In an important new report, the Congressional Budget Office presents a troubling estimate of long-term growth in health care spending. If the projections are even close to correct, they will have a profound impact on tax and budget policy for the foreseeable future. "This is the central long-term fiscal challenge facing the U.S.," says CBO director Peter Orszag.

Bloggers have had a field day ridiculing a year-old decision by the Iowa Department of Revenue that would subject certain pumpkins to state sales taxes. True, the decision was worthy of a Halloween chuckle, but the gigglers are missing the point.

An awful lot of Democrats suddenly seem to think that senior citizens are overtaxed. Presidential hopeful Barack Obama wants to exempt seniors making less than $50,000 from paying any federal income tax. House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) has tucked a new $700 above-the-line deduction for real estate taxes into his proposal to extend Alternative Minimum Tax relief for another year. While Rangel doesn’t say so, seniors who have paid off their mortgages and no longer itemize would be big beneficiaries of the new tax break.

Politicians and policy experts have paid a lot of attention to those taxpayers who would be exempt from the AMT if the levy is fixed or even temporarily patched. But there is another group that has been largely ignored—those who would still pay the tax but owe far less if the law is patched.

In the October 30th Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton was asked what she thought of the tax reform plan offered by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.). She responded by expressing her deep admiration for the gentleman from New York and explaining that, "I don’t know all the details of what Charlie is recommending." This, of course, is Washington-speak for "I ain't getting anywhere near this soaking puppy."

The wildfires in Southern California should have taught us two major lessons: State and local governments need to be better prepared for predictable disasters and, when it comes to emergency services, you get what you pay for.

House Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) has an extraordinary idea: "The correction of tax mistakes should never be offset with tax increases." Hensarling's Law, which might also be called the Mulligan Act of 2007, came in response to a huge tax restructuring proposed on Oct. 25 by House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.). The core of that plan would repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax and make up nearly $1 trillion in lost revenue over 10 years with an income tax surcharge and other tax hikes.

Here are two related items by TPC researchers. Jason Furman has an op ed in the Think Tank section of WashingtonPost.com on the need for...

One of the main charges against the Rangel tax plan is that it would increase taxes by $1 trillion. Which is a bit odd because the President's budget proposed the exact same revenue increase, although in his case it is collected through the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) instead of a rate surcharge on high income families.

My colleagues and I had some heartburn when various news outlets referred to a surtax proposal made by Greg Leiserson and me as "the Tax Policy Center plan" to fix the AMT. The TPC has no tax plan or institutional positions of any kind. Highlighting that point, TPC's chief blogger, Howard Gleckman, showed that we don't speak with one voice when he complained that "I don't like ... the way AMT relief [in Chairman Rangel's tax reform plan] is funded" in his most recent post. That is, Howard's not keen on Greg's and my modest proposal, which Mr. Rangel adopted with small modifications.