This is the Paul Ryan-Patty Murray Budget Deal You've Been Waiting For



The big news in Washington last night was that Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican Chairman of the House Budget Committee, announced a not-so-grand bargain budget deal with Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee.

Spending goes up a bit. The deficit goes down a bit less. There are offsetting fee increases and targeted cuts in spending. The deal would send more money to the Pentagon, and avert another (partial) federal shutdown when the current continuing resolution to fund the government expires—that is, if it eventually passes.

Both Ryan and Murray are predicting that it will. Probably. But there will be some conservative opposition to contend with. More precisely, there already is

Republicans on the Hill are still familiarizing themselves with the details, and they'll no doubt find more than a few elements they dislike. But they may learn to live with it anyway. As I heard one GOP legislator describe it shortly after the announcement, the deal is simulataneously not so great and likely the best deal that Republicans can get. 

Judge for yourself; read the details after the jump. 

Ryan-Murray Budget Deal Summary

NEXT: Ukraine Riot Police, Interior Troops Clash With Protesters

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. What haven’t we said about this 10,000 times, been right and been ignored?

  2. Political move on the Republican side: after the last ZOMG ARmegEDDDON shutdown where they received the majority of the blame, why stick your foot in the that trap.

    Perhaps it is a smart political move, but fiscally? Gah.

    (insert standard boilerplate on how Republicans also suck on spending, especially for their precious bloated military)

    1. Perhaps it is a smart political move, but fiscally? Gah.

      At this point, it’s better to get a deal worked out that both sides detest (and there’s plenty of bellyaching about this on the Blue side because it cuts welfare for the chronically unemployed), so the focus can go back on Obamacare.

  3. Because the shutdown and sequester were so damn horrible. Oh, wait they were hardly noticeable except for the administration being total jackholes to privately owned facilities on or near federal lands.

    I’ll be impressed when a budget cuts 25% of government spending. Heck, I’d be impressed if it cut 5%. Ryan’s no friend of small government, but the raging horror-ons the neoprogs cut over his minute budget cuts is at least mildly entertaining.

  4. “””””The deal would send more money to the Pentagon””””

    Republicans would happily sell their soul for a few more dollars for the Pentagon

    1. They are politicians, they would happily sell your soul for a few more Pentagon dollars.

      1. Your right, thanks for correcting me.

    2. If we don’t give the Pentagon more money how will they have enough money to dump half a billion of it into the Kabul weeds

      “”””””Planes Parked in Weeds in Kabul After $486 Million Spent

      Sixteen broken-down transport planes that cost U.S. taxpayers at least $486 million are languishing among the weeds, wooden cargo boxes and old tires at Kabul International Airport, waiting to be destroyed without ever being delivered to the Afghan Air Force.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..spent.html “””””

    3. Very much so, and I don’t get that. It was a Republican who first warned against this but now they have fully given in to the MIC. Move even half of the many smart people working on military research, where their work is hidden away for decades upon decades, into the free market private sector and we’d likely see another tech boom.

      1. Plus, once Republicans stop thinking that Pentagon spending is untouchable, the Democrats won’t have a way to hold this over them and get their own wasteful spending authorized.

        1. How would congress get anything done when all the democrats heads suddenly asplode in astonishment and disbelief?

          Why do you hate the minimum wage Capitol Hill janitor team that would have to clean that up?

  5. avert another (partial) federal shutdown

    The last “(partial) federal shutdown” put more cops on the forest and plain than Bill Clinton ever dreamed of. How about a real shutdown this time?

  6. Republicans on the Hill are still familiarizing themselves with the details, and they’ll no doubt find more than a few elements they dislike.

    Well, there’s their problem right there. Reading the thing before voting for it.

  7. How Paul Ryan still manages to cultivate a reputation as a fiscal hawk is beyond me.

    1. …and a Randian fanatic?

    2. It’s a case of being the tallest midget.

  8. I think it’s time to encourage full-on, deficit spending. The sooner we move to default and reboot, the better. Let the real looting commence.

    1. We’ve been deficit spending since 1957, but we seem to be undertaking the Japanese experiment right now to test how long a complex society can survive massive, relentless deficits before it breaks down completely.

      1. Exactly this. Though I believe the Federal Reserve, deficit spending and a host of other centrally controlled efforts are immoral or illegal, the fact seems to be that a whole lot of people can live and die before the chickens come home to roost. Japan is going on 30 years of their experiment. The shoe is always and forever about to drop it seems.

  9. It actually seems like a smart political move by the stupid party. Why get into a budget battle/ZOMG shutdown, when it’s better for them to keep the focus on Obamacare, Benghazi, the IRS and the other ‘phony’ scandals? Shutdown theater would just distract from that.

  10. It’s Obama’s fault!!!

  11. So will you be writing an article on how opposing this plan is political suicide eh Suderman?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.