As the Memorial Day travel weekend begins, some Texas lawmakers are trying to push through a three month "holiday" from the state's 20-cents-per-gallon excise tax on gasoline. The editorial board at the San Antonio Express News calls this an unaffordable exercise in "irresponsible pandering," arguing that the Texas-sized cost of the holiday - up to $700 million - would drain a projected budget surplus on which multiple claims have already been made.

Several members of Congress are considering how to improve tax provisions that are designed to help people obtain postsecondary education and training, and recent reports on this topic has been issued by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Tax Policy Center. The Senate Finance Committee is expected to mark up legislation on education tax benefits after the Memorial Day recess. Currently taxpayers paying college or training expenses, including those who are not itemizers, can deduct up to $2,000 ($4,000 for married couples) for tuition and fees. Also, the Hope credit is available at a maximum of $1,650 per student this year (indexed for inflation) and the Lifetime Learning Credit (LLC) is available at a maximum of $2,000 per family. There are also several tax-preferred savings vehicles for education (Coverdell Education Savings, Accounts, Qualified Tuition Programs, and education savings bonds).

Lack of Progressivity

There are several problems with these tax benefits. For one, they're not very progressive. This is particularly troubling because we usually think the whole point of these tax breaks is to encourage people to obtain postsecondary education who otherwise would not, and wealthier families will typically send their children to college regardless of what tax benefits are available. Lower-income families, who are more likely to respond to subsidies for education, are not well-targeted by the tax benefits.

The tuition and fees deduction and the Hope credit and LLC are unavailable for people without income tax liability, so a sensible reform would be to provide a refundable credit. Most families of modest means pay federal payroll taxes but are not wealthy enough to owe federal income taxes (a family of four with an income of $42,000 won't pay federal income taxes in 2007). For these families, only a credit that is refundable (that results in negative income tax liability and a check from the IRS) can help.

The maximum LLC cannot be used unless a family spends at least $10,000 on education (because it credits 20% of the first $10,000 in expenses, up to a maximum credit of $2,000). One speaker at a forum on this topic hosted by the Tax Policy Center on Wednesday pointed out that 90 percent of students have expenses below $10,000. The tuition and fees deduction is regressive because its value depends on the tax rate the taxpayer is subject to. A family subject to a 35% tax rate can deduct $4,000 and reduce their taxes by $1,400, but a family subject to the 10% rate could deduct $4,000 and reduce their taxes by only $400.

Complexity

Another problem is that many families may find the rules governing these tax breaks too confusing and may not even realize that these benefits are available. A taxpayer must choose to use either the tuition and fees deduction, the Hope credit, or the LLC. A GAO report in 2005 found that over a fourth of taxpayers eligible don't take advantage of any of these tax benefits, and those who do use them often don't use the most advantageous tax break for their situation.

New Proposals Could Solve Some of These Problems

A bill sponsored by Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Dave Camp (R-MI) and others in the House and Evan Bayh (D-IN) in the Senate would combine the three main tax benefits into one credit of up to $3,000 for postsecondary education expenses, including a much broader range of expenses (such as room and board, books, supplies and transportation). These expenses other than tuition often make up the bulk of costs for students of modest incomes in community colleges. The credit would cover 50% of the first $3,000 and 30% of the next $5,000 of these expenses. Up to half of the credit calculated based on expenses would be refundable, adding to the progressivity of the proposal.

Other proposals are being discussed, including one from Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) for a simplified credit that would not be refundable, and which the Finance Committee is likely to consider. Advocates for making postsecondary education more accessible are hopeful that the Finance Committee can be pushed to move in the direction of the bill being sponsored by Emanuel, Camp and Bayh.

For economic and social justice advocates, Missouri's legislative session came to a welcome end last week. Pundits across the state started weighing in on what many have said was a " disappointing legislative session."

Term limits, which Missouri voters approved in 1992, may have played a role in the unwieldy session. Legislators are now restricted to serving eight years in the House and eight years in the Senate. In fact, the average legislative experience of a Missouri senator is 3.4 years. Term limits mean that there are few legislators with long-term legislative experience who can be called on to shepherd bills through the legislature and show new legislators the ropes. This year, lawmakers had to craft corrections to legislation that had already been sent to the governor while they raced to pass various unnecessary tax breaks. Wealthier seniors got a tax cut costing $154 million a year, and $103 million in credits were handed out for everything from beef to hybrid vehicles, while legislators failed to find time to restore cuts in healthcare and other needed services.

