Gone To The Dogs

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

With everything going on in Washington these days, there are a lot of Americans who think Congress has gone to the dogs.

Well, it just so happens that if a Michigan congressman gets his way, that description could be taken literally.

U.S. Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, RLivonia, wants a tax break for veterinary expenses.

His proposal is called HAPPY, an acronym for the Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years Act.

“No matter the age of the owner, pets have been shown to reduce stress, safeguard against depression, improve social skills and even ease loss,” McCotter wrote in a letter to other members of Congress.

HAPPY would cover everything from procedures such as declawing and fixing broken bones to treatment for common ailments like worms and parasites.

In addition, popular surgeries such as spaying and neutering would be completely tax deductible, possibly making animal overpopulation easier to control.

“Although we can’t say for sure, if this bill led to fewer animals on the streets that would be fantastic,” George Carr, a lobbyist for the Okemos-based Michigan Veterinary Association, said in a report by The Associated Press.

We don’t want to seem like we don’t like dogs, cats or other household pets, but seriously, there’s a logic problem with HAPPY.

If your dog injures a leg, you’ll get a tax break for veterinarian fees.

But if your child breaks a leg playing football, you’re stuck with whatever costs aren’t covered by a health insurance plan, if you are lucky enough in this tough economy to have insurance.

And yes, we realize pets can reduce stress and depression, but so can a number of legal drugs, which also are not tax deductible.

And while HAPPY has picked up support from some organizations and animal societies, no one has even attempted to determine how much federal tax revenue would be lost if the bill becomes law.

As Congress struggles with health care reform, should tax breaks be given for our pets?

We don’t think so.

But we will note that there are insurance policies that can be purchased that cover the care of animals.

Many people frequently say that pets — particularly dogs — live better lives than some children.

That is, obviously, a reference to kids who are from poor families that are finding it hard to make ends meet.

That’s why it’s ironic that while Washington endlessly debates health care reform and seems to put people at the bottom of the priority list, there’s legislation to help animals. We’re all for the humane treatment of animals, pets or otherwise. And we’ll concede that the congressman is supporting this bill with only the best of intentions. But it also cries out as a example of misplaced priorities. We need to focus on health care for humans. Animals can take a back seat at this time. We praise McCotter for the hard work and dedication. He has proven that he is an independent thinker and will vote his conscience, even if it means taking an unpopular stance. But in this case, we believe the congressman is not quite on track. Currently, this bill seems stalled in the Ways and Means Committee. It’s probably best if it never makes it out.

[meow2u3]

1. One problem: the standard deduction won't cut it for most taxpayers

Only the richest would be able to itemize deductions for vet expenses. What would be better would to have a tax credit, not a tax deduction, for vet expenses.