Still semantics, but if there's a built in expiration date and it's a matter of renewing it or not, then no, I would not necessarily label it a tax raise. But that has more to do, for me, with the existence of a pre-defined expiration rather than duration. I suppose I'd agree that if a tax break with no expiration date was enacted, and then repealed 6 months later I might not consider that a tax raise. But I don't really think that happens.

Regardless, whether it's an end of a break, or a raise of taxes should not be a deciding factor. Whether it's the reasonable course of action should. (I know, I'm not holding my breath)

I guess my big objection is that most people never want temporary tax breaks to end, and they make such a stink about it (farm subsidies come most to mind) that they never end, despite the intent when enacted that they be able to end someday.

Civilian citizens don't have that kind of absurd clout, so I expect the home mortgage interest deduction to come to an end pretty soon. But breaks for farmers and corporations that were never designed to be permanent will be permanent despite obsolescence because the parties affected have too much influence in government. Yes, TOO MUCH, imo.

Yes, we are using different definitions. I'm using English, you're using governmental jargon. Sorry for any confusion.

Your made up definition for what government programs are entitlements would exclude food stamps (as well as most other actual entitlement programs). It is fine if you don't want to call that an entitlement program, but it does render your contribution to a discussion of what should be done with entitlement programs somewhat useless.

I would assume that our country's banks have an interest in the maintenance of the home mortgage interest deduction since if it were eliminated, housing values would plummet, more people would walk away and fewer people would buy houses.

Were I Supreme manager of our country's economy, I would give everyone a house so that people's homes were not their principal investment and more money could be spent on Fiddle Faddle, I-Pad2s, text messaging plans and the like, thus boosting our nation's real economy.

Apologies for the post above. While I don't think it is a distinction without meaning it isn't one deserving of that tone or response. Apparently I was touchy this morning.

I would agree with GD on the included expiration date in the original passage as a deciding factor. In AZ we passed a temporary 2% tax on food which is to last for three years. The expiration is built into the law. When it expires, I will not consider it a tax reduction.

Without a specific expiration date, there is no such thing as temporary taxes or tax breaks.

I would regard an elimination of the mortgage interest deduction changing the rules midgame. Unlike ISM, I do not think it will ever end. The back lobby (as previously mentioned by Strangler) and real estate lobby and a whole bunch of other lobbies would make it very difficult to do so. The only fair way to do it would be to grandfather those who purchased with the understanding that they can have that deduction, however I know that won't fly.

Do you disagree with the general Republican/Tea Party claim that allowing the 2001 tax cuts to expire would be a tax increase?

No, it would be an increase... And a much needed one, at that.

Hmmm....tricky question, Alex.

I suppose it would be a tax increase because the actual tax rates would go up, and while I oppose it, I wouldn't suggest that it is the fault of anyone except the House and Senate from when it passed and also Bush for signing it.

Such is compromise, i suppose. I don't think they should have been temporary with an expiration, but that was the only way to get it passed.

So tax increase yes. Hanging that tax increase politically on the current congress or President, no. That of course changes if the House and Senate vote to continue them and the Predient vetoes.

Not a great answer, I admit. But the best I got.