The Senate approved a bill Wednesday that includes an extension of unemployment benefits and COBRA health benefits for unemployed workers through the end of the year, and a short-term extension of Medicaid funding for states and a Medicare "doc fix" (maintaining payments to doctors under Medicare).

The cost of this spending was not offset since it is considered emergency spending to stimulate the economy. But the costs of other provisions in the bill — extensions for $30 billion worth of business tax breaks often called the "tax extenders" — were offset. The biggest revenue-raiser used to offset this costs is a provision to close the "black liquor" loophole. This loophole allows paper-making companies using a carbon-rich by-product as fuel to use a tax credit that is supposed to encourage the use of environmentally-friendly alternative fuels.

But the "black liquor" provision may be used instead in the final health care reform bill. The health care reform bill approved by the House on November 7 of last year (H.R. 3962) included this revenue provision, and the President's recent proposal to bridge the differences between the House and Senate health bills also includes it.

There is another perfectly good revenue-raising provision that the Senate can use to offset most of the cost of the "tax extenders." The version of the tax extenders bill approved by the House on December 9 was supported by CTJ and several other progressive organizations because it included several good provisions, including one to close the infamous "carried interest" loophole. U.S. PIRG and CTJ issued a joint press release yesterday stating their disappointment that the Senate has not done the same.

The carried interest loophole allows billionaires managing hedge funds and buyout funds to pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income workers. The House has passed legislation three separate times to close the carried interest loophole (including the recent House-passed extenders bill), and both of President Obama’s budget plans have proposed to close it. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was quoted in Congress Daily recently saying that closing the carried interest loophole is "on the table."

Until this loophole is closed, the compensation of these fund managers will continue to be taxed at a rate of 15 percent, the preferential rate for capital gains that is supposed to benefit people who invest their own money, not the people who manage it.

Like the House Democrats, the Senate Democrats plan to offset the cost of the "tax extenders," which is included in the long-term extension of UI and COBRA that they plan to vote on next week. The "tax extenders" are a group of supposedly temporary tax cuts that mostly go to business interests and that Congress extends each year, sometimes retroactively. The extenders themselves are questionable policy, but the fact that Congress wants to pay for them by closing loopholes is a positive development.

The Senate version of the extenders bill would close the "black liquor" loophole, which allows paper companies to take an alternative fuel tax credit for a long-used process that is not environmentally friendly.

The 2005 highway law includes a tax credit for fuel that is a mix of alternative fuel (cellulosic fuel, meaning fuel made from the non-edible parts of plants) and traditional fossil fuel. In 2007, this credit was extended to include fuel used for purposes like manufacturing.

The problem is that certain paper companies already have a process that involves a cellulosic fuel (“black liquor,” a by-product from the pulp-making process), albeit one that is carbon-rich and not something Congress would want to encourage for environmental reasons. These paper companies realized that they could qualify for this new credit if they added fossil fuel to the cellulosic fuel they were already using.

In other words, companies are actually getting paid to add diesel to a relatively dirty fuel that they were already using. This is obviously not what Congress intended when it enacted this tax credit. The Senate is right to close this loophole.

Environmentalists have their eyes on the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid has given several committees a September 28 deadline to mark up climate change legislation. The legislation is expected to include a "cap-and-trade" program, in which companies would need to have allowances to emit greenhouse gases, and the amount of allowances would be capped at a level that would decline for several years.

The House of Representatives passed its version (H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) in June. It's clear that America needs to act to reduce the greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. But it's equally clear that the Senate could do better than the House did in addressing this problem.

President Obama proposed in his first budget that Congress create a cap-and-trade system in which all of the emissions allowances are auctioned off to companies rather than given away for free. The overall amount of allowances would be capped and reduced each year. The revenue raised could be largely used, the President reasoned, for a refundable tax credit that would offset the impact of the resulting higher energy costs for low- and middle-income families.

The House cap-and-trade bill only auctions off 15 percent of the allowances, and the revenue raised would help offset the costs for the poorest fifth of families. So 85 percent of the allowances would not be auctioned off, but neither would they be doled out for free to corporations (not all of them anyway). There would be strings attached for some. For example, local utility companies would initially get almost half of the allowances, but in return they would be required to pass savings onto consumers. Unfortunately, there are many reasons why this is an inefficient way to protect consumers.

The Senate might repeat the House's mistakes. One of the Senate committees with partial jurisdiction over the legislation will be the Finance Committee, whose chairman (Max Baucus of Montana) recently told Congressional Quarterly that the Senate would probably not allocate the emissions allowances all that differently than the House bill does.

The increased costs that middle-income families would see if the House bill becomes law are not gigantic ($235 a year according to the Congressional Budget Office). But Congress needs to decide whether the increased prices paid for energy should go largely towards corporate profits (which seems to be the likely result of the House-passed bill) or be redirected back to consumers.

The Senate could accomplish the latter by auctioning off more than 15 percent of the allowances and using the revenue to offset the increased energy costs more effectively for both low- and middle-income families. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out that refundable tax credits, combined with more use of EBT cards, would be an effective way to deliver the necessary energy refund to the vast majority of low- and middle-income families.