The impact of term limits also mean that when the full impact of the tax cuts passed this year take effect, many legislators will be out of office and won't have to deal with the budgetary consequences of their tax cut votes. Perhaps more so than in prior years, closed-door negotiations that don't involve the minority party are commons. Senator Tim Green said that special interests have a stronger influence now than ever before, "Political contributions and special interest groups have become the avenue of reason, not public policy. Special interest dictates what goes on in this body."

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell has proposed a new "Oil Company Gross Profits Tax" on oil companies doing business in the state. The tax, which would be levied in place of the state's regular corporate profits tax, would be calculated using " combined reporting," a loophole-closing technique that has already been enacted in two states this year, and is estimated to raise more than $750 million a year. A new report from the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center argues that Rendell's proposal would be a sustainable and fair funding solution for Pennsylvania's transportation funding needs. Read the report here.

Montana's Special Session adjourned Tuesday after the state's biennial budget received final approval. The regular 2007 legislative session ground to an acrimonious halt late last month. The main stumbling blocks were how to spend a projected $1 billion surplus and whether lawmakers would enact a temporary property tax "rebate," as Democratic leaders proposed, or a more permanent property tax reduction, as Republicans suggested. Ultimately a one-time $400 rebate for homeowners survived the cantankerous debate, but a tax credit of up to $120 for renters failed to win final approval. Property tax cuts for businesses that would have exempted the first $80,000 of business equipment from tax were also left out of the final budget. Ultimately the agreed upon budget is likely to be viewed as a political win for Governor Brian Schweitzer as no doubt he and other policymakers will take credit for "cut[ing] more taxes for more Montanans than any time in history."

ITEP Report: Assessing Missouri's Tax Treatment of Social Security Benefits

The Social Security tax cuts in House Bill 444 offer virtually nothing to most low-income retirees. This poorly targeted tax break shifts the cost of funding public services towards non-elderly taxpayers, many of whom are less well-off than the upper-income seniors benefitting from this exemption.

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt is expected to sign legislation that would remove Social Security benefits and publicly funded retirement income from the state's income tax base within six years for Missourians age 62 or older. These exemptions are limited to individuals with income of less than $85,000 and married couples with income of less than $100,000. Estimates are that the legislation will cost $125 million once fully phased in.

As the nation and Missourians age, common sense dictates that the cost of HB 444 is only going to grow over time and make it more difficult to fund services that seniors (and everyone else) count on. ITEP has found that only 28 percent of elderly Missourians, generally among the better off, would benefit from the proposal. Proponents of the legislation seem oblivious to this and continue to claim that any tax on Social Security benefits is "double taxation." To find out why this argument and others in favor of the bill are deceptive, read ITEP's new policy brief.

Yesterday, Congress passed the final budget resolution for fiscal year 2008 which foresees $2.9 trillion in spending, including $954 billion for annually appropriated programs. This is $21 billion more than requested by the President's plan, which was criticized by many Democrats and advocates for short-changing human needs services.

PAYGO Rule Revived, But Plans to Waive It for Some Tax Breaks

The effect of the budget resolution on future tax cuts is a little confusing to people who are not budget experts. The budget revives the "pay-as-you-go" rule, or PAYGO, which creates a point of order in the Senate against new entitlement spending or tax breaks that are not paid for. (This can be waived with 60 votes.) At the same time, the budget does assume that Congress will agree to waive PAYGO to spend $180 billion over 5 years on extending some of the Bush tax breaks that are being called middle-class tax breaks (even though they include estate tax reduction for very large estates).

Also in the $180 billion tax cut package are extensions of the child credit, marriage penalty relief, the 10 percent tax rate and a one-year "patch" for the Alternative Minimum Tax (which essentially extends the exemption that keeps most people from paying for the AMT for another year). (Click here for a list of all the Bush tax cuts.) This tax break language originated in the Senate at the behest of Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-MT). The budget plan projects that if Congress followed PAYGO for the next five years, a surplus of $156 billion would appear in fiscal year 2012, but the tax breaks in that year alone would whittle that surplus down to $41 billion.

