Kriss and I draw on our Clarifying the Role of Tax Preferences policy brief for this article in Crosscut.In both pieces, we point out the state’s already high business tax burden and the importance of tax preferences in offsetting tax pyramiding (multiple taxation of transactions in the production cycle). We also note that many so-called business breaks actually benefit consumers directly. Finally, we document the role certain preferences play in stimulating investment and job creation.

We conclude:

… this year’s focus on exemption review has been driven by a search for more money for the state budget. It has little to do with responsible tax policy. And it comes with considerable risk.

A similar point is made in this excellent editorial in The News TRibune. After making the political observation that there are not the votes for tax increases in the legislature, the editorial finds the logical weaknesses in the loopholeo-closers’ argument:

…the “loopholes” targeted by the protestors tend to fall into two categories: Expendable but piddly, and potentially lucrative but also justified.

Finally, the Crosscut editors provide a link to Schmudget. The Budget and Policy Center  uses our report as an excuse to recycle the pro-tax arguments they’ve made since the recession began. They say that tax preferences are granted on an ad hoc basis with little scrutiny or justification, that Washington needs comprehensive tax reform, and that spending cuts are more harmful than tax increases.

Nothing new there. And nothing in their recitation of policy preferences constitutes a substantive critique of our research.