The Senate might not just repeat the House's mistakes. They might even add a few of their own. Baucus told the Daily Tax Report that “Congress could use the money from auctioning allowances to cut taxes: by cutting marginal rates, by cutting capital gains rates, by cutting payroll taxes. Or we could do all of the above.”

To take just one of these ridiculous ideas, the preferential rates that already exist for capital gains and dividends already cost us around $100 billion a year and the vast majority of the benefits go to the richest one percent of taxpayers. Let's hope Senator Baucus sees that relief for consumers is more important than showering more special breaks on wealthy investors.

Does the "cap-and-trade" bill (H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) passed out of the House of Representatives in June do enough to protect consumers, or is it too riddled with give-aways to corporate America to be worth enacting? The question of how much the legislation does to protect consumers is a complicated one, but two things are certain. First, if this Congress fails to enact climate change legislation (even imperfect legislation) the consequences could be terrible. Second, when the Senate takes up climate change in September, it will have an opportunity to significantly improve the legislation, as explained by recent reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

What the Recent House-Passed Bill Would Do

Under H.R. 2454, companies would need to have allowances to emit greenhouse gases, and the amount of allowances would be capped at a level that would decline for several years. The total level of emissions allowed in 2050 would be only 17 percent of the amount emitted in 2005.

The right to pollute would therefore become scarce, as its supply would decrease, and when the supply of anything decreases, its price generally goes up. Energy from oil, gas or coal and any products made or transported in ways that involve oil, gas or coal would therefore become more expensive. For consumers, the effects of a cap-and-trade system would be similar to those of a carbon tax. The question is whether the extra cash paid by consumers will go towards increased corporate profits or be routed back to the consumers.

For this reason, the President proposed in his first budget that Congress create a cap-and-trade system in which ALL of the emissions allowances are auctioned off to companies rather than given away freely. The revenue raised could be largely used, the President reasoned, for a refundable tax credit that would offset the impact of the resulting higher energy costs for low- and middle-income families.

The bill passed out of the House at the end of June only auctions off 15 percent of the allowances, and the revenue raised would help offset the costs for the poorest fifth of families.

Free Allowances for Utilities -- in Return for Promise to Pass Savings on to Consumers

85 percent of the allowances would not be auctioned off, but neither would they be doled out for free to corporations (not all of them anyway). There would be strings attached for some. For example, local utility companies would initially get almost half of the allowances, but in return they would be required to pass savings onto consumers.

There are many reasons why this is an inefficient way to protect consumers. If it doesn't work, Congress could feel pressure in the future to clamp down on the utilities until it does work. But even if utilities pass savings onto their customers, they would be split between their residential customers and their business customers. As one of the Center on Budget reports explains, the Congressional Budget Office finds that most of the savings for businesses would go to the stockholders, who are very disproportionately among the wealthy.

Better Protection for the Poor

The provisions to shield the poorest fifth of families from the resulting increased energy costs are stronger. An agency within the Energy Department would determine what the average increase in energy costs would be for a family of a given size, after accounting for the offset in costs that will (in theory) be provided by the utilities.

Most families with incomes at 150 percent of the official poverty line or lower would receive a monthly energy refund based on this calculation. Families participating in certain programs (like food stamps) would be automatically enrolled. The monthly refund would usually be delivered through the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards that states already use to deliver food stamps and other benefits, further streamlining the administration of the refund.

Since poor working-age adults without children typically do not participate in these other programs or even have a EBT card, they would be helped by an increase in the (very meager) maximum Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) available for childless adults.

What the Senate Should Do

The increased costs that middle-income families would see if the House bill becomes law are not gigantic ($235 a year according to the Congressional Budget Office). But Congress needs to decide whether the increased prices paid for energy should go largely towards corporate profits (which seems to be the potential result of the House-passed bill) or be redirected back to consumers.

The obvious way to make the latter happen would be to auction off more than 15 percent of the allowances and use the revenue to offset the increased energy costs more effectively for both low- and middle-income families. The Center on Budget points out that refundable tax credits, combined with more use of EBT cards, would be an effective way to deliver the necessary energy refund to the vast majority of low- and middle-income families.

a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2871" _fcksavedurl="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2871">

And this would make for better environmental policy anyway. Families would clearly see the costs of energy rising and have an incentive to curb their energy consumption, even though their total purchasing power would be unchanged.

On May 11, the Treasury Department released its "Green Book" containing new details of the tax changes included in the President's fiscal year 2010 budget proposal. In addition to extending the Bush tax cuts for all but the richest Americans and making permanent many of the tax cuts in the recently enacted economic recovery act, the President would also make many changes that would raise revenue by closing loopholes, blocking tax avoidance schemes and making the tax code more progressive.

A new report from Citizens for Tax Justice examines and describes the significant revenue-raising provisions that are sure to be debated fiercely in the months to come.

Read the report.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee plans to mark up legislation next week that would create a "cap and trade" program to reduce the emission of gases that cause global warming ("greenhouse" gases). While President Obama favors auctioning off permits to pollute and then using the proceeds largely to offset the resulting costs for consumers, the Energy and Commerce Committee seems ready to give a large portion of those permits away to utility companies for free.

