Bush fee proposals raise eyebrows
Even some Republicans say items in budget plan smell
a lot like new taxes
" Some military veterans expressed frustration that the
president has proposed a new $250 fee for some of
them to enroll in government health-care plans."
By David L. Greene
Sun National Staff
Originally published February 5, 2003
WASHINGTON -- Like other hard-core, tax-cutting
Republicans, President Bush has long declared that the
government should keep its hands away from the
people's money -- whenever possible, at least.
So Bush caught some of his usual supporters off-guard
this week by proposing a budget that asks some
individuals and businesses to pony up $16 billion in
additional fees to the government over five years.
The wide range of targets includes war veterans, visa
applicants, poultry producers and drug companies.
Some conservatives were alarmed. They saw at least
some of the fees as thinly disguised tax increases. And
they warned that any such perception risks tainting the
Republicans' image as guardians of the taxpayers'
hard-earned money.
"I'd be more comfortable if they avoided anything that
even smells like a tax," said Grover Norquist, president
of Americans for Tax Reform and a leading conservative
strategist.
By proposing to raise fees, Norquist said, Bush might be
sending a message to governors that it would be OK for
them to do the same in their states.
"The Republican Party's No. 1 advantage in the world is
public confidence that, when they go into that voting
booth and vote for Republican state senators, as least
you know they won't raise taxes," Norquist said.
"Anything that muddies that is a problem."
In the president's defense, administration officials say
Bush has certainly proved himself to be dedicated to tax
relief, having pushed for passage of his $1.3 trillion tax
cut in 2001 and having proposed more deep tax cuts
this year.
His budget, they explain, in many cases would simply
extend the life of government fees that were set to
expire.
For example, the budget would force coal companies to
pay about $1.3 billion over five years -- money to help
pay for the restoration of lands the companies destroyed
by mining.
Those fees had been scheduled to end this year.
"This is nothing new," said Trent Duffy, a spokesman for
the White House budget office.
Duffy said the use of fees "is a traditional, longstanding
approach to providing specialized government services."
The fees that Bush has proposed would affect only a
sliver of the population and would not alter the income
taxes that Americans pay.
Still, the contrast is striking between the Bush who
calls passionately for the government to let people and
businesses hold on to their money and the Bush who
wants the government to boost its share of that cash.
"Government spends a lot of money, but it doesn't build
factories, it doesn't invest in companies or do the work
that makes the economy go," Bush said in an economic
address in Chicago last month.
"There is no better way to help our economy grow than
to leave more money in the hands of the men and
women who earned it."
In the $2.23 trillion budget that he unveiled Monday,
the president suggested more than $2.1 billion in new
or increased government fees next year. Over the next
five years, the new or higher fees would total $16.7
billion.
Stephen Moore, president of the conservative Club for
Growth, said that Bush, whose budget projects that the
government would run a deficit exceeding $1 trillion
over the next five years under his plan, is "scrounging
around to save every penny he can."
Moore, another leading anti-tax advocate, said he makes
a crucial distinction when it comes to government fees.
He suggested that some fees that people or businesses
pay for a government service -- such as buying a stamp
to send a letter or paying an entry fee at a national park
-- are acceptable.
By contrast, he said, when the government imposes a
regulation and then forces a company or person to pay
for its enforcement, the fee is really a burdensome tax.
Moore and some other conservatives say the government
would be unfairly forcing industries to pay more of the
costs of regulating them.
An example, Moore said, is a new fee Bush has
proposed that pharmaceutical companies would have to
pay whenever the Food and Drug Administration
reviews new drugs for animals.
"That is paying for the burden of being regulated by the
government," he said. "That is a tax, not a user fee. If it
walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."
Some groups that would face the higher fees say they
would not be bothered by them. A coalition of
pharmaceutical companies that produce animal drugs,
for example, negotiated the new FDA fees, hoping the
new money would help the agency speed up the review
process for their drugs.
And the fees in Bush's budget, which must be approved
by Congress, are paltry compared with the tax cuts he
advocates.
"The president's philosophy when it comes to tax
policy," said Claire Buchan, a White House
spokeswoman, "is best exemplified by looking at his
record of reducing the income-tax burden on the
American people."
Taxes are a serious matter in Bush's family.
The president's father famously broke his "no new
taxes" pledge, infuriating many conservatives and
contributing to his defeat in the 1992 presidential
election.
The younger Bush, when campaigning in New
Hampshire in 2000, suggested that he was as
committed to tax relief as his father had been when the
elder man took office.
"This is not only 'no new taxes,'" the candidate said
proudly of his agenda. "This is 'Tax cuts, so help me
God.'"
Even conservatives who question the new fees Bush has
proposed note that the president has remained firmly
committed to lowering federal income taxes and so has
not broken his own vow never to dare raise taxes.
Yet the fees have already frustrated at least one group
that traditionally supports Bush.
Some military veterans expressed frustration that the
president has proposed a new $250 fee for some of
them to enroll in government health-care plans.
The fee would affect only higher-income veterans who
are not disabled. Still, Ray Sisk, commander in chief of
the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., said it would
force veterans to pay a burdensome cost for a service
that should be provided free of charge.
"As our nation stands on the edge of war with Iraq," Sisk
said, "we must ask what kind of message this sends to
our young men and women who may soon stand in
harm's way, as well as to our former defenders in their
time of need.
"They have earned and deserve the very best medical
care system we can provide."
sunspot.net
Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun |
