Paul Ryan

Paul Ryan Starts Off on Wrong Foot With Budget Deal

Boehner hands him a defeat on the way out.

|

Grass-roots conservatives have many unrealistic expectations and political objectives. And then sometimes they have a good point.

The new budget deal arranged by John Boehner and Democrats— approving $50 billion of additional spending in 2016 and $30 billion in 2017—will be split between domestic discretionary programs and defense. Cuts will supposedly take effect in 2025, by which time this deal is likely to be buried under a dozen budget debates and a trillion dollars of bad memories for fiscal conservatives.

We're told the reason for GOP capitulation is that Boehner, acting selflessly, is about to "clean out the barn" for a Paul Ryan speakership. Implicit in this argument is the idea that this kind of budget agreement would normally be a no-brainer but the crazies must be appeased. Passing it now and avoiding the heat will allow Ryan to move forward with his own agenda.

If only it were that simple.

For one thing, the GOP will have to live with the precedent set by the terrible deal in future negotiations. Barack Obama, as The New York Times points out, is now going to be able to "break free of the spending shackles" of the imaginary reign of austerity that was brought on by the Budget Control Act of 2011. So are all Democrats.

For another thing, conservatives will almost surely see this as a betrayal. The administration came up with the idea of sequestration, and it turned out to be the only tangible victory Republicans could claim on spending.

You may remember the 2010 Pledge to America, in which congressional Republicans promised to roll back government spending to pre-stimulus/bailout levels, cutting at least $100 billion in the first year after taking power. They failed to achieve that improbable goal. And almost every year since, government spending has gone up, though the GOP keeps adding seats by promising to achieve the opposite.

Expecting the GOP to return Washington to 2008 spending levels—now, with a Democratic president in power, or probably ever—is unrealistic. Expecting Republicans at the very least not to piddle away the only leverage they have to keep the status quo is surely reasonable.

If the GOP is unable to extract concessions that mitigate future spending and debt, then the debt ceiling has no real political purpose for Republicans. In fact, if Republicans can't even hold the line on what they've gained—and at this point, Boehner is actually giving back items Republicans won in previous years—then the debt limit isn't just useless; it's counterproductive. Why, then, did we go through all this angst for the past five years?

It's true that both sides are guilty of "holding the country hostage" in the face of pretend "fiscal calamities" and government shutdowns. But Democrats understand that they will take none of the blame from the media when the sides fail to reach an agreement. So Republicans fear this kind of coverage far more than they fear their own base, despite years of polling that shows most voters like the debt ceiling in theory (whatever they think it means) and don't mind if a party uses it to obtain spending cuts. In a new Associated Press-GfK poll, 56 percent of those questioned would trade a government shutdown for more spending cuts. Nearly 80 percent of Republicans claim that they would be open to closing down agencies to procure those budget cuts; even 44 percent of Democrats agree.

So the central question is: How is ceding this fight to Obama supposed to make life easier for Ryan? This is a guy who will begin his term reopening the Export-Import Bank of the United States and, now, supporting perhaps the worst fiscal policy defeat since Obamacare. What magical ideas will Ryan wring from the GOP conference that were unavailable to Boehner? And how many voters outside the Beltway care about process more than results? Democrats under Obama, for the most part, have been willing to use these deadlines to get what they can. Republicans have not.

