The fact is that that vote enables the Coburn, supported mostly by Democrats to end the ethanol subsidies. The argument that because there was another amendment that they could possibly vote for that would OVERALL lower taxes makes no sense for about two reasons:

1) Even in DeMint’s measure, taxes would still rise for ethanol producers – thus raising taxes for someone. The fact that it also lowers taxes for a small, elite group who die leaving a multimillion dollar estates does not change that it raises taxes on some.

2) If I accepted that DeMint’s measure that raised taxes on some, while lowering it more for others was ok, the question is why the Republican Senators did not force that amendment up for a vote – as you are implying that the combination is what they intended. Now, the answer to that is obvious – it would fail badly. It is likely that no Democrat would vote for it – meaning it could not get the needed 60 votes. As this is obvious, the Senators who voted for Coburn’s bill can not be said to have balanced the increase in taxes by a decrease they know they could not get.

The fact is that it is unrealistic to be both obsessed with eliminating the deficit and unwilling to raise tax revenues – even by closing tax loopholes. The fact is that tax revenues as a percent of GDP are at a several decades low, while spending is at a high. Both of these facts contribute to the high deficit – and both should change to lower the deficit. Just returning to 2000 tax rates would eliminate 75% of the deficit – and with those tax rates in the 1990s, business thrived.