Today, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) — who was endowed by the House Republican majority with the power to unilaterally set spending limits that are binding on the House — released his envisioned spending level for the remainder of the fiscal year. House Republicans have been torn internally over how much Ryan should cut, with the leadership pushing for something in the realm of $50 billion, while others wanted the GOP to stick to its initial “Pledge to America” total of $100 billion in cuts.

Ryan, seeming to think that splitting the difference would suffice, proudly announced that his chosen budget level amounts to $74 billion in cuts:

Pursuant to House Rules H.Res. 5 and spending reduction resolution H.Res. 38, the Budget Committee Chairman will file an allocation to set 2011 discretionary budget authority (BA) at $1,055 billion, which will produce savings of $74 billion compared to the President’s request.

However, there’s much less to this than meets the eye. Notice that Ryan is comparing his chosen budget baseline “to the President’s request.” However, President Obama’s 2011 budget request was never acted upon by Congress, which instead chose to enact a continuing resolution funding the government at the 2010 level. So Ryan’s $74 billion in cuts are, in reality, closer to $30-35 billion, since part of his savings come from cutting spending increases that were never made:

After deliberating for weeks, Ryan said today he and other Republican leaders will propose cutting the portion of the fiscal 2011 budget funding non-security-related discretionary programs by $43 billion from 2010 levels. At the same time, they plan to boost spending this year on defense, homeland security and veterans programs by $8 billion…Compared to what Obama requested, the savings outlined today by Ryan would amount to $74 billion.

Ultimately, “the new cap on appropriations to be filed next week will set a 2011 ceiling of $1.055 trillion — $32 billion less than the latest CBO score of $1.087 trillion.” Ryan is evidently a little touchy about people pointing out his phantom budget reductions:

Even these cuts, if they’re focused on key investments or programs that promote economic competitiveness or education, could do real economic damage. The Economic Policy Institute has found that Ryan’s original plan to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to the 2008 level would cause the loss of 600,000 jobs.

The Senate is in the process of putting together a bill reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration, but it’s become a catch-all for a series of non-related amendments that Senate Republicans are using to score political points. For instance, an amendment repealing the Affordable Care Act was proposed, as was an amendment with Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-PA) cockamamie “default by a different name” plan.

Yet another amendment, proposed by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), would prevent the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) from unionizing. Here’s the text. Wicker claims that unionizing would somehow prevent TSA officials from doing their jobs:

“Safeguarding America’s transportation requires both vigilance and flexibility,” Wicker said. “Burdensome and costly union demands could limit the ability of those responsible for security at some of the most high-risk targets to do their job.“

Wicker didn’t explain how allowing TSA employees to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits would limit their ability to effectively man their posts. But this is nothing new for the GOP, which has turned whacking TSA unionization into a sort of sport. In fact, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) single-handedly scuttled one of the Obama administration’s nominees for the TSA director because he may have been sympathetic to the agency unionizing.

As Art Levine pointed out at Truthout, the Republican claim that unionization necessarily impairs those dealing with security doesn’t hold water:

Indeed, the Homeland Security Department’s customs and border patrol officers who regularly face criminals are already unionized, with no sign of the common right-wing mythology about union members: there are no goldbrickers loafing back at the union hall while drug smugglers and border-crossing terrorists are being ignored.

Remember, it was unionized pilots and flight attendants that successfully landed and evacuated a jet in the Hudson river without any loss of life, and it was unionized sailors who helped successfully fend off an attack on an American ship by Somali pirates. These examples would seem to refute Wicker’s point that union members can’t function in a crisis.

TSA employees have tentatively scheduled a vote to join the American Federation of Government Employees for March, so Wicker’s amendment would prevent these workers from making their own decision about whether or not the join a union. If its accepted, the amendment would also be a double-whammy for working people, as a provision in last year’s FAA reauthorization that would have ended unfair treatment of FedEx drivers was dropped in this year’s version.