Home  »  Politics  »  Obama Team Plots To End Child Tax Deductions, Mortagage Interest Payment Tax Deductions

Obama Team Plots To End Child Tax Deductions, Mortagage Interest Payment Tax Deductions



Oct 25, 2010 15 Comments ›› Pat Dollard

Wall Street Journal:

Sacrosanct tax breaks, including deductions on mortgage interest, remain on the table just weeks before the deficit commission issues recommendations on policies to pare back with the aim of balancing the budget by 2015.

The tax benefits are hugely popular with the public but they have drawn the panel’s focus, in part because the White House has said these and other breaks cost the government about $1 trillion a year.

At stake, in addition to the mortgage-interest deductions, are child tax credits and the ability of employees to pay their portion of their health-insurance tab with pretax dollars. Commission officials are expected to look at preserving these breaks but at a lower level, according to people familiar with the matter.

The officials are also looking at potential cuts to defense spending and a freeze on domestic discretionary spending. It is unclear if the 18-member panel will be able to reach an agreement on any of the items by a Dec. 1 deadline.

Even if they do reach an agreement, any curbs on current tax breaks would likely face tough sledding in Congress. The banking and real-estate lobbies have fiercely rebuffed efforts to rescind the mortgage-interest deduction in the past.

Still, officials have found there aren’t any easy ways to balance the budget, and they are expected to steer clear of more polarizing issues like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and a broad rewrite of the tax code in their short-term recommendations. The panel could still make long-term recommendations to change these issues, but they would be less concrete.

“My concern is that the talk of tax expenditures is couched as ‘tax reform,’ but it’s not tax reform,” said Alison Fraser, director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “It’s simply a revenue-raising exercise.”

Committee officials plan to try to broker a deal in November, after the midterm elections. They have until Dec. 1 to win the support of 14 of the commission’s 18 members to endorse a final report. It is possible that the panel’s Democrats and Republicans would issue separate reports if they can’t agree, people familiar with the process said.

President Barack Obama created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform in February, amid concern from lawmakers and economists that the growing budget deficit could damage the country’s long-term fiscal condition. The bipartisan panel, made up mostly of lawmakers but also business and labor leaders, has met for months, at times more constructively than many expected.

“There’s a lot of potential for agreement on the committee,” said panel member Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.

If the commission reaches a consensus, House or Senate leaders could agree to bring some of the changes up for a vote, perhaps early next year, although there is no deadline.

To balance the budget by 2015, excluding interest payments on debt, means officials would need to find roughly $240 billion in annual savings, according to commission documents. Panel officials also hope to issue recommendations that would “meaningfully improve” the country’s long-term fiscal situation.

Even though officials are focusing on issues where they believe they can get broad agreement, they will likely face stiff resistance from certain lawmakers and interest groups. Some Republicans are expected to label any caps on tax breaks as a backdoor way of raising taxes. Several lawmakers’ offices declined to comment on specific proposals as negotiations aren’t yet under way.

Committee officials have also focused on the $700 billion in annual defense spending, which accounts for more than half of domestic discretionary spending. Critics say the government could cut some of the $400 billion spent on outside contractors. But many conservative groups have said cutting military spending would be a mistake, citing national security risks.

Changes to Medicaid and Medicare are unlikely to be recommended despite their looming presence in the U.S. budget. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that if laws don’t change, federal spending on health care alone will grow from 5% of gross domestic product in 2010 to 10% in 2035.

Commission officials looked closely at making short-term changes to Social Security, but talks shifted in recent weeks toward incorporating those ideas into a longer-term plan. This is in part because any changes would probably have to be phased in over years, delaying the budgetary impact for at least a decade.

“My sense from talking to members of the commission is that’s where they are focusing [on the long-term recommendation], Social Security reform,” said Martin Feldstein, an economics professor at Harvard University who served as a senior official in the Reagan administration.

It remains unclear whether the panel will reach a consensus with negotiations taking place right after the midterm elections, when Washington tends to buzz with political jostling. The imminent debate over whether to extend all or part of the Bush-era tax cuts could also complicate its efforts. The panel isn’t expected to weigh in on this issue.

