The *Budget Fight* Thread (Jan-Feb-March 2013 Edition)

[JMS]

(And I would have no problem with the Dems doing he same thing (saying "lets not cut this thing, let cut somewhere else, instead"), and attaching it to this bill, either).

Only I don't think the GOP is giving them that option. Which definitely should threaten the entire proposal.

(Granted, I have no doubt that he Republicans will PREVENT them from doing this, though).

In short, this proposal looks to be HUGELY better than previous Republican proposals to do things like "lets eliminate all of the defense cuts, and demand cuts to SS and Medicare, instead".

---------- Post added March-7th-2013 at 11:05 AM ----------

Not sure where the idea of O supporting sequestration comes from.

From what I can tell, the only part of it that he supported was the notion that it would be so unfathomable that one party would openly allow it to occur, and thus a budget compromise would occur.

O gambled that the GOP wouldn't commit political suicide, and he lost.

...er...Or won.

:confused:

Well if you remember Sequestration was a compromise which was passed because the government had gone off the fiscal cliff. It was part of a continuous funding measure to avoid something which could have been even worse than sequestration.

[Larry]

Yahoo: New Ryan plan emphasizes balanced budget, promises to cut $4.6 trillion in decade

The House Budget Committee on Tuesday unveiled a federal budget blueprint that Chairman Paul Ryan says would balance the federal budget within 10 years and slow the growth of federal spending by $4.6 trillion over that time.

The 96-page proposal serves as a political document that outlines the tax and spending vision of House Republicans. Lawmakers hope it can be used as a starting point for negotiations with Democrats over a plan to balance the federal budget.

The ideas within the blueprint are largely similar to past proposals from Ryan's budget team, which include an overhaul of the nation's entitlement and welfare programs, and reductions to discretionary spending.

The most blaring difference this year is that Ryan's proposal finds a way to balance the budget in 10 years, instead of the 30-year goal outlined in past budgets. To accomplish this, it relies heavily on new revenue from the higher tax rates imposed as part of this year's "fiscal cliff" negotiations. The law also assumes the repeal of President Barack Obama's 2010 health care law, which Congress passed in 2010 and the Supreme Court upheld two years later.

More at the link. (But not a whole lot of details. Assume that we'll be hearing more about the details over the next few days. Although, 96 pages is really long for a broad guideline, but really short for an actual budget.)

[The Evil Genius]

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-paul-ryan-social-security-20130312,0,5209565.story

Paul Ryan drinks deeply from pool of Social Security lies

--Increasing numbers of beneficiaries. Ryan laments that in 1950, there were only 2.9 million Social Security recipients. Today there are 55 million. Right: In 1950, relatively few new retirees qualified for benefits in a program that only started paying old-age benefits in 1940. Originally, huge swaths of working people were excluded, including domestic workers and farmhands. They got added into the program over the next few years by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

Importantly, the increase in America's elderly population was fully anticipated at the program's birth in 1935. Edwin Witte, the Wisconsin economist who was its architect, estimated for Congress that by 1980, one-eighth of the U.S. population would be 65 or older, and they would have to be provided for: "Whether you do it in the form of pensions or in some other way, there is no way of escaping that cost."

Incidentally, Witte actually overestimated the elderly population. In 2011, his figures would put the 65-plus population of the U.S. at 39 million. That year, according to the Social Security Administration, the number of retired workers including dependents collecting benefits was 38.5 million. What does Ryan suggest should be done with all these people? He doesn't say.

He also doesn't mention that some of the increase in beneficiaries over the years is due to new benefits enacted by Congress, such as stipends for school- and college-age children of deceased workers. Among the Americans who received those benefits as youngsters? Paul Ryan.

---------- Post added March-12th-2013 at 12:24 PM ----------

Ryan's diatribe against SS reminds me of Malkin's diatribe against "anchor babies".

So much irony.

---------- Post added March-12th-2013 at 12:50 PM ----------

Bwahahahaha.

We're not going to give up on destroying the healthcare system for the American people.

[Bliz]

The budget's goal would be to eliminate all but two income tax brackets, one at 10 percent and the other at 25 percent; it would raise no new revenue through taxes, cutting against the president's own demands for additional revenue.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/12/17283473-this-is-our-offer-ryan-debuts-budget-that-would-balance-in-a-decade?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2

only two tax brackets?

but WHY?

I just couldn't possibly disagree more. What we need are MORE tax brackets. $400k is a very low cap to say above this we're just going to treat every dollar the same above this number. <refers over to how wealth is distributed thread>. There are people making 50x that much in a year. If you're making $400k you're doing very nicely for yourself, and congratulations. But you are not anywhere near the same boat as the CEO making 8 figures a year.

