.

One of the few ideas to leak out of the com­mit­tee in­volves user fees, the small costs that the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment tacks onto activ­it­ies ran­ging from com­mer­cial air­plane flights to duck hunt­ing.

The fees are of­ten just a couple of dol­lars per trans­ac­tion — the es­sence of small budget­ing tools — yet even that is gen­er­at­ing some ar­gu­ment.

As the com­mit­tee con­tin­ues to mull a deal that would fund the gov­ern­ment for the rest of fisc­al year 2014 and po­ten­tially fisc­al year 2015 as well, Demo­crats in­sist that new rev­en­ues must be a part of any deal. While Rep. Paul Ry­an of Wis­con­sin, the pan­el’s Re­pub­lic­an co­chair­man, in­sists he will not con­sider any deal that raises taxes, he has shown an open­ness to in­creas­ing user fees and find­ing non-tax rev­en­ues as a po­ten­tial area for com­prom­ise.

But the pro­pos­als have drawn cri­ti­cism al­most from the start. Some say that rais­ing user fees is just a tax in­crease by an­oth­er name. Oth­ers say the fees won’t be enough to make up for the kinds of deep spend­ing cuts Re­pub­lic­ans want.

Take for ex­ample, a pro­posed $5 fee for air­line pas­sen­gers that was in­cluded in both Pres­id­ent Obama’s budget pro­pos­al and the House Re­pub­lic­ans’ spend­ing plan for FY2014.

Un­der cur­rent law, air­line pas­sen­gers already pay a $2.50 Trans­port­a­tion Se­cur­ity Ad­min­is­tra­tion fee every time they board a plane, up to a max­im­um of $5 per trip. The White House has pro­posed a $5 flat charge for each one-way trip, that would in­crease by 50 cents every year un­til 2019, when it would cap out at $7.50. The Of­fice of Man­age­ment and Budget es­tim­ates that such a change would bring in an ad­di­tion­al $25.9 bil­lion over 10 years, which would be split to cov­er costs for the TSA and po­ten­tially re­duce the de­fi­cit by $18 bil­lion.

That’s where the plan earns cri­ti­cism from tax-fair­ness groups. User fees are in­ten­ded to take funds from the be­ne­fi­ciar­ies of a spe­cif­ic ser­vice and use the money to pay for that ser­vice. The money taken from air­line cus­tom­ers and put in­to the gen­er­al fund may not ne­ces­sar­ily be­ne­fit the fre­quent fli­ers that paid for it. That’s what Tax­pay­ers for Com­mon Sense Vice Pres­id­ent Steve El­lis calls a “gim­mick.”

“When you start gen­er­at­ing rev­en­ue from these and put­ting it some­where else, it be­comes a lot more like a tax,” El­lis said.

Lob­by­ists for the avi­ation in­dustry have pushed back hard on the pro­pos­al, ar­guing that even the re­in­vest­ment in TSA fund­ing does not qual­i­fy the charge as a user fee. The fee be­ne­fits a fed­er­al pro­gram, they ar­gue, while po­ten­tially cost­ing them cus­tom­ers. “Amer­ica’s air­ports think that avi­ation is a na­tion­al de­fense func­tion and it should be fun­ded as such,” said George Kele­men, a spokes­per­son for Air­ports Coun­cil In­ter­na­tion­al, North Amer­ica.

Oth­er pro­posed user fees would im­pact much smal­ler groups of Amer­ic­ans. For ex­ample, one pro­pos­al would in­crease the cost of duck stamps by $10, to $25 from $15. Hunters are re­quired to buy the stamps an­nu­ally in or­der to hunt mi­grat­ory wa­ter­fowl, and a ma­jor­ity of the funds are used as part of con­ser­va­tion ef­forts. The cost of the stamps has re­mained un­changed since 1991 and the White House es­tim­ates that a $10 in­crease would re­duce the de­fi­cit by $14 mil­lion per year.

Though user fees in gen­er­al are still on the table, Demo­crats ar­gue that some of the charges — par­tic­u­larly the TSA fee — would un­fairly bur­den middle-class Amer­ic­ans. 

Demo­crats are in­stead push­ing rev­en­ue pro­pos­als that tar­get spe­cial in­terests and wealthy in­di­vidu­als, in­clud­ing the own­ers of the na­tion’s more than 11,000 private jets. Demo­crats re­leased a hit list of po­ten­tial tax loop­holes they would like to close earli­er this month, which in­clude end­ing spe­cial tax de­duc­tions for the own­ers of cor­por­ate jets, yachts, and va­ca­tion homes, as well as elim­in­at­ing a loop­hole that al­lows busi­nesses to de­duct ex­penses for mov­ing a plant over­seas.

Though many Re­pub­lic­ans on the con­fer­ence com­mit­tee — in­clud­ing Ry­an him­self — agree that there are sev­er­al waste­ful tax loop­holes that should be closed, they ar­gue that those con­ver­sa­tions should be a part of a lar­ger tax-re­form over­haul.

Re­pub­lic­ans, and even some Demo­crats, have voiced con­cerns that clos­ing loop­holes now would pre­vent tax writers from fold­ing those sav­ings in­to a broad­er re­form plan to lower over­all rates.

Demo­crats on the con­fer­ence com­mit­tee note that Con­gres­sion­al Budget Of­fice Dir­ect­or Doug El­men­d­orf threw some cold wa­ter on that the­ory dur­ing the com­mit­tee’s last hear­ing, telling con­fer­ees that it would be pos­sible to close some loop­holes without en­dan­ger­ing a lar­ger tax over­haul.

The House Ways and Means Com­mit­tee, which is cur­rently put­ting to­geth­er a tax-re­form plan, dis­agrees. “We don’t sup­port high­er taxes for more Wash­ing­ton spend­ing, and while we ap­pre­ci­ate CBO’s opin­ion, it is only [the Joint Com­mit­tee on Tax­a­tion] that scores and provides ana­lys­is on tax policy,” a spokes­per­son for the com­mit­tee said Fri­day.

A seni­or Demo­crat­ic aide said that they still hope to get Re­pub­lic­ans to agree to close a few tax loop­holes. But bar­ring that kind of an agree­ment, the path to a deal is nar­row­er. User fees and oth­er rev­en­ues, the aide said, “likely wouldn’t be enough for Demo­crats to agree to any sig­ni­fic­ant spend­ing cuts im­pact­ing seni­ors and fam­il­ies.”

“We’re just a little per­plexed that our Re­pub­lic­an col­leagues think it’s a bet­ter idea to raise TSA fees on the Amer­ic­an pub­lic than close a tax loop­hole that ac­tu­ally cre­ates in­cent­ives for Amer­ic­an com­pan­ies to move their profits to places like the Cay­man Is­lands,” said Rep. Chris Van Hol­len, a mem­ber of the con­fer­ence com­mit­tee.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
6 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×