A "trigger" provision applies to the House, which adds another point of order (besides PAYGO) against tax breaks if the surplus is not still projected to appear a couple years into this five-year period. The Senate was adamant that this provision should not apply to them, apparently because they want to vote for tax breaks regardless of whether there is a surplus that can be used to pay for them. Even if the surplus appears in 2012, it is calculated to include the Social Security surplus, which was never intended to be used to finance tax breaks and should not be seen as money available for that purpose.

Resolution Does Not Raise Taxes

Republican opponents of the budget resolution have been quick to say that it raises taxes. As CTJ has pointed out, the resolution does not raise a cent of taxes but says that any tax cut must be paid for under PAYGO. (Even Baucus's extension of "middle-class" tax breaks would require a waiver of PAYGO). The Republicans are complaining because when they held the majority in Congress they structured their tax breaks to expire after 2010. They know they cannot extend them without increasing the federal budget deficit, which PAYGO is geared to prevent.

Most Responsible Budget in Years

PAYGO is one reason why this is the most responsible budget we've seen in six years. The President has no role to play in the budget plan because it's a resolution (not a law) that Congress uses to set the overall spending level and to create procedural rules that will guide them as they craft bills to meet the targets spelled out in the resolution. However, the administration has threatened that the President may veto individual spending bills that implement the higher spending goals.

The Hawaii Legislature, in accordance with that state's Constitution, recently approved a measure to provide temporary but targeted tax rebates. The rebates are expected to range in value from $160 for married couples with adjusted gross incomes of less than $5,000 to $90 for couples with incomes between $50,000 and $60,000; couples with incomes above that range will not be eligible for the credit, while individuals would receive smaller rebates over the same income range.

The rebates are prompted by a constitutional requirement that tax refunds be distributed whenever the state's general fund experiences a budget surplus of 5 percent or more of state revenue in two consecutive years. The wisdom of reducing taxes, even temporarily, in response to such relatively small surpluses is certainly questionable, but the need to improve the fairness of Hawaii's tax system is not. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a family of four earning just enough to reach the federal poverty level paid $546 in Hawaiian income taxes in 2006, the second highest amount in the country. Consequently, offering targeted tax rebates - rather than flat amounts as had been past practice - is a welcome change, but is ultimately insufficient. As the Honolulu Star Bulletin observed, a better approach would be to institute a state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as numerous other states have done.

It's the start of the summer driving season, and gas taxes are back in the news again across the nation. Gas taxes have long been the main method used by states to fund their transportation system, but recent high gas prices have made gas taxes a hot political issue. Since most states' gas taxes are fixed dollar values, inflation decreases their value every year, forcing lawmakers to pass new laws raising the gas tax every few years. However, this time around, many states just can't seem to find the political will to do so. Nebraska's governor Heineman is threatening to veto the paltry 1.8 cents per gallon gas tax increase passed by the state's legislature. Minnesota's Governor Pawlenty waited less than twenty-four hours to veto an equally modest five cent per gallon gas tax increase. Even worse, some lawmakers in Connecticut and Minnesota have proposed completely suspending their state's gas taxes, for the summer and for one year respectively. While in the short term these gas tax gimmicks may pay political dividends, in the not-so-long term these states cannot afford to play politics with transportation funding.

Gross Receipts Tax Is Not a Cure-All for the States

Over the past few years, both Texas and Ohio have enacted major changes to their tax systems, choosing to replace existing business taxes with taxes based on companies' total receipts. This takes the form of a "margins" tax in Texas and the "commercial activity" tax in Ohio. Two other states, Illinois and Michigan, are also now considering whether to follow suit by implementing taxes based, at least in part, on gross receipts.