Why "Cap and Trade"?

The idea behind a cap and trade program is that the federal government could cap the overall amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted into the atmosphere (and reduce that cap each year) and allow market forces to determine how the reduction in emissions can be made most efficiently.

For example, if a manufacturer finds that it can eliminate greenhouse gas emissions at its facilities very cheaply, it can then sell permits it doesn't need to another company that finds emissions reductions to be prohibitively expensive. The overall reduction in emissions would probably come with less costs to the overall economy than would be the case if the federal government simply mandated every company to reduce emissions by a set amount.

Impact on Consumers

Greenhouse gases are produced by the burning of fossil fuels like coal to provide electricity, and also by burning fossil fuels like petroleum to transport nearly every product we buy. This means that limiting the overall amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted into the atmosphere could increase the costs of just about all consumer goods. If implemented properly, this would, in turn, provide new incentives for manufacturers, consumers, and energy companies to become much more energy efficient.

The overall added costs to consumers could be offset through refundable tax credits (an approach favored by President Obama and the House Ways and Means Committee). The result would be that energy and energy-intensive services and products would be more expensive relative to other things, but the overall buying power of consumers would not be diminished. As the Congressional Budget Office has pointed out, this is particularly important for low-income people, because they are forced to spend a larger portion of their income (or all of their income) on consumption and will therefore feel a larger impact.

The CBO has also explained that the cost increases for consumers are likely to occur whether the emissions permits are auctioned off to companies or simply given to the companies for free. Greenhouse gas emitting companies would be able to charge higher prices either way as a result of the cap. President Obama proposed in his budget outline that all of the emissions permits be auctioned to companies so that the resulting revenue can be used largely for a tax rebate (an extension of his Making Work Pay Credit) that would offset the increased costs for consumers.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has analyzed the sorts of steps that can be taken to offset these regressive impacts, which would involve tax rebates for most people but would also require boosting other existing programs for people who would not be reached by tax rebates.

Energy and Commerce Committee Moving in the Wrong Direction

Henry Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Edward Markey (D-MA), chairman of the subcommittee handling the issue, have put forth legislative language that currently does not address whether all the permits would be auctioned or not. But media reports indicate that they are currently negotiating language that would give away as much as 40 percent of the permits to utility companies, which would be required to pass on savings to their customers.

There are many, many problems with this approach. To take just a couple: Less than half of the increased costs that consumers would face as a result of cap and trade would come from higher utility bills. Blunting the effects of cap and trade for electricity would force larger greenhouse gas reductions in other energy-intensive parts of the economy, which might raise the total costs of reducing emissions.

The President was right to propose that 100 percent of greenhouse gas emission permits should be auctioned off rather than given away for free. Hopefully, the cap and trade program that emerges will be much closer to what the President outlined.

Citizens for Tax Justice called uponPresident Obama this week to stand by his message of transparency by finally making "tax expenditure" performance reviews a regular part of the OMB's evaluations of government effectiveness.

Simply put, tax expenditures differ from the rest of the tax code in that they focus on encouraging a specific activity or rewarding a particular group of people, rather than on trying to improve the efficiency, simplicity, or fairness of our tax system.Since tax expenditures are usually enacted with primarily non-tax goals in mind (e.g. encouraging investment, encouraging research and development, encouraging home ownership, etc.) it is important that the government make an effort to gauge their effectiveness in achieving those goals.

But despite calls from the GAO, past Congresses, and outside experts in favor of subjecting tax expenditures to regular performance reviews, the most comprehensive performance measure currently in place, the OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), continues to focus narrowly on only traditional spending programs.

Encouragingly, language in the President's recently released budget blueprint suggests that a more comprehensive approach for evaluating the government's performance will be used under the Obama Administration (see. pp.39).It's hard to see how anything approaching true comprehensiveness could ignore the hundreds of billions of dollars the government directs toward programs administered via the tax code.Hopefully, the brief language addressing performance reviews that was included in this blueprint is the first signal that an end is coming to the free-ride thus far enjoyed by tax expenditures.

Read the full statement from CTJ

On February 26, President Obama sent to Congress the blueprint for what could be one of the most progressive federal budgets in generations. The budget calls for national health care reform, expanded education funding, a program to reduce global warming, and several improvements in human needs programs. As a new report from Citizens for Tax Justice explains, it would make the tax code considerably more progressive, and close a number of egregious tax loopholes.

There is, however, a flaw in the budget proposal: It does not raise enough revenue to pay for public services. Instead, its net effect is to cut taxes dramatically.

Opponents of the President have attempted to argue that the budget proposal calls for tax increases that could sink the economy, but this complaint is plainly unfounded. President Bush and his allies in Congress were adamant that lower taxes would lead to an explosion of prosperity, and they enacted tax cuts in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006. Some allies of the former President argue that Congress is now insufficiently focused on tax cuts, but this view seems bizarre and incredible given the sad economic facts all around us.

Indeed, one might reasonably conclude that we could safely allow most of the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010, as they are scheduled to under current law, without any concern about how this will impact the economy. But President Obama actually proposes to keep most of the Bush tax cuts. Obama's largest proposed tax cut is to re-enact 80 percent of the Bush tax cuts that are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. Most of this reflects re-enacting the Bush income tax cuts for married couples with incomes below $250,000 and others with incomes below $200,000 (or put another way, for about 98 percent of taxpayers), and permanently reducing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). In addition, Obama proposes to re-enact close to half of the Bush estate tax cut.

On top of re-enacting most of the Bush tax cuts, the Obama budget includes a number of additional tax cuts for families and individuals. (These would be extensions of temporary tax cuts included in the recently passed stimulus law.) It also proposes some questionable business tax cuts.

Partially offsetting its tax-cut proposals, the Obama budget proposes some significant revenue-raising provisions. These include a cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions, a limit on the benefits of itemized deductions for high-bracket taxpayers, and a number of corporate and high-income loophole-closing measures.

Read the Report

A new report from Citizens for Tax Justice compares the tax cuts proposed as economic stimulus by the House Democrats to the tax cuts proposed by their Republican counterparts. The report includes both national and state-by-state figures showing the average tax cut and the share of total tax cuts that would be received by taxpayers in various income groups under the different proposals.

The report finds that the Democrats' proposal (H.R. 598) includes some tax cuts that are far more targeted to low- and middle-income people than any of the tax cuts included in the Republican alternatives. This is largely because H.R. 598 includes a new refundable credit (the Making Work Pay Credit) and expands two others (the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit) while the Republican alternatives do not. Working people who pay federal payroll taxes but do not earn enough to owe federal income taxes will only benefit from an income tax cut if it takes the form of a refundable credit. Many economists have argued that any effective stimulus policy would have to boost demand for goods and services by causing immediate spending -- and one way to do that is to put money in the hands of low- and middle-income people who are more likely than wealthy taxpayers to spend it quickly.

The House of Representatives is expected to vote this week on the Democratic proposal, H.R. 598. Many of the provisions of this bill have wide support from progressive advocates. The Coalition on Human Needs is distributing a sign-on letter for organizations in support of the expansion in the Child Tax Credit. If you are authorized to sign on behalf on an organization in support of this provision, click here for more information.

Read the CTJ Report

On Thursday, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) released the outlines of a $275 billion tax cut package to be included with a larger stimulus bill that Democratic leaders hope to enact by President's Day. In many ways it is an improvement over the proposal initially floated by the Obama transition team, but it also keeps many of Obama's ill-advised tax cuts for business that will have little or no stimulative effect on the economy.

Most economists believe that the current economic downturn is largely the result of a collapse in demand for goods and services, and that direct government spending can boost demand and prevent the recession from becoming more severe and destructive. Tax cuts are less effective because it's difficult to ensure that they will result in the sort of immediate spending needed to boost demand quickly. But if tax cuts can at least be targeted to those people who are likely to spend the extra money right away (like low-income families), then they could have a decent chance of accomplishing the goal of stimulating the economy.

More Progressive Tax Cuts for Families

Last week, Citizens for Tax Justice released a report that showed how some of Obama's proposed tax cuts would be targeted to those who would likely spend the money right away (thus immediately pumping the money into the economy) while others were more likely to be ineffective giveaways to business. Obama's proposed Making Work Pay Credit would reach people at lower income levels, but it would not be particularly targeted towards the bottom half of the income ladder. (The poorest 60 percent of taxpayers would only get 48 percent of the benefits while the richest 20 percent would get 25 percent of the benefits.) A proposal to increase the availability of the refundable portion of the $1,000 Child Tax Credit looked more promising because nearly all of the benefits would go to the poorest 60 percent.

The Ways and Means Committee proposal improves on Obama's tax cuts for individuals. For example, the improvement in the Child Tax Credit (CTC) would be even more progressive. Under current law, some working families who pay federal payroll taxes but who do not earn enough to owe federal income taxes are actually too poor to benefit from the CTC. That's because people with no income tax liability do not benefit from a tax credit unless it is refundable, and the refundable portion of the CTC is limited to 15 percent of earnings above $12,550 in 2009. The Ways and Means Committee proposal would remove that earnings threshold so that the refundable portion of the CTC is equal to 15 percent of all earnings (with the maximum credit limit unchanged at $1,000 per child).

The refundable Making Work Pay Credit, which Obama proposed during his campaign and which would generally offer working people $500 (or $1,000 for a couple if both spouses work), is also included. A new addition to the package is an improvement in the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). It is unclear at this time how extensive the change in the EITC will be. (It may be similar to the EITC expansion Obama proposed during his campaign.) But it's quite clear that expanding the EITC is a promising way to put money in the hands of families who have probably cut back on purchasing all sorts of needed goods and services and who will therefore spend that money quickly.

