Our guest bloggers are Robert Gordon and James Kvaal, fellows at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Earlier today, Sen. John McCain outlined a series of economic proposals in a Pittsburgh speech. Here is reaction to his speech:

Corporate Tax Cuts Are Still Front and Center: By far, the biggest and most expensive part of McCain’s tax agenda remains his $1.7 trillion tax cut for corporations. There is little evidence that taxes are hurting American competitiveness; corporate taxes are the fourth-lowest in the industrialized world as a share of the economy.

Tax Cuts Blow a Hole in the Budget: McCain’s tax cuts now total approximately $300 billion a year (in addition to the cost of making the Bush tax cuts permanent). But McCain’s proposals to pay for these tax cuts fall far short. For example, he specified only budget cut — charging higher premiums for the Medicare drug benefit — and that would save only $1 billion a year.

The Gas Tax Break Is Temporary: Unlike McCain’s corporate tax cuts, the gas tax rebate would apply only in 2008 – before McCain could be president and implement these ideas. While offering some help to drivers, it would add $11 billion to the deficit.* A better approach would replace those revenues by repealing special tax breaks for oil companies.

Deliver Most of Its Benefit to the Top: Before today, McCain was running on an extremely regressive tax agenda that delivered 58 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers and only 9 percent to the bottom 80 percent. Doubling the dependent exemption – while not as regressive as McCain’s earlier plan – still gives less to regular families than to high-income families in higher tax brackets:

– It is worth $1225 per child for a high-income earner.

– It is worth $525 per child for a middle-income earner.

– It is worth nothing to many members of the working poor, who do not pay income taxes (despite paying thousands in payroll and other taxes).

The Wonk Room’s more detailed analysis of the McCain speech is available here.

* Because the gas tax is earmarked for investments in infrastructure, the post originally expressed concern of the negative impact on transportation and mass transit. However, this afternoon the McCain campaign clarified that the its proposal would contiune to pay for transportation investments out of general revenue.

April 15th brings a visceral reaction to Americans everywhere. No matter how rich, poor, successful or struggling, Tax Day equalizes us all. Well, not quite all of us.

Health care in America is an expensive necessity. Employee health benefits, which are taken for granted by many workers, were offered to 60% of Americans in 2007, the vast majority of employers also providing coverage for the employee’s spouse and dependents. Of those who are uninsured, however, almost 70% are from families with one or more full-time workers. Some families are clearly being left out.

Domestic partners are some of the biggest losers in the employer-provided heath care system. Only 22% of employers cover same-sex partners of employees, while 28% cover different-sex domestic partners. This issue boils down to more than civil rights.

This issue is one of taxes and economics.

When an employer provides health insurance for an employee’s spouse, federal tax law allows the value of the health insurance coverage to be excluded from the employee’s gross income. In short, these heath benefits are not taxed.

The same is not true of domestic partners.

Domestic partner health benefits ARE treated as taxable income, both on the employer, and the employee, balance sheet. According to a December 2007 report by the Center for American Progress and the Williams Institute, employees with partner health benefits now pay on average $1,069 per year more in taxes than would a married employee with the same coverage—that’s 11% of taxes paid by the average single taxpayer. If you’re in an upper tax bracket, that additional tax burden could be as much as $1,800 per year, and with 53% of Fortune 500 Companies currently offering domestic partner benefits, this gross injustice is a reality to countless American workers.

And who has been a more long-standing champion of lower taxes than the conservative founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist? Even Norquist agrees, domestic partners should be treated equitably.

The tax code shouldn’t be about picking winners and losers, or making social policy. If people want to get married, great. If they want to cohabitate, fine. If they’re gay, that’s ok, too. The tax code should treat these households neutrally and equitably.

Read more