It makes no sense whatsoever to treat dollar $400,001 the same as dollar $25 million for tax purposes. Absolutely none.

To treat dollar $40,001 (or wherever they'd draw the line between these two brackets) the same as dollar $25 million is just insane.

[Larry]

Link to the actual proposal. (PDF)

Been skimming it. So far, it's been platitudes and talking points. But then, it's a long document, and I'm still in the introductions.

[Fergasun]

What's there to read that's different than his previous Path's to Prosperity?

I really wish I had artistic talent; I would portray Paul Ryan as a leprechaun with a pot of gold at the end of his "Path to Prosperity" rainbow.

What I find more amusing is that his "final stage" of the "debasement of our currency" is actually the younger generation fighting back. When we debase the currency, it's *current workers* who will benefit with getting value for their labor and ensuring we'll be able to pay the money for the boomers. At least that's how I feel about it (except for the fact that productivity gains aren't being provided for wage increases). Is an unbalanced budget really a sign of over-reach? Is Paul Ryan saying we need to go back to the balanced budget of Clinton? Is he saying George Bush and Ronald Reagan over-reached?

Wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Ok, let's see what that does to your house prices...

What really galls me is when the GOP calls for ending Frank-Dodd financial reform. Yes, they are imperfect; but the deal made for TARP was "bailouts now, financial reform later!" So we're gonna go to "bailouts now! GOP going to stop financial reform". Good job you jokers. It burns me that no one ever reports on the fact that Frank-Dodd was a direct result of TARP.

[The Evil Genius]

Sure its the Huff Post..but it does contain some classic Paul Ryan do as I say now, not as I did then stuff.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/paul-ryan-paul-krugman_n_2869126.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

If you can stomache it - watch the MSNBC video. Especially starting around the 2:30 mark...

Seriously, does no one in the GOP want to call him on his two-faceyness?

[Larry]

I'd rather make it more about discussing Ryan's proposal, as opposed to discussing him.

Granted, like I said, I skimmed the first 20 pages, and didn't see any real detailed proposals. (Well, I have read that supposedly what he wants to do is to keep the tax part of Obamacare, and get rid of the benefit part, and divert the funds elsewhere.)

It's possible that there just plain aren't any details, and all we will have are various pundits giving us their summaries of it.

[RedskinsFan44]

Ryan's budget is not a serious proposal, it is DOA and he knows it. Obama and the Democrats are supposed to rescind Obamacare after running on it (and paying a big political price in 2010) and seeing it upheld by the Supreme Court after a lengthy judicial fight?

So the Republicans get to say that they put up a proposal that balances the budget in ten years (questionable :http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/paul-ryans-tax-math-just-became-more-magical/273959/) without having the details looked at hard because they know it will be voted down.

[Fergasun]

Larry:

1) Don't increase Pell Grant's (even if college costs keep going up). Keep Pell Grant's at the current level through 2023 (Page 22)

2) Repeal the part of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 that allowed families to shield some of their income from the "needs-analysis" (i.e. lowering the threshold which someone can get financial backing for loans from the Federal Government, or direct loans... I'm not quite sure) (Page 22)

3) Change the way college loans are accounted for on the Federal balance sheet (college loans are profit making investments, but rather they are liabilities to the Federal government)

4) Cut Department of Education K-12 Programs found in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Page 22)

5) Cut Federal Job training programs (keep some of the reforms Obama proposed in FY13)

6) Cut Taxes for Anyone who pays over 25% right now (Page 24)

7) Raise Taxes for Anyone who pays < 10% right now (Page 24)

8) Cut Taxes for Corporations that Pay over 25% right now (Page 24)

9) Cut Taxes across the board to compete internationally (Page 24)

10) Give GOP run states the power to screw around with Medicaid (Page 31)

11) Repeal Obamacare expansion of Medicaid

12) Give GOP run states the power to screw around with Food Stamps (not quite sure if food stamps and SNAP are the same... could be different) benefits that help the needy.

13) Change TANF "work requirements"(since the GOP apparently doesn't want to sue regarding this, and Republicans didn't win the White House, they could do this without legislation if they gained the Presidency) (Page 33)

Sure, all the *specific details* need to be worked out... but I think it's pretty clear the type of things the GOP are discussing. It's probably items that if you look at specific House subcommittee meetings, you can ferret out exactly what they are talking about.