And if Ryan, a fiscal conservative by any standard, does nothing about the deal, the perception grass-roots GOP types have about the old leadership may well be transferred to the new. If that happens, this deal not only will have sold out fiscal conservatives but also may achieve the opposite of what Boehner intended.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

Paul Ryan Starts Off on Wrong Foot With Budget Deal

Grass-roots conservatives have many unrealistic expectations and political objectives. And then sometimes they have a good point.
The new budget deal arranged by John Boehner and Democrats—approving $50 billion of additional spending in 2016 and $30 billion in 2017—will be split between domestic discretionary programs and defense. Cuts will supposedly take effect in 2025, by which time this deal is likely to be buried under a dozen budget debates and a trillion dollars of bad memories for fiscal conservatives.
We're told the reason for GOP capitulation is that Boehner, acting selflessly, is about to "clean out the barn" for a Paul Ryan speakership. Implicit in this argument is the idea that this kind of budget agreement would normally be a no-brainer but the crazies must be appeased. Passing it now and avoiding the heat will allow Ryan to move forward with his own agenda.
If only it were that simple.
For one thing, the GOP will have to live with the precedent set by the terrible deal in future negotiations. Barack Obama, as The New York Times points out, is now going to be able to "break free of the spending shackles" of the imaginary reign of austerity that was brought on by the Budget Control Act of 2011. So are all Democrats.
For another thing, conservatives will almost surely see this as a betrayal. The administration came up with the idea of sequestration, and it turned out to be the only tangible victory Republicans could claim on spending.
You may remember the 2010 Pledge to America, in which congressional Republicans promised to roll back government spending to pre-stimulus/bailout levels, cutting at least $100 billion in the first year after taking power. They failed to achieve that improbable goal. And almost every year since, government spending has gone up, though the GOP keeps adding seats by promising to achieve the opposite.
Expecting the GOP to return Washington to 2008 spending levels—now, with a Democratic president in power, or probably ever—is unrealistic. Expecting Republicans at the very least not to piddle away the only leverage they have to keep the status quo is surely reasonable.
If the GOP is unable to extract concessions that mitigate future spending and debt, then the debt ceiling has no real political purpose for Republicans. In fact, if Republicans can't even hold the line on what they've gained—and at this point, Boehner is actually giving back items Republicans won in previous years—then the debt limit isn't just useless; it's counterproductive. Why, then, did we go through all this angst for the past five years?
It's true that both sides are guilty of "holding the country hostage" in the face of pretend "fiscal calamities" and government shutdowns. But Democrats understand that they will take none of the blame from the media when the sides fail to reach an agreement. So Republicans fear this kind of coverage far more than they fear their own base, despite years of polling that shows most voters like the debt ceiling in theory (whatever they think it means) and don't mind if a party uses it to obtain spending cuts. In a new Associated Press-GfK poll, 56 percent of those questioned would trade a government shutdown for more spending cuts. Nearly 80 percent of Republicans claim that they would be open to closing down agencies to procure those budget cuts; even 44 percent of Democrats agree.
So the central question is: How is ceding this fight to Obama supposed to make life easier for Ryan? This is a guy who will begin his term reopening the Export-Import Bank of the United States and, now, supporting perhaps the worst fiscal policy defeat since Obamacare. What magical ideas will Ryan wring from the GOP conference that were unavailable to Boehner? And how many voters outside the Beltway care about process more than results? Democrats under Obama, for the most part, have been willing to use these deadlines to get what they can. Republicans have not. And if Ryan, a fiscal conservative by any standard, does nothing about the deal, the perception grass-roots GOP types have about the old leadership may well be transferred to the new. If that happens, this deal not only will have sold out fiscal conservatives but also may achieve the opposite of what Boehner intended.
David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of "The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy." Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi. To find out more about David Harsanyi and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

Advertisement

NEXT: Matt Welch and Donald Trump on the Same Episode of Red Eye w/ Tom Shillhue

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. You may remember the 2010 Pledge to America, in which congressional Republicans promised to roll back government spending to pre-stimulus/bailout levels, cutting at least $100 billion in the first year after taking power. They failed to achieve that improbable goal.

    More than improbable, it was fucking stupid, because they’re now literally hoisted by their own petard. Like current presidential campaign promises of what “I will do” —as if they’d be emperor, They piss and moan about balance of power and the constitution .. except for election cam

    Besides, only 82 House and Senate candidates ran on the 2010 Contract — thus meaningless.
    http://contractfromamerica.org/

    1. literally hoisted by their own petard

      Stop that.