Tax Cuts for Business: One Bad Idea Dropped, Several Others Included

The Ways and Means proposal does not include Obama's proposed refundable $3,000 tax credit for businesses that create jobs, which was roundly criticized as unworkable. Democrats in the House and Senate are said to have been doubtful that the credit could possibly be implemented in a way that did not result in a huge tax giveaway for companies that were merely hiring people they would hire anyway.

Unfortunately, many other business tax cuts in Obama's proposal that CTJ and others criticized are included in the Ways and Means package. Earlier attempts at using bonus depreciation to boost the economy have proven to be ineffective, but lawmakers apparently insist on this giveaway to business-owners. A 2006 Federal Reserve study reached a similar conclusion to our own findings, finding that previous versions of this tax break had "only a very limited impact... on investment spending, if any." Worse, the proposal would allow businesses to use their losses to reduce taxes they already paid going back five years (the current limit is two years). As Dean Baker explains, this tax cut must have even less stimulative effect than other business tax cuts because it does nothing to change the incentives of business-owners or investors going forward. The net operating loss carryback provision simply hands money to businesses without requiring any sort of investment (or anything) in return.

House Democratic Proposal Would Rescind the Infamous "Wells Fargo Ruling"

Another provision in the package would reverse IRS Notice 2008-83, also called the "Wells Fargo ruling" after its largest beneficiary. In October, the IRS issued this two-page notice declaring, with no authorization from Congress, that banks could ignore a section of the tax code enacted under President Reagan to prevent abusive tax shelters. In December, over a hundred organizations signed a letter to the House and Senate asking them to rescind the Wells Fargo ruling. That call is now being answered.

The Ways and Means package contains provisions addressing many other needs, including a partially refundable credit for higher education, increased availability of bonds for state and local government, energy tax incentives, child support funding and many others.

The Senate is poised to add a hundred billion dollars to the federal budget deficit by enacting more tax cuts. Democratic Senate leaders have stated that they believe new tax cuts should be paid for, but many Republicans insist on blocking any bill that increases anyone's tax bill, even if the legislation merely closes an egregious tax loophole. Their blocking tactics can succeed in the Senate, where a minority of 41 lawmakers can block most legislation. The House of Representatives, which is governed by the majority rule principle recognized by most modern democracies but not in the U.S. Senate, has passed legislation that includes most of these tax cuts but also includes revenue-raising provisions to offset their costs.

Senate leaders have apparently made a deal that would allow them to enact relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) for a year and extensions of several temporary tax cuts targeted to various special interests (often called the tax extenders) at a cost of around $130 billion, and including a revenue-raising provision that would offset just $25 billion of that cost. The Senate is scheduled to take several votes on Tuesday, including one to provide AMT relief with the costs fully offset by revenue-raising provisions, but this is expected to fail because a minority of Senators will block it. The Senate is then expected to move on to approve AMT relief that is not paid for.

Important Revenue-Raising Provision Would Crack Down on Tax Avoidance Through Deferred Compensation

The revenue-raiser is certainly a worthy provision. It would shut down offshore tax schemes that help the already highly compensated avoid taxes on their deferred compensation. Generally, when a company pays into a deferred compensation plan for an employee, if that plan is "non-qualified" (meaning it exceeds certain limits that the super-compensated don't want to deal with) the company cannot take a tax deduction for the payment until it is actually received as income in later years by the employee. But some have figured out how to have their deferred compensation routed through an offshore entity in some tax haven so that there is no tax paid to the U.S. government or any other government, so not being able to deduct the payment is not an issue. This provision would make the deferred compensation in this situation immediately taxable to the individual, so that there would no longer be an incentive to use this scheme.

But this provision, worthy as it is, pays for less than a fifth of the total cost of the tax cuts included in the bill. The Bush administration and its allies in Congress have promoted the bizarre idea that any tax cut that is enacted for one year can be extended indefinitely without offsetting the cost because such an extension is merely "preventing a tax increase."

Republican Leaders Are Shocked -- Shocked I Tell You! -- that the AMT Will Affect More Taxpayers

This is most ludicrous in the case of AMT relief. The AMT is basically a backstop tax geared towards getting well-off people to pay some minimum tax no matter how proficient they are at finding tax loopholes to reduce or wipe out their tax liability. Tax liability is calculated under the regular rules and the AMT rules, and you only have to pay the AMT if your AMT liability exceeds your regular income tax liability. For most people who are not rich, this is usually not an issue. But the Bush administration chose to lower the regular income tax without making any permanent change to the AMT, so of course that means that more people are going have to pay the AMT. Another problem, albeit a less important one, is that inflation is eating away at the value of the exemptions that keep most of us from paying the AMT. The Clinton administration increased these exemptions, but no permanent increase in those exemptions has been made during the Bush years.

The AMT will affect over 20 million people this year if Congress does not act. In recent years Congress has passed several temporary "patches" to the AMT to prevent this from happening, and this year's patch will cost over $60 billion.

