Interesting confluence of events: Barack Obama is about to wrap up the Democratic Presidential nomination and the Senate has begun debating a major plan to cap carbon emissions—an idea Obama strongly supports.

It is a nice object lesson in how a couple of obscure changes in the tax law can save a few people a lot of money. The IRS has reported that the number of those earning $200,000 or more who paid no taxes rose sharply in 2005. More than 7,300 of these worthies avoided U.S. income tax entirely, two-and-a-half times the year before. About 85,000 paid worldwide taxes of less than 10% of their income.

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...

Kudos to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, for proposing an ambitious plan aimed at bringing government spending under control over the next 75 years. Actually, Ryan would do even more than that. He’d also restructure the tax code, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

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.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that states may offer special tax breaks to residents for investing in municipal bonds issued by them and local governments within the state. The 7-2 decision, in Kentucky Department of Revenue v. Davis was widely expected. But even if the Court wanted to bar states from preferring their own bonds over those from other jurisdictions, the current troubles of the $2.6 trillion municipal bond market probably made that impossible.

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.

Howard Gleckman’s criticism of temporary legislation (“The Tax Extenders Ride Again,” May 20, 2008) overlooks the impact of Congressional budget rules. When such rules are considered, a change in law on a temporary (rather than permanent) basis increases political accountability and arguably enhances fiscal restraint.

The other day, the House Ways & Means Committee routinely approved dozens and dozens of tax breaks. Hardly anyone even noticed.

Like it or not, health care and taxes are inextricably linked in the U.S. The employer-sponsored health system that covers most of the non-elderly is largely built on nearly $200 billion in income tax breaks. The biggest: employer-sponsored insurance which is tax-free to workers. Perversely, this structure provides the biggest tax breaks to the highest income workers who get the most expensive plans.