IL Gov Won't Raise Taxes on People, Just Taxes That Are Passed onto People

Despite Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich coming before the Illinois House in a rare all-day hearing to promote his plan for implementing a gross receipts tax (GRT) his proposal was unanimously defeated by the Illinois House in a 107-0 vote. The Governor's proposal barely passed the Senate Executive Committee. Analyses by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy suggest that gross receipts taxes are generally passed on by businesses to consumers. The Governor, however, said in his address to the House, "I will not raise taxes on people. I won't do it today. I won't do it tomorrow. I won't do it next week, next month, next year." Ironically, the Governor also said that he would oppose any income or sales tax hike because "It's regressive, and people already are paying to much" but many experts think that the GRT is regressive and hits low- and middle-income people hardest.

Eliminating Revenue Source + No Plan to Replace Revenue = Government Shutdown

Since voting last year to repeal the state's Single Business Tax (SBT), which is set to expire on December 31, Michigan lawmakers have been in almost continuous debate regarding ways to replace this vital revenue source. Fearing a government shutdown, the Michigan House and Senate have passed very different tax proposals. The Senate-approved plan would not completely replace the revenue lost from the SBT, while the Governor-supported House plan will raise the same amount of revenue as the current SBT, but would allow for large tax credits for Michigan-based businesses. The House and Senate proposals both have a business income tax component, but the Senate plan relies more heavily on a gross receipts tax element. In the coming weeks, compromise is needed before Governor Granholm has the opportunity to sign this important yet contentious legislation.

Ignore Those Lobbyists Boring Holes into the Gross Receipts Tax

Part of the allure of gross receipts taxes - to hear proponents like Governor Blagojevich tell it, anyway - is that they don't have many of the same loopholes as corporate income taxes and will expand the base of economic activity and economic actors subject to taxation. The reality may prove quite different, however. Gross receipts type taxes have scarcely settled onto the pages of law books in Texas and Ohio, yet businesses in both states have already begun clamoring for - and will soon start receiving - concessions and special treatment. In Texas, the House of Representatives last week approved a bill that would double the exemption for small businesses under the margins tax, would lower the taxes paid by multistate financial services companies under the tax, and would attempt to prevent Sprint Nextel from passing the tax along to its customers.

In Ohio, a provision of the commercial activities tax designed to raise tax rates automatically - should the total amount of revenue generated by the tax begin to fall - will soon be eliminated, thus leaving the state without an important stopgap. These changes may not have a deleterious impact on the fiscal situation in either Texas or Ohio. The changes being debated in Texas would be offset by other revenue measures, for instance. Still, they should give policymakers in Michigan and Illinois pause. What they enact now may ultimately look quite different from what they envision.

Nebraska's unicameral legislature gave second-round approval to tax cut bill LB 367 which, over two years, is expected to cost the state $400 million. From a fairness perspective the bill is largely a "mixed bag." The bill includes a measure to lower the tax bills of the very wealthiest Nebraskans by repealing the state estate tax.

However, the bill also contains some tax cuts designed to help many low and middle income Nebraskans, including an expansion of the state refundable EITC to 10% of the federal level. The bill includes a poorly-targeted property tax cut, the tax brackets for some filers are broadened, and the standard deduction is increased. The good news from the Cornhusker state is that costly proposals (like lowering the state sales tax from 5.5 percent to 5 percent) and even more poorly-targeted proposals like lowering the top rate were both left out of the bill.

The "tax gap," the difference between the total taxes owed and the total taxes paid in a given year, continues to be an alluring target for members of Congress. The IRS has estimated that in 2001, $345 billion in taxes due was not collected on time, and around $290 billion of that will never be collected. There is possibly much more tax evasion taking place in offshore tax havens.

A bill has been introduced in the House by Representatives Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) to crack down on offshore tax havens. A companion bill was introduced a few months ago in the Senate by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI), Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Barack Obama (D-IL). The legislation includes a presumption that offshore trusts and shell corporations in designated tax havens are controlled by the taxpayers funding them or directing them. It would also ban patents on tax strategies and would allow the federal government to order American banks to stop accepting or authorizing credit cards from foreign countries or banks not cooperating with U.S. tax enforcement laws. These reforms are important to anyone who pays her fair share - and is tired of subsidizing people who don't.

