How Many Pay-Fors Can Dance on the Head of an Extenders Bill? Call it solomonic, metaphysical, ingenious, or disengenuous, but it appears that a great PAYGO Pact of 2008 is in the offing. Here's the conundrum: since the principles of PAYGO apply only to changes in current law increasing mandatory spending or decreasing taxes, how many times must temporary extensions of tax breaks be extended before they are no longer regarded as "extenders," but as "current law." It seems to beg reasoning to say that merely calling them "permanent" (since they can be eliminated any time) makes them current law. But it also seems paradoxical that an extended tax break can ever evade the strictures of PAYGO. Count on Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the Senate Finance Committee's ranking member, to cut the Gordian knot. He's working on a plan that would offset certain extenders that could be considered "new" extenders because they are being added or modified in the extenders package. Under the plan, extension of the research and development tax credit would not be paid for, while a number of the energy provisions, like the newly-added credit for energy-efficiency improvements to existing homes would be offset. Elegant enough? Not quite. Grassley said he hears that Democrats on the Finance Committee believe there is $18-19 billion in new policy to be offset, but his staff puts the number closer to $5-6 billion. It may come down to what the meaning of "new" is. Take the Grassley Challenge and figure it out for yourself:

• Bill Summary: Energy Independence and Tax Relief Act
• Bill Text
• JCT Scoring

Whatever the answer is could be known, the extender package pay-fors determined, and the package voted on as early as next Monday.