In a report released yesterday, Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) critically examined the tax policies proposed recently in Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget alternative, titled conventionally, "A Roadmap for America's Future." Claims of the proposal "balancing the budget" and "reforming entitlements" have already been thoroughly debunked, but CTJ has contributed a valuable analysis of the young Republican's tax policies, which will actually cost the government "$2 trillion over a decade even while requiring 90 percent of taxpayers to pay more" than they already do in taxes.

How does Ryan, the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, accomplish this stunning feat? Steve Wamhoff, the report's author, argues that Ryan's proposal reduces federal receipts and outlays to recklessly low levels, while pumping money into the pockets' of the nation's wealthiest citizens. Ryan, according to Wamhoff, structures this disaster of a budget proposal around four main tax policies: extension of all Bush Tax Cuts; introduction of a "simplified" tax as an alternative to the personal income tax; elimination of the estate tax; and replacement of the corporate tax with a value-added tax (VAT).

I know we're just beginning to see signs of an economic recovery, but that doesn't mean that it's time to start providing tax relief to those making over $250,000 a year. Extension of the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthiest Americans makes little sense when you examine the cost to government in the form of lost revenue and the unsustainability of claims that rich people use most of their money to create jobs. In light of Ryan's other regressive tax policies in the proposal, though, I suppose we should be grateful that he just didn't reverse President Obama's plan and only extend the Bush Tax Cuts for those making over $250,000.

The effects of Ryan's "simplified" income tax competing with the traditional income tax make the proposal, according to Wamhoff, anything but simple. The plan reduces taxes for all but the poorest Americans and takes more money from you the wealthier you are, but the benefits of the system are extremely regressive compared to the current income tax structure. Moreover, the competition of the "simplified" tax would actually complicate matters as people tried to shift from one system to the other depending on which one required the least amount of tax liability.

I have exhaustively chronicled how elimination of the estate tax would benefit only the wealthiest of Americans and drastically hurt the government's bottom line, all while discarding one of the only checks on the accumulation of wealth – and, therefore, power – in this country. Replacement of the corporate tax with a consumption or VAT for business would create a regressive tax that would overwhelmingly hurt the poor and middle class, as businesses would be able to shift what was once a tax on them onto consumers.

Critics have been beating up on Rep. Ryan's budget proposal since he released it back in February, but, as Matt Yglesias noted earlier today, it's important to consider that in the not-too-distant future, Ryan could be writing budgets for a GOP majority, "presumably animated by the same moral principles that led him to this idea." That is a scary thing.

Image by Flickr user Juan Nosé used under a Creative Commons license.

I wanted to highlight one other thing from ProPublica's article on the "two-time loser" list, a nugget which I think was buried in the article. According to earlier OMB guidance, the main recourse agency officials have to punish repeat offenders is the revocation of federal funding, and we haven't heard whether agencies have used this stick yet. But ProPublica quotes OMB spokesman Tom Gavin as saying that, thus far, one, and only one, organization has suffered this fate. Want to guess which greedy, no-good corporation is flaunting the will of Congress, and which is being singled out as a rule-breaker? Maybe Xe? Wal-Mart? ENRON!?!

Nope, it's those money-grubbing child hunger advocates, Share Our Strength. While I applaud the federal government for cold-heartedly applying regulations, I'm not sure if a non-profit aimed at helping those who literally can't help themselves is really the best group to make an example of. Especially when it sounds like they're just as confused about how to report as thousands of other recipients. Regardless, Share Our Strength now has about $90,000 fewer dollars to help poor kids eat nutritional meals.

I know everyone's been distracted lately with health care, the Olympics, and the last season of Lost, but the budget process has been churning away silently these past few months. While we await Congress' budget resolution on April 15, the Congressional Budget Office decided to remind us all that the process is still moving ahead by releasing an analysis of the President's budget, one which is significantly less rosy than the President's estimate.

Granted, this is a somewhat ridiculous exercise, since Congress will likely ignore the President's budget, but it at least gives us a starting place. In any case, according to the CBO, Obama's budget proposal will add approximately $9.8 trillion to the nation's debt over the next ten years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration's own estimates. Almost all of this 14 percent difference comes in the out years, 2016-2020; in fact, the CBO's analysis is pretty close to the administration's over the next several years. For FY 2011, the upcoming budget year, the CBO estimates Obama's proposals would create a $1.341 trillion deficit, which is only a few percentage points higher than Obama's estimates.

Hit up the CBO report for all the fun, and, to save you the Googling, here's the President's budget from last month.

Updated below.

Our friends at the Coalition on Human Needs are passing around a petition to "put aside partisan games, to put aside rhetoric and enact legislation that has broad bi-partisan support – an extension of unemployment benefits and the COBRA health care subsidy through the end of 2010."

Tell the Senate: Shameful Obstruction has Cut Unemployment Benefits for 200,000 People!

Action needed NOW!

One Senator, Jim Bunning (R-KY), was able to stall Senate action so that the federal extended Unemployment Insurance program expired on February 28. More than 200,000 long-term unemployed people this week alone are losing benefits they should be getting - if Congress delays further, up to 1.2 million will lose desperately needed benefits by the end of March. (See how many have lost UI this week in your state*: http://www.nelp.org/page/-/UI/march.PR.chart.pdf?nocdn=1)

Please sign this petition to let the Senate know you think this is absolutely shameful. http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/125/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2445

And please forward this request to everyone you know.

For background on the issue, see Gary's post from yesterday.

UPDATE: Zaid Jilani at Think Progress found this gem from 2003:

...Bunning not only voted for an unemployment extension but also put out a glowing press release lauding the extension of unemployment benefits as “hopeful news for our most needy families in Kentucky“

UPDATE II: Bunning relents, bill sent to Obama's desk