      1. Knarf,

        Literary insights aside, this shows how lucky we are to loose Boehner. Now, since Dave H. suggests nothing, and just expresses hope Ryan can do “something,” I’m guessing he has no idea what Ryan is supposed to do. The only benefit I see is if Ryan can get together with Dave and start talking to all Repubs in Congress to get them to understand how the Dems play them on this, and to take the theme of the Repub primary this last time, and shoot pre-emptively at the media who will blame the Repubs whenever the next time is for “shutting down the Gov.”

    2. Hoisted by you’re own petard means being blown up by your own bomb, literally.

      1. A Petar was a type of boom yard on a sailing ship. It was sometimes used to hang pirates or others who needed hanging. To be hoisted on one’s own Petar is to be hung by ones own doings.

        It isn’t a bomb.

        1. Petard …stupid spell correct

            1. Figuratively, it’s long been used for dumbasses who shoot themselves in the foot — which is what THESE dumbasses did, (David called it improbable)

              http://idioms.thefreedictionar…..own+petard

              And very few people know that the 2010 Contract had only a minority of signers .. thus meaningless, as I documented..

          1. Technically, it was machinery … as used in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, where the phrase originated.

            1. Oops, I found three corrections, elsewhere. It was indeed a bomb in Hamlet. Sorry.

      2. Hoisted by you’re own petard means being blown up by your own bomb, literally

        Figuratively, it has long been used for dumbasses who shoot themselves in the foot — a similar fate.

        http://idioms.thefreedictionar…..own+petard

        Anything else?

        1. Except that it isn’t “hoisted”, it is “hoist by one’s own petard”.
          In Shakespeare’s day, the past participle of “hoise”.

          1. Except that it isn’t “hoisted”, it is “hoist by one’s own petard”.
            In Shakespeare’s day, the past participle of “hoise”.

            I checked before using. That’s “archaic” in today’s US.
            Typical for US, you’ll find different authorities saying either hoist or hoisted.is proper.
            And because definitions are derived froim usage, I can imagine them getting into fistfights/ 🙂

  2. $999,999,999.00 Trillion in debt enough for the democrat socialists ?

    More?

  3. I look at my grand kids and can’t help but feel depressed. It does not look good.

    We were told, if only Republicans could regain the House…. then the Senate… now the Presidency.

    Nothing has changed. Nothing will. I’m not even going to hit my head against the wall if (when) Hillary gets elected.

    They just can’t stop spending. None of them.

    1. I was once sad that it doesn’t look like I’ll ever have grandkids, but the more I look at what a socialist hellhole this country is allowing itself to devolve into, the more I’m thankful that very few relations of mine will be around to endure it.

    2. When government tells us there is little to no inflation I laugh.

      Baseline budgeting alone ensures we have 7% more government per year at ainimum plus whatever extra they add for specifics. Every government agency’s budget automatically increases 7% per year.

      The left speaks of sustainability as a new buzz word yet they ignore the unsustainability of a government that doubles it’s budget every 10 years.

    3. There’s a lot of smart and educated people here in the commentariat, so I don’t want to come off as being smarter than others, but the populace is so foolish. History is a monument to things getting good, prosperity growing and then things taking a big crap – and everyone is shocked, shocked . . .
      I watched a good series on WWII on History or some channel the other week. The first two episodes about the rise of Hitler and the Japanese fascists was truly depressing to watch.
      “Oh, that can’t happen here. That can’t happen today. We have iPads . . . ”
      Systems can spin out of control and result in devastation very quickly – and it usually seems quick because we are by nature creatures that embrace cognitive dissonance.
      My bet is bad things are coming our way.

      1. “I watched a good series on WWII on History or some channel the other week.”