House Democratic leaders and Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel will soon introduce a plan that will help low- and middle- income people by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit and the standard deduction. These provisions would be included in a long-awaited plan to permanently shield many upper-middle class taxpayers from the Alternative Minimum Tax. Democrats in the House say that their plan would offer more people tax breaks than would the usual "patch" that the Republican-led Congress has periodically enacted to restrain the reach of the AMT.

Opportunity for Organizations to Support Progressive Changes in the Tax Code

Several advocacy groups have begun circulating a national sign-on letter for organizations who support improving the tax code for low-income people. The final deadline to sign on is Friday, May 18, but any organizations signed on earlier can be included in a partial list that will be presented to some members of Congress during lobbying activities by advocates. Click here to sign your organization onto the letter. For anyone who does not represent an organization but wants to get involved, you can send a quick email that will go to your Representative and Senators in support of tax changes that will help low-income people. Click here to send an email.

Advocacy Community Focuses on Tax Credits

As the Coalition on Human Needs explained in its appeal to organizations, a working family with an income below $11,750 this year is too poor to get the refundable Child Tax Credit.(For a family of three, that's 43 percent below the poverty line.) That leaves out 10 million poor children who would benefit from improvements in this credit. Another credit that can be improved is the EITC, especially as it affects poor childless adults, a group of people who are usually eligible for no federal assistance of any sort. Low-income workers between ages 25-64 who are not raising children are eligible for a very small EITC (last year the maximum was $412; the average credit was only $230).Their average annual earnings were $6,050 in 2005 (about 40 percent below the poverty line for a single individual)

While the 110th Congress has not yet passed any major tax legislation related to energy, the level of interest among members is so intense that it seems likely that some legislation will be sent to the President's desk. There are plenty of options. A paper from Citizens for Tax Justice from December pointed out that at very least Congress could repeal several tax subsidies that provide billions of dollars to oil and gas companies at a time when energy prices are at record highs.

Legislation Passed in the House is Only the Beginning

Back in January the House passed the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act (H.R. 6), which repealed two of the tax subsidies criticized by CTJ. The first is the domestic manufacturing deduction for gas and oil, and the second is the five-year amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures, or, in plain English, the faster write-off of the cost of exploring for oil and gas. Other provisions would close loopholes that have allowed companies drilling on public lands to avoid paying royalties. Revenues raised through these provisions would go into a fund used to increase the development of alternative energy sources.

The House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures held hearings last week on further steps the House could take, and members spoke of several possible measures. One that came up frequently was extending the Section 45 Renewable Electricity Production Credit, which is a credit for the production of energy from various alternative sources

Different Direction Possible in the Senate

Things move more slowly in the Senate, which has not acted on H.R. 6, but some Senators have indicated that they might add provisions from that bill to other energy legislation.

Last week Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) introduced a bill (S. 1238) with several energy tax provisions. An accounting method that reduces taxes for oil companies ("last in, first out" or LIFO) would be curtailed. The faster write-off for exploring for oil and gas would be repealed, as in the House bill, as would several loopholes allowing companies to escape paying royalties when they drill on public lands. The bill would also repeal another tax break criticized by CTJ, the foreign tax credit for energy companies that aren't really paying foreign taxes. The revenue raised from these provisions would go towards research on ethanol and biodiesel and towards alternative energy infrastructure.

A Windfall Profits Tax?

A more controversial part of Casey's bill would raise a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies equal to 50 percent of the portion of sales prices exceeding $50 per barrel. Companies would be able to lower or eliminate the tax by making certain investments, including investments in alternative energy production. The revenue raised would be put in a fund to help low-income people purchase gasoline or pay for public transportation.

Massachusetts policymakers this week announced the formation of a fifteen-member commission to study the Commonwealth's corporate tax system. Massachusetts' corporate tax is certainly in need of an overhaul, as evidenced by its long-term erosion as a revenue source and by the broad-ranging reforms Governor Deval Patrick proposed earlier this year to address the issue.

Yet, in some respects, the formation of a commission may represent a step backwards. While a commission had been initially floated by the Governor in January, this particular panel was named only after the Massachusetts House of Representatives rejected the Governor's corporate tax reforms in its version of the FY 2008 budget. As Joan Vennochi of the Boston Globe has observed, the House's approach demonstrates that its leadership, in the person of Speaker Sal DiMasi, is "standing up for ... unfairness" and standing "with the coalition of the greedy at the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and other business-backed groups."

