UPDATE: We're now hearing that the vote will happen on Thursday (3/18).

We're hearing that the vote on the Sessions-McCaskill amendment will happen today at 5 (EDT) Thurs., March 18.

If you haven't done so yet, send a letter to your Senators and tell them that arbitrary limitations on federal spending is terrible budget-making.

Take action now!

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.

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) accepted an offer from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to drop his hold on a bill that will allow unemployed workers to see their Unemployment Insurance benefits and health insurance subsidies continue for 30 more days and to return some 2,000 federal highway safety employees to work today. The Senate quickly passed (78-19) the $10.3 billion bill, HR 4691, and cleared it for President Obama's signature

CQ ($):

The 78-19 vote to clear the bill (HR 4691) for President Obama’s signature came after Democrats lambasted Bunning for preventing the Senate from extending the popular programs.

The bill would provide a short-term renewal of economic safety-net programs for the jobless and laws governing satellite television transmission. It also would prevent a cut in Medicare physician payments and would extend small-business, flood insurance and highway programs.

Bunning had blocked the measure since last week, arguing that the $10.3 billion cost should be offset. But he relented Tuesday, accepting an offer from Democratic leadership to have a vote on his proposal to pay for the bill’s cost by preventing “black liquor,” a wood byproduct, from being eligible for the cellulosic biofuels producer tax credit.

Democrats had offered Bunning the same deal last week and ripped him Tuesday for not taking it sooner.

At the end of last week, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) and the Senate Republican caucus decided to take a stand on government spending by demanding that Congress offset an important tax extenders bill. The bill, which, among other things, sought to extend eligibility for unemployment benefits, COBRA premium assistance, a Medicare doctors' fix, and highway funding, failed to pass because of the GOP's intransigence. While offsetting spending is a sensible policy, this was hardly the appropriate moment to make a point on the issue, as blockage of the extension bill will likely have serious consequences for both jobless Americans and our weak, recovering economy.

Created through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), four tiers of federal unemployment benefits currently cushion out-of-work Americans that have exhausted their state unemployment insurance. The filing deadline for these federal benefits expired yesterday. It now seems that the Senate is going to try to pass a longer extension of eligibility for these benefits in a new jobs bill, but this, of course, will take time. While senators debate this next bill, some 400,000 jobless Americans will lose their unemployment insurance over the next two weeks, according to the Department of Labor.

Failure to pass the extension also forced the Department of Transportation to furlough nearly 2,000 federal inspectors today because the government ran out of money to pay them. As a result, a number of highway construction projects have gone on hiatus, stranding some 90,000 construction workers employed on those projects. Additionally, physicians that see patients on Medicare will, beginning today, see benefits reduced by 21 percent, and jobless Americans that rely on COBRA to provide their health care coverage will lose a 65 percent subsidy to help pay for the insurance.

Fallout within the wider economy from Sen. Bunning and the GOP's blockage of this extension could be serious. Just the loss of unemployment benefits to jobless Americans – who generate $1.90 in gross domestic product for every dollar of unemployment insurance spent – might send a significant shock through the nation's recovering economy. Add to that the loss of health coverage for the unemployed and the stalling of federal construction projects around the country and the effects multiply.

Standing on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Bunning tried to defend his actions by arguing that if senators couldn't find $10 billion to pay for the extension bill, "we will never pay for anything," and that the debt we currently face is "unsustainable." Neither of these statements hold up to scrutiny.

The Senate just instituted new pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules that, while not as robust as earlier statutory rules, require the upper chamber to offset future spending increases or tax cuts with corresponding spending cuts or revenue increases. Given Bunning's argument about offseting, one would assume that he was a supporter of PAYGO. One would be wrong, though. Bunning voted against the very law that he now vehemently supports. Moreover, what does the unsustainability of our long-term deficits have to do with a short-term $10 billion unemployment insurance extension? If Sen. Bunning is interested in finding a spending cause célèbre, he should look into decrying extension of the Bush Tax Cuts or Medicare Part D, which will add tens of trillions of dollars to our debt.

The bottom line is that the actions of Sen. Bunning, which the Senate GOP leadership have de facto supported and are continuing unabated, are indefensible. With unemployment benefits for millions of American workers hanging in the balance, this was hardly an appropriate moment to take a moral stand on federal spending.

Image by Flickr user Der Henk used under a Creative Commons license.