The Bush administration chose to not include a permanent fix to the AMT in its tax plan in 2001 because that would have increased the cost of the proposal. During George W. Bush's first presidential campaign in 2000, CTJ's initial analysis of the governor's tax proposal assumed that it did include a fix to the AMT, but Bush's advisers insisted that this was not true. Of course, we have ended up paying for AMT relief anyway, the only difference is that now President Bush and his allies can pretend that the need for AMT relief was entirely unexpected and that this somehow means it can be deficit-financed.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities helps us out with a little history lesson. This is what Senate Finance Committee ranking Republican Charles Grassley said in January of last year. It typifies what the President and his allies have been saying about the AMT:

"It's ridiculous to rely on revenue that was never supposed to be collected in the first place... It's unfair to raise taxes to repeal something with serious unintended consequences like the AMT."

Compare this to what Senator Grassley said when the first Bush tax cut bill was being debated:

"Roughly one in seven taxpayers will come under the shadow of the Alternative Minimum Tax by the end of the decade... That figure will significantly be higher if President Bush's tax plan is adopted, and that is according to the Joint Tax Committee of the Congress."

The Tax Extenders and Other Tax Cuts -- Some Bad, Some Good

The extenders include all sorts of handouts that either subsidize businesses that don't need subsidies (like the research credit), cut taxes in ways that are not particularly progressive (like the deduction for state sales taxes and the deduction for tuition which really only benefits fairly well-off families), or just offer very trivial benefits (like the provision allowing teachers to deduct $250 in classroom expenses, which yields a benefit of about $60 for teachers lucky enough to be in the 25 percent bracket). CTJ has explained in detail why Congress would be better off ending the ritual of passing "extenders" and should simply let these provisions expire.

There are surely some good provisions in the bill as well. A portion of the tax cuts (about six percent) are targeted towards disaster relief. One particularly progressive provision would make it easier for low-income people to receive the refundable portion of the child credit. Over a thousand organizations from all over the country supported this provision, including CTJ. This improvement in the child credit accounts for only around 2 percent of the cost of the entire bill, and we certainly wish that progressive provisions like this made up a much larger proportion of the tax legislation coming out of Congress lately.

Energy Tax Provisions

The Senate will also vote on a package of extensions and modifications of energy tax breaks on Tuesday. This package at least includes revenue-raising provisions to offset its $17 billion cost. One would limit -- but not eliminate -- the use of the section 199 deduction for manufacturing by oil and gas companies. (Apparently many Senators still believe that pumping oil or gas is "manufacturing" and scaled back an earlier proposal that would completely stop the energy companies from using the manufacturing deduction). Another requires securities brokers to report the "basis" of securities they buy and sell, which will help prevent evasion of capital gains taxes.

While some environmental organizations are applauding this package of incentives for everything from wind and solar power to electric cars, other green groups have thrown cold water on the party by criticizing the compromises that were made leading to passage.

"Unfortunately," wrote the president of the National Wildlife Federation in a letter to the Senate, "by including sweeping new federal subsidies for oil shale, tar sands and liquid coal refining, the bill no longer represents the kind of progress America needs to confront global warming."

As explained by U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, "At current spending rates, we will start the new fiscal year on Oct. 1 with a zero balance in the [Federal Highway] Trust Fund, and will continue to spend more than we take in." If allowed to continue untreated, the consequences of this shortfall would be immense, as every state depends heavily on federal highway dollars to carry out transportation construction projects. Fortunately, a transfer of $8 billion of general revenues into the Highway Trust Fund (aptly described by one Senator as a "short term fix") appears as if it is about to be adopted. Regardless of the resolution of this immediate problem, however, this development brings with it a unique opportunity to discuss two important points related to transportation funding.

First, following the announcement that the Trust Fund would fall short, Arizona and Oklahoma each halted work on scheduled transportation projects, and numerous other states made it clear that they would be forced to follow suit if the problem is not quickly remedied. Such a development would not only have long-term consequences for the efficiency of the nation's transportation infrastructure, but would also have immediate consequences in terms of lost jobs and lost wages.

Members of Congress did not dispute these points in their overwhelming support of the $8 billion transfer to the Trust Fund. But for some reason, talk of how best to bolster the economy (especially the talk going on in the Presidential election) has been held hostage to the idea that tax cuts must be at the center of any wise economic policy. Spending on government employment (such as in the transportation sector) is more important to the nation's economic vitality, and should not be overlooked, despite the zeal with which all sides have professed the importance of tax cuts. (Although at least Democratic leaders in the House and Senate are now discussing a new stimulus bill without tax cuts.)

The second debate that needs to take place in the wake of this transportation funding scare is over what to do about the long-term sustainability of the nation's transportation finance system. The Highway Trust Fund consists mainly of revenue collected by the federal 18.4 cent-per-gallon gasoline tax. The federal gas tax has not been raised since 1994, despite the fact that 18.4 cents in 1994 is the equivalent of what would be about 27 cents in today's dollars, adjusting for inflation. While gas tax hikes aren't likely to be something you'll hear much about during the Presidential election, serious consideration will have to be given to such a plan soon (or at least to some kind of sustainable fix for our revenue shortage) should another eventual shortfall in the Trust Fund be averted.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama has talked up several proposals relating to energy and taxes over the past couple weeks, including a one-time tax rebate of $500 per spouse that would be funded by a five-year windfall profits tax on oil companies. He also proposes a $7,000 tax credit for "advanced technology vehicles" which include hybrid cars that can be plugged into an electrical socket and flexible fuel vehicles (which can run on gasoline or ethanol). Obama has also supported eliminating tax loopholes for oil and gas companies. He also supports a cap and trade program in which businesses must obtain an allowance to emit carbon pollutants and all of these allowances (rather than just a portion of them) would be auctioned off, raising revenue that can be reinvested into alternative fuels and assistance to keep families from being harmed by the increased cost of energy.

