Intensity, Not Volume of Comments, Matters to Tax Reform Panel
by Heidi Glenn

Taxpayers from across the country have filled the mailbox and e- mail inbox of President Bush's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform with thousands of submissions since the panel first called for comments in February.

Date: Aug. 17, 2005
Taxpayers from across the country have filled the mailbox and e- mail inbox of President Bush's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform with thousands of submissions since the panel first called for comments in February.

Handwritten and postmarked as well as keyboard-typed and electronically delivered, comments from taxpayers generally track the tax reform issues debated during the panel's 10 public hearings with passion and intensity. The panel has received nearly 15,000 comments and has posted on its Web site more than 4,500 comments it has received electronically and by mail to its Washington office.

"Please, please keep it simple," implores a commentator from New York.
The call for comments seems to have provided an outlet for taxpayer animosity toward the current system and the IRS, and the result is a clearinghouse for discontent: cries about the current tax code's complexity, disgust for perceived unfairness, and calls for replacement with suggestions for many of the proposals the panel presented during the group's open hearings.

There are also IRS agent horror stories, tales of savings wiped out by alternative minimum tax bills resulting from exercised stock options, concerns over a proposal to allow the IRS to calculate tax bills, and tax complexity and fairness issues experienced by gay and lesbian couples. And there are a few that suggest making minor tweaks to the current code. "Leave the tax the way it is," writes one commentator. Generally, however, individuals' submissions suggesting total overhaul seem to eclipse the number that recommend ways to tinker around the edges of the current system.

Businesses, organized associations, government officials, and individuals were invited to comment on three separate topics: headaches caused by the current code, specific tax reform proposals, and concerns with the specific proposals. Not surprisingly, inviting comments has inspired groups with suggestions to mobilize members to submit the ideas. For example, a strong grassroots effort backed by Americans for Fair Taxation produced plug after plug for H.R. 25, which would create a national retail sales tax called the "Fair Tax."

A Web site describing the "automatic tax," which would impose a 5 percent tax rate on money transfer transactions, provides readers with a sample paragraph to submit to the panel, and notes that "if they get flooded with public comments about AutomaticTax, they might actually take some notice of it."

However, noticing a proposal is far different from endorsing a proposal.
"We look at the letters for the substance rather than purely for the numbers," Jeffrey Kupfer, the panel's executive director, said. "It's not like we're here taking a straw poll of the letters we've received."

By far the strongest consensus came from a direct-mailing effort launched by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the lobbying arm of the Citizens Against Government Waste, which seeks to eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government. The effort resulted in nearly 10,000 letters to the panel urging the nine members to steer clear of the VAT. Eight boxes of the mailing's response letters are stored and available for public viewing at the IRS Freedom of Information Reading Room in Washington.

The mailing was "part of a strategy that ensures that whatever comes out of both the [panel] and Capitol Hill is real reform that it will eventually lower the tax rate and does not create a new tax on top of the income tax," said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste. "This was a hopefully strong message that there are a lot of taxpayers who are concerned about it."

That comments address specific issues, Kupfer said, warrants an examination of the concerns or suggestions, but "we don't just stack up the number of letters and say we got more on this and therefore we need to recommend something in particular."

"It's interesting and important for our panel members to understand what the general public thinks about things, but when all is said and done the recommendations are going to be based on what our panel members think are the best options for reform," Kupfer said. "The most important thing coming from all of the letters is that people want change."