The Ryan budget is only half-a-plan, Gleckman writes. It outlines politically attractive tax cuts but says nothing about the tax increases necessary to pay for them.
Paul Ryan's tax play mimics the tactics of the 2012 campaign, Gleckman writes, promising tax reform built around wildly ambitious but gauzy rate reductions without a word about how to pay for them.
Bubbling just beneath the surface of the debate over whether states should expand Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act is an issue of trust, Gleckman writes: Would the feds keep their part of the bargain?
Republicans and many economists argue for shifting to a more accurate inflation measure, Gleckman writes, but a new report suggests that move would raise taxes by nearly as much as it would slow Social Security spending over the next decade.
The sequester is not written on stone tablets. Like every other budget gimmick Congress invents, this one can be rewritten, waived, and otherwise adjusted. And like every one before it, it probably will be.
In much public discourse, direct government aid for the poor is easily dismissed by the pejorative “welfare,” Gleckman writes, but spending-like subsidies administered through the revenue code provoke far less outrage.
Making the tax code less complicated and more efficient may not achieve the rate-cutting, base-broadening reform many want, Gleckman writes, but it can have important consequences for real people.
The Bowles-Simpson framework seems a plausible alternative to the current game of sequester-and-gridlock, Gleckman writes.
In his State of the Union address Tuesday, Obama continued to express a willingness to slow the growth of Medicare, but only around the edges, Gleckman writes.
President Barack Obama's State of the Union address will likely touch on tax reform, Gleckman writes, but it remains to be seen whether even corporate reform is possible in 2013.
The income tax’s ever-narrowing base simply cannot support the nation’s spending demands, Gleckman writes.
Payroll tax cuts might play a bigger role than many thought in reversing economic slumps, Gleckman writes, according to new research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Republicans and Democrats are setting out fiscal goals that are light-years apart, Gleckman writes. Here are five stumbling blocks to a budget deal:
President Barack Obama's second inaugural address perfectly defined what will be the great domestic policy debate of not only the next four years but the next decade, Gleckman writes.
Under the 'fiscal cliff' deal, singles face a rate of 35 percent if their taxable income falls between $398,350 and $400,000, Gleckman writes. The bracket covers a grand total of $1,650.
A budget deal is unlikely to happen because all the incentives—both political and economic—are completely wrong, Gleckman writes.
The "fiscal cliff", which was to be the ultimate forcing mechanism, instead became something of legislative self-parody, Gleckman writes.
The "fiscal cliff" deal tells two important stories – Gleckman writes – one about budget policy and the other about budget politics.
TaxVox's Lump of Coal Awards covers a broad swath of fiscal policy missteps for the year.
In trying to reach a compromise on the 'fiscal cliff,' Democrats and Republicans seem determined to protect millions of high-income people from paying more taxes. But the working class could easily end up paying more.