Earmarks has become the new four letter word in Congress of late, with most members rhetorically castigating earmarks while quietly slipping in earmark requests for funding in their districts to committee staff, in conference reports of bills, and anyplace else they can stick them.

The Senate Finance Committee unveiled its part of the Senate stimulus bill today. The committee will be marking up on Jan. 27 a tax provisions and a section of unemployment insurance, health, and state fiscal relief.

The $275 billion tax title is similar to the House version, but there are a few notable differences:

• The Child Tax Credit income threshold would be reduced to $6,000; the House version would drop the floor all the way to $0. So while the House would allow all workers to see a some of the tax cut, the Senate version would maintain the ridiculous "too poor to qualify" aspect of the credit.
• The Senate bill would temporarily suspend income taxes on unemployment insurance benefits whereas the House makes no such provision.

Press release from Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus

Original Chairman's Mark of Senate Finance Committee Tax Provisions for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Title I (Tax Relief, Trade Adjustment Assistance, and Other Provisions)

Original Chairman's Mark of Additional Senate Finance Committee Provisions for the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009, Titles II — V (Unemployment Insurance, Health, and Other Provisions)

Reading more about the tax provisions in the stimulus has done nothing to settle my stomach.

Citizens for Tax Justice has released a report on how the proposed tax breaks in the Obama stimulus plan would affect the economy. The bottom line:

• Family tax cuts could be net beneficial, but only if they're targeted to low-income families.
• Business tax cuts are pretty much a waste.

In the report's discussion of the Obama plan's (reported) Net Operating Loss Carryback provision, CTJ explains why such a tax cut would be somewhat less than stimulative: