For at least the third time this month (the other two are here and here) the Wall Street Journal this weekend says that Rick Santorum “wants to triple the per-child tax credit.”
As a champion of the Ponnuru-Stein tax reform, I would back such a move, assuming it could be done in a revenue-neutral way, and given his past positions it’s possible that Santorum would too. But that is not what he has proposed. As his website makes clear (and as he has said), he proposes “tripling the personal deduction for each child” while leaving the tax credit unchanged. The difference between tripling the credit and the deduction is no small matter. In fact, given lower rates Santorum proposes more generally, I’m not sure tripling the personal deduction is worth the trouble. But in any case, if the Journal is going to write about his proposal (and especially if they’re going to criticize it at some length in an editorial, as they did here) they ought to get it right.
The confusion may stem from the fact that there technically is no such thing as a "personal deduction" for children. Rather, Internal Revenue Code section 151 allows deductions based on the personal exemptions for dependents a taxpayer may claim. Quibbling, perhaps, but it may be the case that the WSJ's confusion arises from the Santorum campaign's use of imprecise terms.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood point Mr. Levin, but some were jumping all over anyone who did not push a "flat tax" emblem which is clearly designed to appeal to Our Base. I am all for tax reduction, but not certain in this case, if Mr. Santorum is simply acting like a typical Washington Politician of 17 years, trying to buy support as a "social conservative".
In other Primary related matters, it seems the attacks on Bain are proving deeply misguided:
"Romney opens 21-point lead in South Carolina: Reuters/Ipsos poll"
Some on the sound Conservative side, jumped foolishly to exploit populist-leftist attacks, claiming the successful Free Market Capitalism provided by the proven Mr. Romney was weak politically. It was regretful.
Again, we see many on the sound side, eager to toss away their reputations.
They are stuck on a fashion, which simply is blinding their offering.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight, we should definitely sponsor the highest childbirth group, because single people don't pay enough taxes.
Here's a thought: if you can't afford children, don't have children.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe stopped at one because we ran out of money. And now you want me to pay for someone else's poor judgment?
Not sure why less revenue is something tax plans need to avoid. Less government reach over our lives is a feature, not a bug.
The point is that all spending diminishes the private sector for the benefit of politicians - whether paid for by taxes or by debt.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse