With health care reform in a state of political limbo, Senate leadership is busy assembling a job-creation package that is likely to be the chamber’s next significant legislative effort.

Just before Christmas recess, the House hastily assembled and adopted a $154 billion spending package. In response, the Senate Finance Committee is working on a package that focuses more on tax relief than the House counterpart. As reported by Dow Jones:

The package would be paid for largely by re-directing funds that were available for the government’s bank bailout program, according to an outline dated Friday of possible measures being considered for inclusion in the bill.

The Senate document put the total cost of economic stimulus measures in the bill at $82.5 billion. A Senate Democratic aide cautioned that the document doesn’t reflect the most recent conversations among leaders about the plan, and some elements may change considerably.

A broad outline pitched to the Democratic conference today included pension relief, SBA lending provisions, energy efficiency tax credits, export promotion (IC-DISC users take note) and a proposal that would “provide a tax credit for between 10%-20% of increased payroll to encompass both hiring of new workers and increasing part-time workers to full-time status.”

Tax policy veterans should recognize the employment tax credit idea from years past. Among others, Senator Kerry offered something similar as part of his Presidential platform in 2004. The proposal has been always been viewed skeptically, however, over concerns that it is poorly-targeted and only rewards those businesses that would hire new workers anyway.

Regarding timing, it’s still up in the air but we anticipate a Finance Committee markup in the next two weeks followed by floor consideration after the President’s Day holiday.

So what are your S-CORP takeaways? First, there’s an incredible amount of pent-up demand for tax policy in the Senate, and we expect this legislation to open the floodgates. It’s a tax vehicle, after all, so how can Chairman Max Baucus and Majority Harry Leader Reid keep extenders, energy tax incentives, and (perhaps less so) an estate tax fix on the sidelines once it starts moving?

Second, lots of other items are likely to catch a ride as well. Extended UI and Cobra benefits expire at the end of February, as does the temporary Doc Fix for Medicare payments. The timing of this package suggests those provisions stand a good chance of being included.

Finally, expect lots of message amendments regarding the expiring Bush tax relief. It all goes away at the end the year, after all, and none of the provisions listed above address this underlying policy challenge.

CBO Updates Budget Outlook

The CBO issued itsB outlook for 2010-20 today. Here’s the CBO on the short-term outlook:

CBO projects, that if current laws and policies remained unchanged, the federal budget would show a deficit of $1.3 trillion for fiscal year 2010. At 9.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), that deficit would be slightly smaller than the shortfall of 9.9 percent of GDP ($1.4 trillion) posted in 2009. Last year’s deficit was the largest as a share of GDP since the end of World War II, and the deficit expected for 2010 would be the second largest. Moreover, if legislation is enacted in the next several months that either boosts spending or reduces revenues, the 2010 deficit could equal or exceed last year’s shortfall.

And the longer term outlook:

Under current law, the federal fiscal outlook beyond this year is daunting: Projected deficits average about $600 billion per year over the 2011-2020 period. As a share of GDP, deficits drop markedly in the next few years but remain high, at 6.5 percent of GDP in 2011 and 4.1 percent in 2012, the first full fiscal year after certain tax provisions originally enacted in 2001, 2003, and 2009 are scheduled to expire. Thereafter, deficits are projected to range between 2.6 percent and 3.2 percent of GDP through 2020.

And the impact on debt:

Under current law, the federal fiscal outlook beyond this year is daunting: Projected deficits average about $600 billion per year over the 2011-2020 period. As a share of GDP, deficits drop markedly in the next few years but remain high, at 6.5 percent of GDP in 2011 and 4.1 percent in 2012, the first full fiscal year after certain tax provisions originally enacted in 2001, 2003, and 2009 are scheduled to expire. Thereafter, deficits are projected to range between 2.6 percent and 3.2 percent of GDP through 2020.

And none of this includes the cost of health care reform, the so-called Medicare Doc fix, extending some or all of the Bush tax relief, the new stimulus provisions, or any of the other expiring provisions. Ouch.

With a deficit outlook like this, the Obama Administration is being pushed in two directions these days. They face demands to increase federal spending in the short run to help the economy while also being told they need to cut spending in the long-term to address the deficit and debt.

One way to deal with this conflict is to substitute smaller, less expensive proposals for the broad, macro reforms that have characterized the Administration’s agenda. President Clinton adopted this approach for many of his State of the Union addresses. As CNN reported after his 1999 address:

President Bill Clinton’s 1999 State of the Union address was classic Clinton. It was another long laundry list of proposals, some conservative, some liberal. Clinton’s 77-minute speech was so overflowing with proposals that by the time it ended it was almost hard to remember that Social Security was the first and most important proposal of the evening. In previous years, commentators criticized Clinton for this approach, complaining that the State of the Union should be more focused. But this year, most commentators simply gushed.

So did viewers, who typically gave Clinton’s annual State of the Union speeches higher marks than professional commentators.

President Obama’s proposal to increase the child credit is a worthy successor to the Clinton approach. The proposal would increase the value of the credit, but not as much as one might expect. It’s not going to be refundable, which means most families with children would not benefit until their incomes rise above $40,000 or so. And it’s capped, so families above a certain income level don’t get it either. Nonetheless, offering middle class families extra child care assistance sounds great in a speech.

Given the current economic and deficit picture, we expect tomorrow’s State of the Union address to place more emphasis on proposals like the child care credit expansion, and less on health care reform and cap and trade.