House Passes Ryan Budget, 221-207

[Valin]

Tipsheet:

Guy Benson

3/21/13

 

The Republican-held House of Representatives has passed Paul Ryan's FY 2014 budget, as well as the final version of a "continuing resolution" that will fund the federal government through the end of the current fiscal year. The latter item locked into place the reduced spending baseline established by the sequester. It does not defund Obamacare, although the GOP FY 2014 budget does. As I wrote earlier, the House rejected a trio of Democratic alternative budgets yesterday, including the Senate Democrats' offering -- which raises taxes by $1.5 trillion, increases overall spending, adds $7 trillion in new deficits and never balances. Robust bipartisan majorities torpedoed all three resolutions. The House Republican blueprint holds the line on taxes, reduces deficits by $4.6 trillion compared to the current path, and balances within ten years. It passed on a mostly party-line vote, 221-207; every Democrat and a handful of Republicans voted no. The GOP majority has complied with the law and passed a budget every year since gaining control of the House in the 2010 elections. Senate Democrats shirked their legally-mandated budgetary duties for nearly four years, but are finally poised to pass a plan of their own in the coming days. The president remains historically and unlawfully delinquent on his FY 2014 fiscal plan. Here's Paul Ryan laying out the case for his latest proposal and contrasting it with Democrats' vision:

 

 

Over on the Senate side, they're in the midst of a "vote-a-rama," in which each party is guaranteed 25 hours of debate on the majority's budget resolution. This allows Senate Republicans to introduce a slew of amendments and force tough votes; Democrat Senators will have nowhere to hide......(Snip)

 

UPDATE - Unsurprisingly, Senate Democrats have been assailing the House-passed budget as brutally austere and devastating to children and the elderly. This "monstrous" plan increases federal spending by an average of 3.4 percent per year, saves Medicare, and balances. The Democrat plan accelerates spending beyond the current rate of increase of nearly five percent annually, keeps Medicare on its death march and never balances -- all despite a hefty tax hike.

 

(Snip)

 

[Valin]

Here's the problem I believe many of us have with this....The Republican proposal increases spending overall. Democrats will inevitably inveigh against Ryan's budget as a heartless and "draconian" imposition of unthinkable austerity. Nonsense. It will, on average, increase federal spending by 3.4 percent per year for the next ten years. Yes, this is a less rapid rise compared to the unsustainable current path (annual increases of nearly five percent), but it's an increase nonetheless. Ryan contextualizes these big numbers: "Instead of spending $46 trillion over the next 10 years, we'll spend $41 trillion. That's means we'll grow spending on average 3.4 percent a year instead of growing it an average 4.9 percent a year, which is the path we're on, which keeps us from ever balancing the budget which produces a debt crisis." Compared to the current trajectory, the GOP plan will reduce spending by $5 trillion.

[Valin]

Here's the problem I believe many of us have with this....The Republican proposal increases spending overall. Democrats will inevitably inveigh against Ryan's budget as a heartless and "draconian" imposition of unthinkable austerity. Nonsense. It will, on average, increase federal spending by 3.4 percent per year for the next ten years. Yes, this is a less rapid rise compared to the unsustainable current path (annual increases of nearly five percent), but it's an increase nonetheless. Ryan contextualizes these big numbers: "Instead of spending $46 trillion over the next 10 years, we'll spend $41 trillion. That's means we'll grow spending on average 3.4 percent a year instead of growing it an average 4.9 percent a year, which is the path we're on, which keeps us from ever balancing the budget which produces a debt crisis." Compared to the current trajectory, the GOP plan will reduce spending by $5 trillion.

 

 

OTOH.......

Does Ryan’s budget really cut spending and debt too slowly? Nope

James Pethokoukis

March 21, 2013

 

Paul Broun, a Republican congressman from Georgia who’s going to run for US Senate, doesn’t much like Paul Ryan’s new budget. His big criticism: Ryan uses a scalpel instead of chainsaw. As Broun wrote in a New York Times op-ed:

 

Supporters of the “Path to Prosperity,” including many of my fellow Republicans, say that we have to stop spending money we don’t have, an idea I promote every chance I get. But under the proposal by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, the federal government would continue to spend more than it will this year.

 

Spending would grow by an average of 3.4 percent annually, only slightly less than the rate under President Obama’s plan, which is 5 percent a year. After 10 years — Mr. Ryan’s target for eliminating the deficit — the “Path to Prosperity” will have spent $41 trillion, when the president’s plan would allow spending of $46 trillion. My party’s de facto position has become “we’re increasing spending, but not as much as the other guy.” That’s not good enough. Just reducing growth in spending does almost nothing.

 

Broun’s analysis is misleading. Reducing the growth in spending can actually accomplish quite a bit, as Ryan’s budget clearly shows. While I have many problems with the internals of the Ryan budget (including the balanced budget goal), his macro targets are spot on.

[Valin]

Paul Ryan budget fails in Senate, 5 Republicans vote NO with Democrats

 

So nobody expected Paul Ryan’s budget to pass the Senate, but what is interesting is which 5 Republicans voted against it: Susan Collins, Ted Cruz, Dean Heller, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul. The budget failed 59-40.

 

You can see all the votes at this link.