Holman Jenkins ends his opinion piece about Fannnie Mae and Freddie Mac in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal with the memorable line: ". . .and (if we really feel more subsidy to homeowning is needed) insisting that Congress do it the fiscally honest way, through the tax code."  Come on, Mr. Jenkins, if we want to be fiscally honest, we should do it through appropriations.  Or at least through a capped, income-phased-out, refundable tax credit, which somehow I doubt was what he meant (although I'd be pleased to learn otherwise).

The standard tax code technique, an uncapped deduction, ends up subsidizing those who don't need it and neglecting those who do. The fiscal 2009 budget projects tax expenditures of over $100 billion for the home mortgage interest deduction.  Honest budgeting would recognize that much of this goes to people who don't need it and artificially props up house prices.  If we want to subsidize homeownership honestly, we'd get rid of the tax deduction and appropriate money to be directed to those who would not be homeowners without the subidy.  But then, of course, we'd have to get serious about making the Department of Housing and Urban Development work. 

I have written about this topic before - policymakers lament trying to find dollars to help get more people health care, yet millions of workers reap overly generous tax benefits when their employer pays all or part of their health care coverage.  These generous tax benefits represent dollars from the federal and state budgets that could be used for other purposes. And, the problem is even worse because having so many insured employees not directly involved in how much their health care coverage costs tends to make them get too much health care at times, which drives up costs for everyone.

Here are prior posts:

• Health Care Spending versus Extending 2001/2003 Tax Cuts - Tough Issues
• Tax Reform and Health Care Reform

On 7/31/08, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on Health Benefits in the Tax Code: The Right Incentives.

Each of the three witnesses commented on the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance. Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Edward Kleinbard noted:

We hear lots of talk about tax reform and lots about health care reform, but rarely hear about the two together. While there are proposals to change the exclusion for employer-provided health care, such as President Bush's proposal to remove it and provide a standard deduction for health insurance, they typically don't consider either the entire health care or tax reform picture.

There are significant dollars in the tax code that should be on the table in reforming health care. All of the government dollars should be in the picture in looking at how to fund any change, such as universal coverage. The largest federal tax expenditure is the one where employees are not required to include in taxable income the value of the health insurance their employer provides to them. The estimated cost of this expenditure in 2007 was $134 billion.  There are other health care tax breaks as well such as the itemized deduction for medical care and health savings accounts.

The tax code is a mess. Even those pointy-headed economists that can bicker about anything (except the gas tax) agree that it is too complicated. They cry in virtual unison that the growth of tax deductions, credits, and deferrals leads to inefficiencies and market distortions (yikes!).

To confirm these fears, we need look no further than the education arena. Do you know how many tax provisions there are designed to support post secondary education and workforce training? It's a long list.

There are tax breaks for contributions to specific accounts and savings plans such as Coverdell education savings accounts, section 529 college savings plans, pre-paid tuition plans, and penalty-free withdrawals from IRAs. Further, there are other tax breaks that cover the treatment of educational expenses. These include the Hope Credit, Lifetime Learning Credit, deduction for tuition and fees, and the deduction for interest on student loans. So, that's a count of at least 8.

Many of these overlap and as such they cause a great deal confusion among consumers. Last week the House Ways and Means Commitee held a hearing on this topic and I sent in some testimony that offered my take on the matter.