[Larry]

6) Cut Taxes for Anyone who pays over 25% right now (Page 24)

7) Raise Taxes for Anyone who pays < 10% right now (Page 24)

8) Cut Taxes for Corporations that Pay over 25% right now (Page 24)

I see him talking about changing tax RATES. But virtually nobody actually pays those nominal rates, right now. And I don't see anything that says he wants them to pay the nominal rates under his plan, either.

Nor do I see anything that says he intends to get rid of the 0% tax bracket. I'm not sure he's counting that one.

Yes, I strongly SUSPECT that he's pushing another GOP crusade to cut taxes on the rich, and shift them to other people. But I haven't seen anything that actually SAYS so.

[The Evil Genius]

[Fergasun]

I see him talking about changing tax RATES. But virtually nobody actually pays those nominal rates, right now. And I don't see anything that says he wants them to pay the nominal rates under his plan, either.

Nor do I see anything that says he intends to get rid of the 0% tax bracket. I'm not sure he's counting that one.

Yes, I strongly SUSPECT that he's pushing another GOP crusade to cut taxes on the rich, and shift them to other people. But I haven't seen anything that actually SAYS so.

Ryan's budget just got voted out of the House committee. Within days if you really are interested in where the savings and what the impact is, it will be on the House floor and voted through. I don't know how many people in DC really have the stomach to go through line-by-line on a budget which has no shot of becoming law. Especially since Ryan made it more conservative (balance in 10 years) and the House moved in the other direction during the election (more liberal). Maybe I'll post an update to this thread when it continues.

I think it's going to be pretty obvious why everything was done via high-level negotiations when they attempt to go through "regular order". Instead of Obama and Boehner hammering out a deal, we get to see the ugly political fights and nuances explode during the floor debates and the follow-on conference committee... well at least for FY13 there may be a committee. It'll be interesting to see if the House accepts the Senate changes (rather if conservatives buy into leadership).

So that will be the FY14 fight..

---------- Post added March-14th-2013 at 09:17 AM ----------

*

I meant to say... the bill will be available online shortly (if it isn't). The Path to Prosperity document is a 100 page document that tries to synthesize 500 pages of law....

[@DCGoldPants]

Ryan budget is a firing offense

Editor's note: David Rothkopf is CEO and editor-at-large of the FP Group, publishers of Foreign Policy magazine, and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

(CNN) -- For most Americans, the budget debate in Washington is reaching dog-whistle pitch, a tone that only partisans can hear. Which, as far as I am concerned, is a mercy.

Paul Ryan offered his budget on Tuesday. Let's do give him props for making the effort and all. The vast majority of his colleagues are potted plants on this front, reading talking points, sometimes banging the table and doing precious little else. But what Ryan calls a budget is what any CEO would call a firing offense. It uses some numbers and some words that appear in real budgets. But it neglects some other key elements ... like arithmetic or the truth or a greater economic purpose.

The Ryan budget depends entirely on unspecified tax reforms and the replacement of revenues he doesn't care for (such as those associated with Obamacare) with others he doesn't care to actually define or describe. The rigorous, widely respected Center on Budget and Policy Priorities slammed the exercise, taking Ryan to task for failing to live up to his billing as the guy courageous enough to put his ideas out there.

It wrote, "Is it courageous to propose tax cuts but not identify a single tax expenditure to rein in? Is it courageous to target your deepest cuts on the poorest Americans, who vote in lower numbers and provide little in campaign contributions? Is it courageous to camouflage hundreds of billions in cuts for the poor and disadvantaged in broad budget categories without identifying the programmatic cuts, so that analysts, journalists, and other policymakers can't identify the specific cuts and assess their impacts?"

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, we have a real sign of the End Times: Senate Democrats have actually come out with a budget for the first time since the iPad was invented. There are children in school, reading, who were born since their last budget.

Click the header for the complete opinion piece.

[GibbsFactor]

Bobby Jindal is presenting the idea of doing away with the State's income and corporate tax rates. Smart man.

[88Comrade2000]

Everyone knows all the wrangling on the budget and every other issue until Nov. 2014 is just positioning for the 2014 elections.

If the Dems win full control then they will finish what they started in 2009. If Repubs win full control; they will just be positioning themselves to have full control in 2016. If it remains split; just more of the same.

Nothing of consequence will be done other than some sort of immigration reform.

[Bliz]

Bobby Jindal is presenting the idea of doing away with the State's income and corporate tax rates. Smart man.

Isn't doing away with the state income tax just squeezing the balloon?

