Epshteyn Uses Loaded Language and Fallacious Reasoning to Defend the Indefensible

In his recent commentary on the GOP tax plan being rushed through Congress, Boris Epshteyn falls back on fallacious reasoning and loaded language to defend legislation that his unpopular with just about everyone except lobbyists.

We know they are necessary to fund the government, pay for our national defense and vital infrastructure. However, does anyone actually want to pay more taxes? If you listen to certain folks from the Democrat Party, and members of the media, you would think so.

First, “Democrat.” This is a long-standing cutesy label used by those who are criticizing the Democratic party.  It is not, as some have suggested, to include the word “rat” in the adjective.  Rather, it is a convoluted way to avoid using a word that has rhetorical resonance in American political discourse: democratic.  We take pride in our “democratic” institutions.  We believe in having a “democratic” government.  We hope that countries ruled by totalitarian regimes are replaced by a “democratic” system of rule by the people.

The word in its small-“d” variety carries quite a wallop in our political discourse—one much greater than small-“r” “republican.”   So, to avoid semiotic bleedover (i.e. the positive connotations of small-d “democratic” being associated with big-D “Democratic,” this grammatically suspect shell game is perpetrated on listeners.

Bottom Line with Boris: When There's no "There" There

In the most recent “Bottom Line With Boris”, the most startling argumentative failing is obvious: no argument is made. 

His thesis is that if Congress passes the (wildly unpopular) GOP tax plan, positive economic indicators will go up.  Yet, he does not make a single argument to that effect, even in broad strokes.

Rather, he touts recent positive economic numbers and then asserts, without support, that we should “expect for these positive trends to not just continue but to accelerate.”

This is akin to a member of the Jellybean Manufacturers Association saying, “Over the last decade, life expectancy has gone up.  If our proposal to include jellybeans at every meal is heeded by Americans, expect this trend to continue.”

In other words, it’s as elementary a rhetorical “fail” as one is ever likely to see.

Wherefore "Tax Extenders"?

The latest week in Hyman commentaries began with a rather trifling look at a nuanced issue: tax-extenders. These are temporary tax breaks that tend to get “re-upped” year after year.

Hyman chastises both parties for their use of these as leverage over lobbyists—as ways to shakedown interest groups. And there is undoubtedly some truth in that.
However, it’s also true that some lobbyists *want* tax breaks to be rolled into tax-extenders. Not only does it allow them to lobby for tax breaks that avoid the usual 10-year forecast necessary for permanent acts, but, as Politico notes, the fact that these tax breaks are continually being reconsidered (at least technically) keeps the lobbyists themselves in business.

It’s also worth noting that some tax breaks ought to be temporary (e.g. tax incentives for reinvestment after a natural disaster, etc.).

It also the case that Congress actually *has* done away with many of these temporary cuts, meaning that, according to the Tax Policy Center, “tax extender deliberations now have lower stakes than in recent years.”

All of which is to say, while tax extenders are probably, on balance, not an efficient way to do business.  They *can* be used and abused for short-term political gain (e.g. Mitch McConnell's pet tax break for racehorse owners).  But the issue is (shocker!) more complex than Hyman’s framing of it would suggest.

The likely motivation for this is that tax extenders have an effect on tax reform policy, and addressing them has been seen as a prerequisite for substantial changes to the tax code, the next thing on Trump’s “to do” list after the trainwreck that was his attempt to gut the Affordable Care Act.