It is interesting, and perhaps worth noting, that while political opposition seems to be hardening against the $1 trillion, ten-year cost of the early versions of health reform, barely a peep of concern has been raised about the $3 trillion price tag for President Obama’s plan to extend most of the Bush-era tax cuts.

Both CBO and OMB put out their updated budget forecasts this morning. Getting past all the confusion about baselines, the news is grim. OMB projects more than $9 trillion in cumulative deficits over the next decade if the President’s agenda is enacted. A few things to keep in mind as you wade through the carnage.

“Most Americans expect higher taxes” When I read that headline on the LA Times website, I first thought that all the warnings about impending fiscal doom had finally struck home. People realize that current trends in taxes and spending cannot continue forever. Their tax bills have to go up. Then I read the sub-head: “Nearly 70% of all Americans surveyed by Gallup say they expect higher taxes by the end of Obama's term.” Oops—it wasn’t the long-run fiscal problems at all.

Fall must be right around the corner. TV is filled with back to school ads and states have begun their annual sales tax holidays. These tax respites may have made sense when states were flush. They gave consumers a modest cost break at relatively little expense to government. But today, when state and local treasuries are bare, do governors still want to exempt some sales from tax, even temporarily? These days, consumers are faced with an explicit trade-off, even if politicians won’t admit it: Save a couple of bucks at the checkout counter in return for more cuts in government services or higher other taxes.

In his blog today, Brad DeLong argued that TPC had been less influential over the past decade than the liberal Democratic think tank Center for American Progress. Brad's theory is that organizations such as TPC, the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project, and the Center for Budget & Policy Priorities have, essentially, been too wimpy to be effective. DeLong thus joins the camp of Paul Krugman (and Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich) in arguing that life in the middle-of-the-road makes you roadkill.

Many people who have failed to pay taxes on funds stashed in overseas bank accounts will likely toss and turn during coming nights, worried that the tax man will soon come knocking at the door. Will they be among the nearly 4,500 account holders whose names Swiss bank UBS has agreed to give to the IRS? And even if their names aren’t on the list, will the IRS learn about them from others seeking amnesty? Should they apply for amnesty themselves, paying large tax bills but at least staying out of jail? Or lie low for fear the IRS will find other problems if they draw attention to their returns?

President Obama took aim at multinational corporations last May at a press conference on international tax policy. I’ll leave out the details here, lest I put you to sleep or explode your brain. Let’s just say that the current system is a mess that drastically needs fundamental reform. Economists describe two contrasting “pure” approaches to taxing the income U.S. companies earn abroad. A “worldwide” approach would apply our domestic tax rules to all income (with a foreign tax credit to protect against double-taxation). In theory, that system would tax U.S. business income the same, whether it’s earned at home or overseas, so firms shouldn’t care where they invest. In contrast, under a “territorial” or “dividend exemption” system, the U.S. wouldn’t tax active business income earned overseas; American firms would pay only the taxes of the country where they earn income, just like any non-U.S. business operating there. In theory, that puts U.S. businesses that invest abroad on equal tax footing with foreign firms.

Rosanne Altshuler and I have argued in recent posts that Washington will be hard pressed to close our ongoing budget gap with politically palatable tax increases. (Is that an oxymoron?) Neither raising the individual income tax nor boosting corporate levies will erase the deficit. But what about the spending side of the budget? We at the Tax Policy Center naturally focus on taxes but we do understand that cutting a dollar of spending has pretty much the same effect on the deficit as raising another dollar in taxes.

I’ve been struggling to understand the overheated rhetoric surrounding the proposal that allows Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling. I think I get it now: It is all about the death tax. Here is the story the government doesn’t want you to know. The 2001 Bush tax cuts will repeal the estate tax next year, but only for a year. Starting in less than 18 months, estates in excess of $1 million will once again be taxed at a stiff 55 percent. This will cost the children of the very wealthy tens of billions of not-so-hard-earned dollars. And it creates a huge incentive for these offspring to, shall we say, accelerate nature’s course. You see where I'm going here.

Yesterday my colleague Bob Williams blogged on how difficult it will be to dig ourselves out of our enormous budget hole. He examined CBO’s biennial Budget Options report, which contains a list of “revenue options” for modifying Federal taxes. Bob focused on the year with the smallest deficit over the ten year budget window which happens to be 2012. In that year, CBO predicts we will run a deficit of “only” $633 billion. The individual income tax raises the bulk of federal revenues, so naturally Bob looked at incremental reforms of those levies.