States need money to operate. Take away the income tax? That's fine. Enjoy your newly quadrupled property taxes, increased sales tax, motor vehicle, .......they'll get their money. One way or another. They always do. Florida has no state income tax. BUt the overall state and local tax burden is middle of the road. Why is this particularly helpful to the average citizen (other than as a blinder, and maybe they wrongly think their taxes are lower than they really are)?

[Larry]

Well, part of the reason is that the income tax is a more visible tax. The paperwork requirement means that people actually notice the tax more.

And then there's the fact that the income tax hits rich folks at a higher tax rate than poor people, and the other taxes tend to do the opposite.

[Larry]

Yahoo: House on track to pass budget plan with deep cuts

WASHINGTON (AP) — A familiar budget plan to sharply cut safety-net programs for the poor and clamp down on domestic agencies performing the nuts-and-bolts programs of the government is cruising to passage in the tea party-flavored House.

The Republican measure is advancing to the finish line in the House as the Senate starts a lengthy slog toward passage of a rival budget measure. It takes a sharply different view, restoring automatic cuts to agency budgets and increasing taxes by $1 trillion over the coming decade.

The dueling budget plans are anchored on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum in Washington, appealing to core partisans in the warring parties gridlocked over persistent budget deficits. President Barack Obama is exploring the chances of forging a middle path that blends new taxes and modest curbs to government benefits programs.

The link mentions the status of several measures: Continuing funding through the end of FY13, and various proposals for the FY14 budget.

(Near as I can tell, regards to FY14, both sides are developing the budget resolutions: Non-bninding proposals that, well, the way I envision it is, they say "The total budget for Agency X will be . . . ", but they don't actually contain line items. (Those actually come later, in the form of a dozen separate bills.)

[Larry]

Another article, covering pretty much the same things:

Yahoo: House approves Ryan budget, departs for two-week recess

The House on Tuesday approved Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, which, if implemented, would defund the federal health care law, balance the federal budget in 10 years and overhaul the nation's entitlement programs. The measure passed with 220 votes, just two more than it needed to pass.

But it's not going to be implemented.

The proposal, a political document that serves as more of a vision for how Republicans would govern if they had full control over the House, Senate and the White House—call it a GOP wish list—serves as a starting point for debate with Democrats on the government's future.

Many of the provisions are similar to the House budget passed last year, including measures to change how the federal government pays for Medicare. The newest iteration of the Ryan budget would:

- Repeal Obamacare, the federal health care law passed in 2010. (But keep its tax revenue. More on that in a moment.)

- Slow the growth of federal spending by about $4.6 trillion over the next 10 years by overhauling Medicare and cutting discretionary spending on domestic programs.

- Balance the budget in 10 years with an assist from new taxes implemented in the "fiscal cliff" deal passed earlier this year and new taxes from health care law.

[Fergasun]

I was in the middle of linking to an article on the Continuing Resolution through the Senate. A number of Senators were fighting to keep FAA control towers open (I believe they were closing the ones that were privately run). The USDA got additional flexibility so they wouldn't have to furlough meat inspectors. It's funny to see Republicans complain about sequestration impacts. It wouldn't surprise me if we saw little bits and pieces done about sequestration.

There were also some articles where the GOP say they've taken enough out of the discretionary budget and are going to try to tie entitlement program changes through the debt ceiling debate...

[Larry]

Yeah, I think there have been a couple of "Let's give Agency X the power to not gut Line Item X, if they can cut the same amount somewhere else".

And I don't have a problem with that approach.

(Although I observe that, far as I know, they only want to allow this flexibility to things that the Republicans care about. But IMO, that's what negotiation is for.)

[Fergasun]

The Senate was able to tack on flexibility for Justice, Commerce, Science, and I believe Homeland Security.

As long as the bottom line number hit the agreed to number, it seemed like the House accepted it.

I want to make it clear: the USDA got authority not to furlough meat inspectors, but the FAA didn't get flexibility for the control towers (even though it seemed like they pulled funding from FAA, and didn't affect the bottom line number).

Senator Ayotte was trying to kill the MEADS missile defense system calling it the "Missile to Nowhere". But she was not able to get the amendment onto the Senate floor (blocked by Reid). I'm guessing that MEADS is in New York and Reid was helping Schumer by protecting it?

[Larry]

That's starting to almost sound like maybe they're becoming just slightly less dysfunctional. (Wonder who fought against closing ATC towers, though, and why).

[chipwhich]

That's starting to almost sound like maybe they're becoming just slightly less dysfunctional. (Wonder who fought against closing ATC towers, though, and why).

Easter Vacation.