Indeed, the commission is heavy with members who hardly seem predisposed to support efforts to put an end to corporate tax avoidance. Upon being named to the commission, one member yawned, "Of all the priorities that the state faces, I would not put this near the top... The impetus for the commission really is a response to the governor's proposal rather than a crying need in itself." Another organization represented on the panel, the Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM), has boasted to its members that it has successfully "fought ... efforts to establish combined reporting" - the central element of the Governor's tax reform proposals.

For more on the need for combined reporting and other changes to the Massachusetts tax system, visit the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center.

A new report from the General Accounting Office (GAO) explores the murky waters of overseas tax avoidance by wealthy Americans, and finds that while IRS audits of Americans using offshore tax havens often uncover large tax scams and a great deal of revenue, the government is hampered in its investigative work by rules requiring tax administrators to wrap up most audits in three years. The GAO report was presented in a Senate Finance Committee hearing yesterday, where a Treasury official did not say whether the Bush administration would consider changing the statute of limitations for these particular tax audits. The report examines case studies showing that three years is simply not enough time to effectively catch tax cheats who are running away as fast as they can. The New York Times' Edmund Andrews has the story. The Talking Taxes weblog has commentary.

During the final hours of Indiana's Legislative Session lawmakers attempted to provide some property tax relief, but missed out on an opportunity to truly reform the state's property tax. Legislators voted to temporarily send property tax rebate checks to homeowners (after they already paid their property tax) worth $300 million to help offset increasing property taxes. Republicans are calling the legislation a political trick and in the end taxpayers are the real losers because inherent issues with Indiana's property tax are allowed to continue. For more, check out the Talking Taxes blog. Legislators also voted to allow counties to increase local income taxes in an attempt to allow locals to diversify their own revenue sources.

Smokers are also impacted by this last minute lawmaking and will soon pay 44 cents more for a pack of cigarettes. The new revenues generated are going to be used for health care programs and are expected to lower the number of Hoosiers who smoke. Of course, the increase is quite controversial given the ongoing need to fund health care and the fact that cigarette tax revenue declines overtime. For more on cigarette taxes read ITEP's Policy Brief on the topic.

House and Senate leaders are hoping to overcome some disagreements so that they can appoint conferees and finalize a budget plan before the middle of May. Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate initially proposed budget plans that would supposedly produce a budget surplus by 2012. The Senate plan was amended before it was passed, at the urging of Max Baucus (D-MT), to spend that alleged surplus on tax breaks and, to a much lesser degree, on expanded children's health care.

Members of the House passed their plan without any such amendment. Now the two budget proposals must be reconciled and the House must decide whether to accept the Baucus amendment in the final budget plan. Few have noted that the surplus they're talking about doesn't really exist. The "surplus" money that would be spent on tax cuts and so forth would really be taken from funds that are supposed to be used to shore up Social Security.

In 2012, the Social Security surplus, which is supposed to be separate from the rest of the federal budget, is projected to be $248 billion. The Senate budget plan, as initially proposed, would produce a surplus of $132 billion in 2012 - but that includes the Social Security surplus. So clearly the federal government is relying on the Social Security surplus to stay in the black. If the Baucus amendment is adopted in the final budget, that would essentially mean the Social Security surplus is being spent, mostly on tax cuts.

Of course the House and Senate budget plans are far more responsible than the President's since at least they revive the "pay-as-you-go" rule, or PAYGO, which helped us balance the budget in the 1990s. But the Baucus amendment, if adopted in the final budget, will be a pledge to waive PAYGO to spend the projected "surplus" that's supposedly coming in 2012.

A new paper from Citizens for Tax Justice shows that President George W. Bush and his wife Laura received a $31,037 income tax reduction for 2006 due to the President's tax cut program. Vice-president Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne, whose income was much higher, saved $110,932.

CTJ director Bob McIntyre notes, "At a time when our nation is running huge deficits and spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives on the Iraq war, you'd think such people would be asked to sacrifice a little rather than receiving such largesse."