Paul Ryan

Welcome to Budget Week in DC! Like Shark Week, Only with More Blood, Tears, and Chum

|

usnews.com

Later today, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will release the official Republican budget plan for fiscal year 2014. Ryan and the GOP are to be commended for actually developing a plan and releasing it in a timely and open fashion. That stands in counterpoint to the Senate Democrats, who have failed for years (yes, years!) to do that basic task. Budget chief Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) has promised to deliver a document by middle of this week. And the GOP is clearly more serious than the president, who said he will release his budget on April 8, or two months after his actual deadline.

Past iterations of the GOP budget plan didn't balance the budget for 30 or more years. This time, souces say they will get there in a decade. I would love to see that (for many reasons), but here's why Ryan's plan is already full of baloney:

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan is planning to unveil a 2014 budget plan this week that would balance the government's books in 10 years by limiting the annual growth of spending to 3.4 percent.

The budget proposal assumes that Congress would repeal President Barack Obama's health-care law set to be implemented next year, Ryan said yesterday on "Fox News Sunday." That assumption depends on the unlikely possibility that the Democrat in the White House and those who control the Senate agree to repeal the president's signature domestic policy achievement.

robertsreportonline.com

Ryan has said he's cautiously optimistic that President Obama and missing-for-years Senate Democrats will actually sit down and work seriously on hammering a budget for the fiscal year that starts on October 1:

Whether Obama can forge consensus with a Congress that is operating under split political control depends on "how he conducts himself in the coming weeks and months," Ryan said. "Will he resume the campaign mode, will he resume attacking Republicans?"

Again, all credit to the GOP for releasing a budget. But I can't imagine that this conversation is going to go well if the centerpiece is the defunding of a major piece of legislation that—however totally odious, stupid, and misconceived it might be—has passed constitutional muster.

Read more here.

Ryan's plans over the past few years have been better than Obama's but are still problematic from a small-government perspective. Read more on that here.

NEXT: Read Reason's Complete March 2013 Issue

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT: Gifford’s husband – gun control proponent – buys AR15 then offers lame excuse:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G…..tic-Pistol

    1. Three days after purchasing his AR-15, Kelly put up a Facebook post saying he was going to hand the gun over to the Tucson PD.

      After which, he will proceed to purchase another AR-15, this time through an untraceable private sale.

  2. The budget proposal assumes that Congress would repeal President Barack Obama’s health-care law set to be implemented next year

    I can’t wait to see the assumptions underpinning the President’s budget.

    1. Especially the part funded by unicorn farts! That’s always my fave.

  3. Gifford’s husband – gun control proponent – buys AR15

    He’s a veteran, with special training and oaths, and stuff. Not some anti-government crackpot like you.

    1. Eh, what is that you say?

    2. So DiFi says he has PTSD is not to be trusted. We’re lucky he didn’t crash that space shuttle into Wash DC.

  4. If Ryan’s budget doesn’t include revenue enhancing, it doesn’t matter what else it says about Obamacare. It’s already a nonstarter at 1600 PA Ave.

    1. Enhanced revenue collection techniques. I like it.

      1. Does that involve a SWAT team or Drones?

      2. Yes, “asking” for people to “contribute” a little more.

        1. “Asking” people to “contribute” “their fair share”.

          1. “pay just a little more”

            *murmph! Burble, burble burble*

            1. In Obama’s mind “their fair share” == “a little more” no matter what their current share is.

  5. “Again, all credit to the GOP for releasing a budget. But I can’t imagine that this conversation is going to go well if the centerpiece is the defunding of a major piece of legislation that – however totally odious, stupid, and misconceived it might be – has passed constitutional muster.”

    So, should the GOP budget include funding “a major piece of legislation that – however totally odious, stupid, and misconceived it might be”?

    1. Doesn’t much matter what one thinks of Obamacare, as Nick’s comment implies. A budget proposal that strips it from consideration is a proposal guaranteed to go nowhere. Even if it passes the House, the Senate will kill it and the media narrative will be “there go those sore loser Repubs again.”

      1. True. Though I think that any budget that balanced within 10 years would be DOA in the Senate, vetoed by the White House, and the media narrative would be about how extreme the Republicans were.

        Which is why I said a year ago that Bowles-Simpson was the best deal that Republicans or libertarians were likely to get, and should have been embraced.

      2. “A budget proposal that strips it from consideration is a proposal guaranteed to go nowhere.”

        But, I didn’t ask if it would go anywhere. I asked something else.

        1. the GOP House budget is including legisaltion that passed Congress and was upheld by SCOTUS. Pretending that the legislation does not exist is still pretending.

          1. Rand Paul’s FY2013 budget proposal repeals Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. I assume it’s also “full of baloney” for that reason(drink).

            1. and good luck with passage of Paul’s budget. Just becuase I think it’s a good idea doesn’t mean a large group of Senators will agree.

              1. “Just becuase I think it’s a good idea doesn’t mean a large group of Senators will agree.”

                Well, if a large group of Senators doesn’t agree with you then you’re obviously “full of baloney”

                1. and, in fact, explains why I am not part of said body.

                  1. You are not of the Body?

        2. It depends on whether you think the GOP budget proposal should be crafted to (a) make a point or (b) pass a budget.

          1. Why cant it do both?

            1. And Im pretty sure the House can pass it.

              1. There is no reason for the House to start compromising BEFORE the senate passes a budget too.

                The time for “compromise” is once the two budgets are sent to joint committee.

    2. You make the right point. Sure that means there will be intransigence on both sides if the Ryan budget doesn’t include Obamacare funding, but the alternative is continuing resolutions which though suck don’t suck as bad as any budget that includes funding for Obamacare.

  6. Past iterations of the GOP budget plan didn’t balance the budget for 30 or more years. This time, souces say they will get there in a decade. I would love to see that (for many reasons), but here’s why Ryan’s plan is already full of baloney:

    It seems to me that any budget either wouldn’t balance the budget for 30 or more years, would contain something unacceptable to the White House and Democrats (and politically impossible and unacceptable to the American people as a whole, sadly), or would contain something else unacceptable to you, Nick, such as significant tax increases while leaving lots of wasteful spending alone.

    So no matter what budget was proposed, you’d have a ready-made insult for why it was full of baloney.

    1. Is the budget being proposed by a politician? It’s full of baloney.

      1. Under the definition in Nick’s post, any budget, proposed by a politician or not, is full of baloney.

        This is in large part due to the stupid and impossible aggregated preferences of the American people when voting or polled.

  7. A budget that promises to balance in ten years is a budget that isn’t balanced today, can’t bind future Congresses, and thus any attempt to sell it as a balanced budget proposal is sheer fraud.

    That is all. Carry on.

    1. So what you’re saying is that Obamacare being passed doesn’t matter at all either, since it hasn’t actually started and doesn’t bind future Congresses? Sure, the law affected the baseline in the future, and claims to do things, but it doesn’t really bind future Congresses, so no worry?

      You’ll just ignore that it affects the starting point of negotiations and baselines?

      1. Obamacare isn’t a budget, it’s a permanently binding law. Remember that that piece of crap John Roberts ruled that it’s a tax? That’s why this past election was so important.

        1. and what would a different election outcome have done about it? Even yesterday, I heard Ryan talking about not funding Obamacare in hopes of its being repealed and, wait for it, being “replaced with something else.” Something else like what?

          Why do Repubs want to insist that their version of big govt health care will be a marked improvement? And it is useful to remember that they had 6 years of running both houses PLUS the presidency and did nothing to push market-based reforms to health care. They did, however, expand Medicare, create a new Cabinet-level agency, and expand the federal footprint in education.

          1. Why do Repubs want to insist that their version of big govt health care will be a marked improvement? And it is useful to remember that they had 6 years of running both houses PLUS the presidency and did nothing to push market-based reforms to health care

            Because the Republican Party are mercantilists ? the original opponents of free markets whose system the Wealth of Nations was written to rebut. The hate the free market slightly less than the Democrats do.

            1. The significant difference is you rarely have to explain basic concepts to a republican even if you find yourself disagreeing vehemently with one. Democrats believe knowledge taints them and wont allow you to soil their child like innocence and their sense of wonder with crass, ugly and depressing ideas about how society functions through commerce.

              1. You forgot to mention how Democrats think they are the enlightened ones, and that Republicans are the ones keeping knowledge down.

          2. And it is useful to remember that they had 6 years of running both houses PLUS the presidency …

            Four years, not six. After the 2000 elections, the Senate was 50-50, and went to 51-49 favoring D in mid-2001. Republicans didn’t retake the Senate until after the 2002 elections, and held it until after the 2006 elections.

  8. So what you’re saying is that Obamacare being passed doesn’t matter at all either, since it hasn’t actually started and doesn’t bind future Congresses?

    I would say it’s more of an analogy to sitting down at the kitchen table with the wifey and having a heart to heart about how times are not as good as they once were, and getting her to promise she will cut back on spending, only to come home the next evening to find lobster for dinner because she wants to put you in a good mood before she tells you about her fabulous new shoes.

  9. As I understand it (poorly), there is a big chunk of Medicaid money which was “saved” by shifting it into Obamacare; in other words, not saved at all, but claimed by the Fingerpointer-in-Chief as a huge concession to the Republicans’ incessant whining about spending.

    “Well, if I pay that bill with the blue credit card instead of the yellow credit card, look at how much the yellow bill went down! Yay! Now, how about some more walking around money as a reward, Baby?”

  10. I have never understood the enthusiasm for Ryan. He’s just another McCain-Graham-McConnell-Boehner Republicrat.

    I would like to propose a Rand Paul 2016 campaign slogan:

    Rand Paul – Not a Moron.

    1. also….not a Mormon

  11. Ahh, pictures of presidents playing golf during various crises. Never gets old.

    1. ALthough, to run a pic of Bush II playing golf during a crisis, they would likely have had to use an old pic, since he quit golfing in 2003.

  12. There is no reason for the House to start compromising BEFORE the senate passes a budget too.

    No kidding.

    “Here it is: this is the lowest offer I will accept.”

    1. I wonder how those guys would buy a car…

      “OK, this is the most I will pay. Wait, did I just say that out loud?”

  13. That stands in counterpoint to the Senate Democrats, who have failed for years (yes, years!) to do that basic task.

    Budgets start in the House, not the Senate. As much as I hate to defend those jerks, it’s not the Senate Democrats’ job to develop and release a budget plan.

    1. IIRC, the House has been passing budgets all these years.

    2. Once the House has done so, I think it does. Budget Control Act says “annually” IIRC.

    3. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

      Spending can originate in either house.

    4. And, of course “producing” a budget would encompass passing one of the budgets they have been sent by the House.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.