His recent statements have caused some controversy, particularly his call to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and his statement that he could be open to repealing the ban on offshore drilling if it was part of a larger compromise on energy policy. But some of the more strident criticism has been aimed at his desire to close tax loopholes and implement a windfall profits tax. Critics argue that many businesses have a period of unusually high profits and it's not clear why targeting the oil industry for a change in tax treatment makes any sense.

But that argument largely misses the point. The oil and gas industry has not just profited enormously. It has profited enormously partly because Americans are subsidizing it through the tax code -- and these tax subsidies have resulted in no clear benefit for the American public. Even if the tax subsidies are repealed, the public will never recoup the revenue showered on the oil and gas industry over the past years unless a windfall profits tax is implemented. The windfall profits tax blocked by Senate Republicans earlier this summer would sensibly ensure that any profits reinvested in renewable energy would not be subject to the tax.

A report released by Citizens for Tax Justice in July makes this argument and explains just how well oil and gas company stockholders are doing, just how little they invest in alternative energy, and how much they have siphoned from federal revenue through tax loopholes. For example, the report cites the American Petroleum Institute (API) which admits that in the six years stretching from 2000 through 2005 the oil industry only put a total of $1.2 billion towards investment in alternatives to fossil fuels, which is just 0.3 percent of its $383 billion in net profits over that period. If this figure had increased since then, the industry would surely be publicizing that fact.

But while the public has not benefited from the tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry, stockholders surely have. As the report explains, if you invested $10,000 in the top five oil companies 20 years ago, your portfolio would now be worth $100,000. That same $10,000 invested in an S&P 500 index fund is now worth $60,000. Oil shareholders enjoy a big advantage, and hardly seem in need of tax subsidies.

Whether a small tax rebate is what working families really need right now seems doubtful, but closing tax loopholes for oil and gas companies is a common sense policy, and a windfall profits tax might be a sensible supplement to this policy.

Members of Congress have left the Capitol for the August recess and some important tax bills await them when they return in the fall.

House Passes Tax Extenders Bill, Republicans Block Senate Action

In May, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6049) that includes extensions of several temporary tax cuts targeting various interests (commonly referred to as "extenders") as well as renewable energy tax incentives and a few new tax cuts. Unlike similar bills passed during the Bush years, this bill includes revenue-raising provisions to replace the $54 billion that would otherwise be lost.

The one-year "extenders" cost a total of $27 billion and include extensions of several tax breaks targeting businesses and generally well-off individuals. The renewable energy tax incentives in this bill cost a total of $17 billion and the largest is the 3-year extension of the "section 45 tax credit" for the production of energy from renewable resources.

The new tax cuts in the bill, which cost an additional $10 billion, include a change in the AMT related to the treatment of stock options and an expansion in eligibility for the Child Tax Credit (CTC) for low-income families.

The Bush administration opposes this bill because it opposes any and all tax increases, even if they are included in a bill with tax cuts to make the legislation deficit-neutral. CTJ released a report in May that was critical of the administration's position and that explained the provisions in the bill. Democratic leaders in the Senate tried three times to invoke cloture on this House-passed bill, but the Republican minority blocked the effort each time.

House Passes Bill to Patch AMT and Close the Carried Interest Loophole, Republicans Defend Private Equity Fat Cats

In June, the House passed a bill (H.R. 6275) that would provide relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) for one year.

The AMT was first created in 1969 to ensure that wealthy taxpayers would pay some minimum level of income tax no matter how proficient they are at using loopholes. It has been adjusted several times since then but the Bush tax cuts caused more people to be affected by the AMT and did not include any permanent adjustment for it. Congress, in recent years, has frequently enacted a "patch" which adjusts the exemptions that keep most of us from paying the AMT, but has not provided a permanent fix.

The one-year AMT "patch" would cost over $60 billion, and the House bill would replace the revenue, partly by closing the loophole for "carried interest" paid to private equity fund managers. A report from CTJ explains that since AMT relief will mostly help families that are relatively well-off, it should not be deficit-financed because that could eventually lead to higher taxes or cuts in services for middle-income people.

The Senate has not acted on the House-passed AMT bill. One sticking point is the provision to close the "carried interest" loophole. Carried interest is a form of compensation paid to fund managers in return for investing other people's money. Most of us who earn an income from work are subject to federal income taxes at progressive rates, starting at 10 percent and going up to 35 percent for the very wealthiest. Private equity fund managers are at the top of this wealthy group, but nevertheless pay only 15 percent -- the special low capital gains tax rate -- on their carried interest.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama favors closing the carried interest loophole, while John McCain does not. In fact, McCain's opposition to closing loopholes enjoyed by the private equity industry inspired an SEIU protest involving the performance of an ABBA song with new lyrics, retitled "Loophole King."

