A modest thought experiment: Here is a check for $858 billion. Your job is to boost short-term economic growth. What would you do with the money? President Obama and a huge bipartisan majority of the Senate have given us their answer (and the House is likely to add its support tonight or tomorrow): They’d extend [...]

As usual in December, personal finance columns are filled with end-of-year tax advice—all those things you should do before New Year’s to cut your tax bill. But 2010’s end-of-year issues are different: This year, it’s Congress and the president who need to act fast on a long list of tax policies. Everyone knows about the [...]

Kudos to Marty Feldstein, who this morning called for scaling back tax expenditures. These are highly-targeted tax breaks that are often little more than spending programs in mufti. Lawmakers of both parties love them, which is why they will reduce federal revenues this year by nearly $1 trillion, equal to almost the entire federal deficit.

When the Senate returns next week, it must confront a bit of unfinished business—what to do about extending unemployment benefits. As fans of the ongoing soap opera that is the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body already know, the Senate failed to pass the unemployment bill before rushing out of town for its Fourth of July holiday. And just before the Labor Department issued a discouraging report that suggested private job creation may be slowing.

Congress' effort to pass a jobs bill stalled in the Senate on Wednesday. In part, the upper chamber tied itself into Senate-like knots thanks to the usual partisan wrangling. But the proposal has also rekindled a debate over the need for more economic stimulus versus fear of rising deficits. This argument is important and healthy, but wildly overblown in the context of such a small and poorly-targeted bill.

I wasn’t going to write about Congress’ latest effort to continue scores of soon-to-expire special interest tax breaks. But there is something about the joint Ways & Means/ Senate Finance Committee bill’s Orwellian title: “The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act” (AJACTLA) that makes it impossible to ignore.

One cheer for the House. In what’s become a dreary annual dance, it agreed to extend, for yet another year, 48 special interest tax breaks worth $23 billion in 2010-2011. Why the cheer? At least it is proposing to—sort of– pay for them.

For another take on my debate with George Yin on whether temporary tax breaks are a good idea George) or not (me), take a look at economistmom, the new blog by former House Ways & Means Committee chief economist Diane Lim Rogers. She’s got a great anecdote about a conversation with a committee member during [...]

Howard Gleckman continues to think that temporary tax cuts are no better than permanent ones from the standpoint of enhancing political accountability and fiscal restraint (“Tax Extenders and Fiscal Restraint,” May 22, 2008). So here’s some data.

It was good to hear from University of Virginia tax professor and former Joint Tax Committee boss George Yin. George argues that temporary tax cuts are a good idea because they force Congress to consider the costs and benefits of these measures before renewing them. This reckoning, he says, imposes more political accountability on the system, not less.