SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,275
edits
Changes
Talk:Backdoor spending authority (view source)
Revision as of 06:13, January 13, 2013
, 06:13, January 13, 2013→Statutory basis
: I have cleaned up this page, which had a lot of incorrect information. For example the effective date was the start of the Second Session of the 94 Congress (1976), not 1974. This whole topic is "inside baseball" and can be very complicated. It is really not that important to the current debate over the fiscal crisis, but if the article will remain, it should be correct. The text confused spending authority with "tax expenditures" which are completely different. Both have a negative impact on the deficit, but "tax expenditures" can be enacted without going through an appropriations committee. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:03, 12 January 2013 (EST)
: I have cleaned up this page, which had a lot of incorrect information. For example the effective date was the start of the Second Session of the 94 Congress (1976), not 1974. This whole topic is "inside baseball" and can be very complicated. It is really not that important to the current debate over the fiscal crisis, but if the article will remain, it should be correct. The text confused spending authority with "tax expenditures" which are completely different. Both have a negative impact on the deficit, but "tax expenditures" can be enacted without going through an appropriations committee. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 23:03, 12 January 2013 (EST)
::I still cannot find a source for the portion of the article text that claims that tax expeditures are subject to 2 USC 651. What is the source for the phrase "to allow United States government executive departments and agencies to forgo collection of proprietary offsetting receipts"? If you can't come up with a source it should all go out. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:01, 13 January 2013 (EST)
::I still cannot find a source for the portion of the article text that claims that tax expeditures are subject to 2 USC 651. What is the source for the phrase "to allow United States government executive departments and agencies to forgo collection of proprietary offsetting receipts"? If you can't come up with a source it should all go out. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 00:01, 13 January 2013 (EST)
:::Simpson-Bowles report calls tax expenditures backdoor spending. While open discussion of this may be something new, it is the result of authorizing legislation that brings total federal spending in above or below baseline projects. Tax cuts must be "paid for" (since Gramm-Rudman). Hence tax cuts, loopholes, provisions, incentives, etc. have become "tax expenditures" needing budget authorization from congress and its own article entry.
:::The most glaring reason for confusion is the radically different tracks the Rules Committees take under different party control. And readers should be able to understand how a statute law can be entirely dispensed with by procedural vote. If I can be partisan for moment, if the Republicans are to be criticized for anything, it is not even attempting reform such a nakedly abusive process that they rail against when they had effective one party control for 6 years (2001-07). Their hands aren't clean, either. [[User:OscarO|OscarO]] 01:13, 13 January 2013 (EST)