One of the most common critiques of tax reform in Washington D.C. is that most of the savings will go to the wealthy. Setting aside the argument about whether this is a) true, or b) fair, some on the left argue this is bad for the economy, calling it “trickle-down economics.”

The basic claim is that money is better spent by the government than by people in the economy.

The counter to this argument is that these tax breaks create growth, because “a subset of Washington consumers spend a portion of their tax exemption on goods and services.” Who says this? Washington state environmentalists, actually.

In 2015, when the environmental community was arguing for a sales tax exemption on electric vehicles, they highlighted a study showing the tax exemption would increase economic growth. Climate Solutions boasted, “EV tax incentives: good for Washington’s economy.” They linked to a study by Dr. Robert Wescott, analyzing the impact of losing the subsidy.

The study estimates about one-third of electric vehicle buyers, “would purchase an EV without the existence of the state tax exemption.” The analysis, however, rather than seeing that as a bad thing – paying people to buy cars they would have purchased anyway – argues it injects money into the economy, adding to economic growth. As they note, some of the lost the sales tax exemption (and the federal EV tax exemption), “would have been spent on other [non-vehicle] spending categories.  This additional spending would have had ripple effects throughout the state economy.”

The debate about the economic impact of tax cuts is complex and dynamic. There can still be a debate about how much growth tax cuts will produce.

It is ironic, however, that some who today argue that tax cuts don’t create growth were making the opposite argument just two years ago, defending tax exemptions that go predominantly to wealthy EV buyers with the argument they would spend the money elsewhere in the economy. The selective use of economics is more about promoting their agenda – rewarding wealthy friends with government money – than a more equitable approach that would cut rates across the board without political preference.

That doesn’t mean the tax reform proposed by Congress is a necessarily a good idea. It does indicate that ideological consistency isn’t a big priority when promoting feel-good environmental policies.