The White House said this month that the budget deficit for the last fiscal year was $1.3 trillion, the second highest in 60 years. The government’s revenue was roughly $2.16 trillion in the year ended Sept. 30, compared with $3.46 trillion in outlays.

The White House hasn’t signed off on any of the potential proposals as it’s waiting for the panel to complete its work.

Mr. Obama “expects that the fiscal commission will continue the process of discussing and analyzing a wide range of ideas and it is premature to describe any specific idea as a conclusion of a commission that has not even voted yet,” White House spokesman Amy Brundage said.

The commission “is the last best hope right now for getting some substantive movement on the issue of the deficit, the debt, and the financial disaster we’re facing,” Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.), a member of the commission, said in a recent interview.


  • Thrasymakhos

    Stop the freaking spending. These bastards have to be stopped cold. This crap has to be rolled back. Does anybody think that they will stop at stuff like this? They want the majority of us to be slaves to a political plutocracy. Damn.

  • http://hyperinflation-watch.blogspot.com/ ZenDraken

    “officials have found there aren’t any easy ways to balance the budget”

    Oh, that’s easy: Just print more money!

    Next problem, please.

  • Foaming Solvent

    Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction would be a positive step. It never should have existed in the first place — all it does is encourage home purchases by people who can’t afford to buy homes. Which creates an artificial demand for houses and mortgages, which drives up the price of housing and mortgages, and the buyer doesn’t come out ahead, but he thinks he does.

    Canada never had such a deduction and they did not have the financial meltdown we did (except for the contact high of their financial system being intricately linked with ours).

    Eliminating the mortgage interest deduction was one of the key points in George Gilder’s book “Wealth and Poverty,” the so-called bible of Reaganomics, but even Reagan wasn’t brave enough to take that bold step. He eliminated the deductability of other interest, however — remember when you could deduct your credit card interest? That was madness, and this deduction is madness, as well. Our tax policies should encourage thrift, not indebtedness.

    Of course, eliminating the deduction would have to be phased in somehow, perhaps grandfathering in the deduction of current mortgages but eliminating it for future mortgages, or each year reducing the percentage of the interest that can be deducted until it reaches zero after ten or twenty years.

    • Proud2Baninfidel

      I’m 61 years old with a 12 year term left on my 15-year fixed rate mortgage. We are not rich, or wealthy, but we won’t be anything but renters if this corrupt government passes this change to the IRS code in this economic environment.

      YOU THINK IT IS FAIR TO RIP ME OFF FOR MY FRIGGIN’ MORTGAGE INTEREST? I’M A VIET NAM VET, BTW. MY DAMN PROPERTY TAXES IN OREGON ARE ALMOST $500/month. TELL ME HOW LOSING THIS DEDUCTION WILL HELP ME. And by the way, I could afford this house when I bought it, just like the last two homes I bought, and never, EVER skipped a payment or was late on my mortgage.

      Don’t lump me in with all the deadbeat entitlement crowd. I work. I pay my bills. But, with the out of control government spending, there won’t be much of a future for people like my wife and I in the middle class. I clawed my way to get where I am. I didn’t inherit wealth. My dad was a non-union bricklayer. I don’t have a college degree from some big, liberal university.

      SO, ARE YOU JUST CLUELESS, OR A MORON? OR A DEMOCRAT PLANT?

      EITHER WAY, YOUR BRAIN IS IN SEVERE NEED OF A MENTAL ENEMA. You think and speak like an elitist intellectual who looks down on the little people. You don’t have concrete answers or think of the hardships this would impose on the real America.

      You, sir, need an attitude change. And pull your head out while you’re at it.

    • hank

      Why don’t you move to Canada and Buy a house eh ? Leave the only substantive middle class tax deduction alone.

