Congressional Republicans are still trying to persuade Americans that they are focused on job creation, but each time they propose another piece of legislation, it is exposed as a gimmick that will do little, if anything, to create jobs. Such was the case with their anti-regulatory policies, their attempts to repeal health care reform, and virtually every other policy proposal they have brought forth.

Next up in that line, unfortunately, is a rehashed form of a radical Balanced Budget Amendment, a plan that according to recent analyses would actually cost America 15 million jobs. But thanks to the conservative wing of the Democratic Party, the Republicans won’t be alone in their chase for a radical budget amendment that could help push the country back into the throes of recession.

Despite the fact that House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said yesterday he would encourage his party to vote against the radical plan, Blue Dog Democrats endorsed the amendment on a press call today, Politico’s Marin Cogan reported on Twitter. ThinkProgress confirmed that endorsement with a spokesperson for Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR), the Blue Dog Coalition’s co-chair for communications. According to the Hill, Ross said on the call that Blue Dogs favored such an amendment “before balanced budget amendments were cool”:

“We were advancing a balanced budget amendment when balanced budget amendments weren’t cool,” a co-chairman of the coalition, Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), told reporters on a conference call. [...]

“If any Blue Dog does not vote for it, I’d have to question how much they’re a Blue Dog,” [Blue Dog Rep. Jim] Matheson [D-UT] said.

It’s hard to overestimate the negative effects such an amendment would have on the country’s economy. In addition to destroying millions of jobs, it would force such massive spending cuts that House Republicans’ own budget would be unconstitutional. According to a recent study by Macroeconomic Advisers, enacting a BBA now would double the nation’s unemployment rate and cause the economy to shrink by 17 percent — a far cry from the 2 percent projected growth that would occur with no such amendment.

Unfortunately, according to another analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the consequences get worse. The draconian budget cuts caused by a Balanced Budget Amendment would forice lawmakers to gut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), among other programs, the analysis found:

“The constitutional balanced budget amendment that the House is expected to consider this week could force Congress to cut all programs by an average of 17.3 percent by 2018.

“If revenues are not raised (the House-passed budget resolution assumes no increase above current-policy levels) and all programs are cut by the same percentage, Social Security would be cut $184 billion in 2018 alone and almost $1.2 trillion through 2021; Medicare would be cut $117 billion in 2018 and about $750 billion through 2021; and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) would be cut $80 billion in 2018 and about $500 billion through 2021.”

In order to preserve those programs, Congress would have to cut ridiculously deep into every other program. Yesterday, economists around the country warned Congress that enacting widespread budget cuts and other austerity measures now would have perilous consequences for the American economy, pushing the country to the brink of a second deep recession. Today, unfortunately, Blue Dog Democrats decided not only to ignore those warnings, but to endorse an even bigger, deeper austerity plan.

Members of the House Blue Dog coalition sent a letter to the fiscal super committee this week expressing their support for a corporate tax holiday being vigorously sought by a slew of multinational corporations. The Blue Dogs evidently believe that the tax repatriation holiday — which would allow companies to bring money they have stashed overseas back to the U.S. at a tax rate far below what they would normally pay — would help reduce the deficit:

“As you consider tax reform, we urge you to include a temporary change to the tax code that allows businesses to repatriate money trapped overseas as part of reform or as a bridge to comprehensive reform,” stated a letter obtained by The Hill that was sent Wednesday to the congressional deficit-reduction committee…”We believe that bringing private-sector capital back to the U.S. will strengthen recovery efforts and help reduce the federal deficit,” they said.

Unfortunately for the Blue Dogs, the Joint Committee on Taxation found that a corporate tax repatriation holiday would cost nearly $80 billion, not result in deficit reduction. Unless they are counting on a sudden appearance of the tax fairy, the Blue Dogs are barking up the wrong tree.

The corporations supporting the holiday have a different rationale for pushing the tax break, claiming that nearly tax-free dollars will let them invest domestically and create jobs. But the last time that Congress approved a repatriation holiday, corporations used the money to enrich their executives, cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Versions of a repatriation holiday are now floating around both the House and the Senate, but the fact remains: giving corporations that are sitting on record amounts of cash yet another tax break will do next to nothing to spur the struggling economy. Of course, that hasn’t stopped several Republican presidential hopefuls from supporting the idea. Tea Party Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) this week proposed lowering the tax on repatriated money permanently.

Nearly all of the discussion regarding the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of the year has focused on the effect the expiration would have on marginal income tax rates. But there were other facets of the Bush tax cut package, including cutting the capital gains and stock dividends rates to 15 percent.

President Obama has proposed increasing the rates on capital gains and stock dividends back to 20 percent for those making $250,000 or more. Republicans, meanwhile, have opposed allowing the increase to occur. And now they’ve been joined by 47 House Democrats:

Forty-seven House Democrats have signed a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging that tax rates on capital gains and dividends be maintained at the current level of up to 15% for all earners…The letter from House Democrats argues that raising taxes on dividends and capital gains would be harmful to companies’ ability to grow and add jobs.

The rationale for having a lower capital gains and dividend rate is that it will encourage investment, as investors will want to take advantage of a lower rate. Under President Clinton, the capital gains rate was 20 percent, while dividends were treated as regular income, so Obama is proposing a tax policy even more deferential to these sorts of income than was in place in the 1990′s. Plus, as Citizens for Tax Justice pointed out, these House Democrats are to the right of President Reagan when it comes to investor income:

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act that ended the tax preference for capital gains and taxed all types of income at the same rates. Conservatives have long complained about this Reagan tax reform, and have even incorrectly claimed that capital gains tax revenue actually fell as a result of it…Today, conservative critics of President Reagan have been joined by a group of House Democrats who also seem to feel that Reagan was not sufficiently devoted to tax preferences for the wealthy investor class.