Senate Democrats Ready to Cave on Paying for AMT Relief But Insist on Paying for Extenders

Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill (S. 3335) that includes both the extenders, energy provisions and a one-year AMT "patch." The legislation includes enough revenue-raising provisions to pay for the extenders but not for the AMT patch. The biggest revenue-raising provisions are the same ones that are in the House-passed extenders bill. One would clamp down on the use of schemes by private equity fund managers to move deferred compensation offshore to avoid taxes. Another would delay a 2004-enacted law that has not even gone into effect yet. The soon-to-take-effect law is designed to make it easier for multinational corporations to take U.S. tax deductions for interest payments that are really expenses of earning foreign profits and therefore should not be deductible.

The Republican minority in the Senate blocked efforts to invoke cloture on this bill before the recess because they object to the revenue-raising provisions.

Needed Improvement in the Child Tax Credit

Both the House-passed extenders bill and Senator Baucus's extenders/AMT bill have a provision that would make the Child Tax Credit (CTC) more widely available for low-income families.

First enacted during the Clinton administration, the CTC was significantly expanded as part of the Bush tax cuts. It is now worth up to $1,000 for each child under age 17. But many low-income families do not benefit at all from the child credit, and many others get only partial credits. That's because the credit is unavailable to families with earnings below $12,050 (indexed for inflation), and the credit is limited to 15 percent of earnings above that amount. In other words, a working family making less than $12,050 this year is too poor to get any child credit.

The House extenders bill would lower the child credit's earnings threshold from the current $12,050 to $8,500. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out that 13 million children would be helped by this provision.

With enormous transportation funding shortfalls on the horizon at both the federal and state levels, lawmakers are thinking about how they will address the problem of inadequate transportation funds in the short-term and long-term. Major developments in both these short- and long-term components of the issue occurred over the last few days in the form of a House bill that would supplement the Highway Trust Fund with general fund revenues, and the unveiling of the Bush Administration's transportation plan by Transportation Secretary Mary Peters.

On the revenue side of the Administration's transportation plan, Secretary Peters rightly points out that changes in Americans' driving habits, as well as the inevitable shift towards improved vehicle fuel economy, have created serious sustainability problems for the gas tax as a source of transportation funding. In the long run, these changes may spell the end for the gas tax as a meaningful source of transportation revenue, but many political figures are prematurely declaring that day to have already arrived.

In her description of the Bush Administration's transportation plan, Secretary Peters referred to the gas tax funding mechanism as "broken" and "antiquated". Unfortunately, this sentiment is surprisingly common. Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, for example, recently referred to the tax as a "fossil". The frustration being felt by government leaders over declining gas tax revenues is understandable, but persuasive reasons exist for viewing the gas tax not as an obsolete relic of a bygone era, but as a useful option for addressing immediate funding shortfalls.

While some of the blame for the inadequacy of the gas tax can be placed on reduced demand, much of the problem stems from the unwillingness of legislators to increase tax rates when necessary. The federal gas tax has been set at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993, but because of inflation, the real value of that amount has declined by over 30%. States are feeling the pinch too, as well over half of the states haven't increased their tax in over 5 years.

The consequences of this inaction have been dire. The one year anniversary of the Minnesota bridge collapse has brought with it a pair of studies into the continued lack of maintenance (driven largely by lack of funding) of the nation's bridges. Clearly, the usual arguments that we can just "trim the fat" instead of raising taxes will not suffice. The House of Representatives recognized this fact recently and passed a bill that would fill the shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund with general revenues (which would obviously increase the over budget deficit). The Bush Administration has threatened to veto this bill on the grounds that highway users, rather than taxpayers at large, should be responsible for funding the transportation infrastructure. It's ironic then that the Administration has proposed filling the gap with funds taken from mass transit. In either case, filling a gap that is sure to reoccur with one-time revenues leaves something to be desired.

Of course, increasing the gas tax could result in revenues that would satisfy the Administration's demand that transportation be paid for by its users, but for some reason that option is completely off the table. Even some states have decided to avoid the issue of the gas tax by proposing to pay for transportation with revenues unrelated to road usage. Recent proposals in Virginia and Arizona have included provisions to use sales tax revenues for transportation, despite the fact that these states have not raised their gas taxes since 1986 and 1990, respectively.

Admittedly, increased tolling and taxes on vehicle miles traveled may now be better suited to perform the job the gas tax was originally designed to do: serve as a user-charge for drivers. But these options are cumbersome to implement, and are therefore not well suited for addressing the immediate revenue shortfall. While policymakers need to spend time fleshing out these ideas in preparation for the impending rearrangement of transportation finance, they should also spend some time thinking about the merits of increasing gas taxes (perhaps by indexing the rate to inflation, as is done in Maine) as a way of preserving a rough user-fee system in the short-term, rather than relying on sales taxes and one-time funding injections.