        OK, I found your mistake. See, you’re *supposed* to be watching the Home Shopping Network or Oprah or some other such thing that requires no mental input. Watching content that relays to you what happened in the past and thus causes you to apply history’s lessons to what’s going on today is called “thinking”, and is severely frowned upon in this day and age.

        1. My bad . . .

  4. I keep trying to teach my dog not to eat her shit (or feral cat shit), but she keeps doin’ it. Maybe I should just not expect much from her – or Congressmen.

    1. Your dog sounds like the typical New Jersey voter. Liberals keep feeding them a crap sandwich, and the voters keep going back for more.

  5. Gop proving once again they are useless. How do they stay in office when they never fallow through with their promises. Often I think they are just their to act as a false buffer between true conservative citizens and the democrats plans to completely control this country. I’m surprised anyone votes for them anymore.

    I think the only thing left of any redeamable quality of the GOP is their stance on the 2nd amendment and that will probably go by the way side soon with more compromises, actually capitulation, to the left and their media handlers

    1. How do they stay in office when they never fallow through with their promises.

      When your choices are crap sammich smooth and crap sammich chunky….

      1. The simple solutions are

        Don’t eat
        Order something else

        The stupid solution is to slather on BBQ sauce which is what the GOP half wits seem to prefer.

      2. I believe the canonical choices are “turd sandwich” and “giant douche”.

    2. GOP out of power – We can’t do anything! We don’t have the votes.

      GOP in power – We’re afraid the media might say bad things about us and we’ll lose power, so we can’t do anything.

      Yes. Pretty useless.

  6. And if Ryan, a fiscal conservative by any standard…

    Except for the standard of, you know, actually voting for spending cuts and not voting to massively increase spending.

    He voted for Medicare Plan D…you’re delusional if you think he’s a fiscal conservative.

    1. And if Ryan, a fiscal conservative by any standard not tied to his voting record.

      FTFY.

  7. If that happens, this deal not only will have sold out fiscal conservatives but also may achieve the opposite of what Boehner intended.

    How do you know that isn’t exactly what Boehner intended? Seems pretty likely to me. Sell out the TEA party supporters that made your last few years suck, screw your successor and poison the well for the GOP forever. At least he got a Pelosi hug.

    1. I lean toward this theory.

  8. Both political parties are unwilling to address Social Security, Medicare, excessive Military Interventionism and now the Interest on the nation’s debt. These are the issues. Should the economy slow, the yawning deficit will eventually be reflected in the currency, currently in vogue for a host of temporary reasons. Where are Washington’s Trustees and Fiduciaries?

  9. also may achieve the opposite of what Boehner intended

    You mean may achieve the opposite of what Boehner *claimed* he intended.

    1. Note: I don’t know what Boehner intended or claimed he intended either way.

  10. So Boehner was replaced by Boehner’s Minime and you expect….?

  11. This is getting way out of hand. How can Ryan be accountable for a bill that passed the House before he became Speaker?. It passed the Senate with no opportunity for reconsideration — so the House was TOTALLY out of the picture when Ryan took that office,

    If Reason says Ryan should do something … what and how?

    1. Touche, salesman. I agree that whatever the speaker’s faults, this bill isn’t his dumpster baby.

  12. Live Free[er]?

    Dear Reason reader,

    one of the most personal freedom- damaging beliefs you can have [one of many :-)] , is the belief in the necessity, and the effectiveness, of political involvement – to supposedly “improve” your own life and the lives of others via the political process.

    Fact: as an individual you will _never_ enjoy a freer life for yourself until you completely reject the “drug”, “religion” [ or whatever else you want to call it] known as “political activism” or “involvement”, in its entirety.

    It is nothing more than a trap- a dead end that dramatically _decreases_ your chances of ever achieving more personal freedom and happiness for yourself in this world.

    Regards, onebornfree.
    Personal Freedom Consulting:
    http://www.onebornfree.blogspot.com

  13. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ———- http://www.4cyberworks.com

  14. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.