Of course, Obama hasn’t proposed evening the rates between regular income and investment income either, but to think that wealthy investors need a capital gains rate 20 points below the top marginal income tax rate (currently 35 percent) in order to invest their money is silly. Do conservatives, and these House Democrats, really believe that the wealthy will squirrel away their money under the mattress if the capital gains rate goes back to the level at which it was under Clinton? In fact, business investment was stronger under President Clinton that it was under President Bush.

The overwhelming majority of capital gains go to the richest households. Keeping that rate so far below the rates applied to normal income is simply a giveaway to the wealthy that doesn’t boost the economy.

Last week, a number of House Democrats sent a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stating their objection to allowing the Bush tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans to expire. Some of these Blue Dogs, who are breaking with President Obama in order to borrow and spend $830 billion on tax breaks for the richest Americans, are relying on discredited Republican arguments to bolster their position.

However, some of them are also claiming that a household earning $250,000 per year isn’t actually rich, once geographic differences are taken into account. “Where we come from, those people are living paycheck to paycheck,” said Rep. Michael McMahon (D-NY).

First, as Daniel Gross ably pointed out, “even if you look at the wealthiest metropolitan areas — Washington ($85,236), San Francisco ($76,068), Boston ($70,334), and New York ($63,957) — a quarter of a million dollars a year dwarfs the median income.” Not only that, but as a new report from Citizens for Tax Justice pointed out, two-thirds of the House Democrats who are looking to preserve the Bush tax cuts for the rich come from districts with a below average number of households making a quarter-million per year:

Of the 31 House Democrats who signed the letter in support of extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, 22 represent districts where the share of taxpayers rich enough to pay higher taxes under Obama’s plan is less than the national average of 2.1 percent. Of those 31 House Democrats, 13 represent districts where less than 1 percent of taxpayers are rich enough to face higher taxes under Obama’s plan.

Even in McMahon’s district, just two percent of households earn that much. In total, there are only 30 districts (out of 436 in the country) where at least 5 percent of households would be affected by the expiring tax cuts. Just two of those districts are represented by House Democrats who signed the letter to Pelosi.

It’s also worth remembering that those making more than $250,000 would still receive a tax break on their income up to that amount, relative to where their tax rate was in the 1990′s. Under Obama’s plan, a millionaire will still pay roughly $6,300 less in taxes than they would if the entirety of the Bush tax cuts expire. So even the exceedingly few households represented by these lawmakers that would be affected if the Bush tax cuts expire would be keeping some of their tax breaks.

The House Democrats also asserted in their letter that the richest two percent of taxpayers are responsible for 25 percent of consumer spending. However, CTJ noted that these households account for 21 percent of total pretax cash income and “their share of total personal consumption is certainly not higher than their share of total income.” In all, this two percent of taxpayers is responsible for roughly 8 percent of consumer spending, CTJ estimated.

This week, Republicans have solidified the notion that they will hold an extension of middle class tax cuts hostage unless $830 billion in tax cuts is also given to the richest two percent of households. To justify such a move, they’re relying on the phony argument that letting the Bush tax cuts for the richest two percent expire would disproportionately harm small businesses.

But a group of conservative Congressional Democrats are also making the same bogus argument. This week, a number of self-styled Blue Dogs sent a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) saying that they opposed allowing the cuts for the wealthy to expire. One of the main drivers behind the effort — Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) — told the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent today that his rationale for making the push is to protect small businesses:

“I recognize $250,000 is a lot of money for an individual to make for an individual,” he said. “But we’re also talking about businesses. That’s not a lot of money for small businesses.” Asked how many people in his district fell into the above-$250,000 category, Matheson answered: “I don’t know the answer to that.”

Before getting to Matheson’s specific argument, let’s review: Fewer than two percent of small businesses and less than three percent of households with any business income at all would be affected if the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.

Republicans concede that very few businesses would be affected, but then claim that half of small business income would be hit. But that statistic only matters if you’re concerned about a slight tax increase on Bechtel Corp., the Tribune Company, doctors, lawyers, and corporate CEO’s receiving a speaking fee on the side, all of whom fall under the GOP’s overly inclusive definition.

Matheson didn’t know how many households in his district would be affected if the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, but according to the latest American Community Survey from the Census Bureau, the number is roughly 12,012. (The ACS survey cuts off at $200,000, not $250,000, so some of those 12,000 households would likely fall into the 28 percent marginal income tax bracket, and thus avoid a tax increase.)

The median household income in Matheson’s district is $55,000, while the median male full-time worker makes $46,000. Matheson’s favored extension would give a millionaire an annual tax cut of $128,832, or nearly three times what the median worker in his district earns in total.

Matheson is attempting to muddy the waters by making it sound like business revenues, not personal income, are what winds up on income tax filings. But that’s not how it works. As Matthew Yglesias has pointed out, “any small businessman who’s earning a middle class income isn’t paying in the top two brackets, just as any salaried employee who’s earning a middle class income isn’t paying in the top two brackets.” No matter how you slice it, extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich is spending $830 billion on the richest segment of the population.