The term "tax expenditures" didn't originate with Obama. It's been around for a long time. We'll see what BHO has to say about the concept today.
That's pretty gentle. I did some web searches on the terminology today and saw that it's been around for about half a century and also that even Paul Ryan is using the term in his proposal. I expected to get really nailed.
I disagree with using that terminology. Unless it's a tax credit that results in actually giving somebody money (i.e., they get a tax credit that exceeds what their tax liability so that the government actually gives them money such as with the earned income tax credit), it's not an expenditure whether it's purpose is to influence behavior or not. A reduction in revenue is not an expenditure. Something like the mortgage interest deduction is DEFINITELY not an expenditure. By happenstance, I learned today that the Supreme Court just recently narrowly ruled that "tax expenditures" are not spending (supreme-court-says-tax-expenditures-arent-government-spending). Not that I'd agree that it's spending if it'd gone the other way. It's NOT spending (with the exception mentioned above).
In any case, the philosophy Obama represents was manifested again today when he said
"“There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires."
Allowing people to keep their own money is NOT spending. Why not just take the difference between the combined incomes of all Americans and how much government collects in taxes and say the resulting quantity is all "spending?"
It's the mentality holding that everything ultimately belongs to the government.