    • Lock and Load

      Linking the lack of financial meltdown in Canada to the lack of a mortgage interest deduction here is weak :roll: There are many important differences between our economies and our present government policies that can account for the lesser meltdown on our side of the border – specifically things like no government-mandated mortgage policies (thanks to Dodd, Frank and cohorts) and no bailouts/stimulus for every tom, dick and harry, and most importantly, a feeling here that our “dear leader” is not hell-bent on actually destroying the country’s economy :roll: :???:

    • SMITTY

      :mrgreen:

      I was trying to recall which administration eliminated the credit card, car loan interest as a tax deduction. I was thinking it was part of “Reaganomics.”

      I disagree however with your assessment of thrift vs indebtedness. Economics 101 states that as consumer spending goes, so does the economy. It is the single biggest contributor to the state of the economy. Our economy didn’t fail because of indebtedness–our economy failed as a result of legislation which enpowered greedy Wall Street financial institutions and revoked government oversight. This led to predatory lending on homes and credit cards to individuals who in no way qualified! When I bought my first home as a single mother, the bank officer literally cut up my credit cards (after I paid them off) and told me that she’d be watching to make sure I didn’t reopen credit cards after closing!! Put the fear in me but it was legitimate if I wanted that bank to loan me money for a home. Since then I’ve learned to live within my means, but that doesn’t mean I pay cash or go without. It’s about balance.

  • neofish

    Tax breaks don’t “cost” the government ANYTHING, SPENDING “costs” the government.

    Tax breaks INCREASE REVENUE by creating more jobs, more employees, more income tax, more tax REVENUE.

    ’nuff said

    • vox populi

      Bingo!! stole my thunder… :beer:

      mandatory min of 10% down would do more to weed out folks who shouldn’t be purchasing to begin with.

  • TerryTate

    So in essence he’s raising taxes on everyone by getting rid of tax breaks.

    Gee, what happened to new taxes on the middle class?

    Oh yeah, a liars lips were moving.

    It almost seems as if he’s trying to get himself killed.

    • TerryTate

      Oops.

      Should say: no new taxes on the middle class?

  • ATTILA

    Even this dipshit isn’t that insane,so as to destroy the middle class.Demanding a higher down payment would restrict home buyers that shouldn’t be,but the dims just vetoed such a GOP provision.

  • Crayon

    It doesn’t “cost the government $1 trillion”, it is $1 trillion they can’t spend on other gub’mint fare.

  • Middle of the Road

    It is comical that taking this away is even a thought. I agree with alot of people here in that its another way of attacking the people that actually are working hard to live within their means. Obama says no taxes on middle class but these are the people that will have the greatest impact aganist if we eliminated this tax break.

    Also this has nothing to do with the current mess we are in. The reality is that this housing bubble was created by banks who would finance anyone with a pulse, even some without Im sure, regardless of qualifications. Then just as easy as that they bundled them together and sold them off.

    Want to raise the minimum needed to buy a house? Not crazy about it but can live with it. Prefer that these banks start being held accountable with the notes they write and make them have an ownership stake, even if they sell part they still have a piece of all. Funny thing happens when you need to be held accountable. You actually think your decisions thru.

    Not sure of all the answers and dont like to blame any one person or party. This financial meltdown has occured because of both parties and several presidents decisions. But now is not the time to go back, point fingers and draw lines in the sand. We Obama to stop worrying about his legacy and start worrying majority of Americans and not just his calling card, the lower class. I work hard and dont expect the govt to give me a hnadout. But I also dont feel cause I pay my bills and live within my means that I should pay for someone who does neither.

  • Mike

    Obama says what you want to hear then after he uses his lies to his advantage, he
    Stabs you in the back! He is hard to figure out. If he is a democrat he has me fooled!
    So yes, all his suggestions for reducing the deficit hurt the middle income American.
    I am telling you, this country is ready for a revolt. I mean fighting in the streets until we retake what is left of this country. We need to kick out all these politicians and start over.
    One time we blame the republicans and vote in the democrats,then we find out they lied to get in and then we vote in the republicans! It never stops, back and forth. Now take a good look at this country and the mess we are in. Almost all the people that got us in this mess were rewarded with bonus’s or stimulus money! That is a fact and that is a shame on this country! Money comes to money!!!