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

[Larry]

I phrased my last sentence badly.

I wonder who voted against allowing the FAA the flexibility to NOT close ATC towers.

[Larry]

Yahoo: Senate Democrats on track to pass budget

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats controlling the Senate appear on track to pass their first budget in four years, promising a second, almost $1 trillion round of tax increases on top of more than $600 billion in higher taxes on the wealthy enacted in January.

The nonbinding but politically symbolic measure would protect safety-net programs for the poor and popular domestic priorities like education, health research and federal law enforcement agencies from cuts sought by House Republicans, who adopted a far more austere plan on Thursday morning.

The Democratic plan caters to party stalwarts on the liberal edge of the spectrum just as the House GOP measure was crafted to appeal to more recent tea party arrivals. The $1 trillion in new revenue would accrue over the coming decade and would be coupled with a net $875 billion in spending cuts, generated by modest cuts to federal health care programs, domestic agencies and the Pentagon and reduced government borrowing costs.

The GOP budget proposal, similar to previous plans offered by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., demonstrates that it's possible, at least mathematically, to balance the budget within a decade without raising taxes. But to do so Ryan, his party's vice presidential nominee last year, assumes deep cuts that would force millions from programs for the poor like food stamps and Medicaid and cut almost 20 percent from domestic agency budget levels assumed less than two years ago.

Ryan's plan passed the House on a mostly party-line, 221-207 vote, with 10 Republicans joining Democrats against it.

Senators braced for dozens of votes during a marathon session expected on Friday, with pessimists in the Capitol predicting a final vote on the Democratic plan in the pre-dawn hours of Saturday.

More at the link.

Granted, seems that both houses are passing "publicity stunt" legislation. At least in the case of the Ryan budget, my admittedly ignorant gut says that frankly, at least 90% of Republicans wouldn't actually want it to pass.

But, still, even if they're just posturing for the cameras, passing differing proposals looks like better function from Congress than we've had for some time.

[Larry]

Yahoo: Senate narrowly passes first budget in four years

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate on Saturday narrowly passed its first federal budget in four years, a move that will usher in a relative lull in Washington's fiscal wars until an anticipated summer showdown over raising the debt ceiling.

The budget plan was passed by a 50-49 vote in the Democratic-controlled chamber. Four Democratic senators facing tough re-election campaigns in 2014 joined all the Senate Republicans in opposing the measure, which seeks to raise nearly $1 trillion in new tax revenues by closing some tax breaks for the wealthy.

The Senate budget, which reflects Democratic priorities of boosting near-term job growth and preserving social safety net programs, will square off in coming months against a Republican-focused budget passed by the Republican-dominated House of Representatives.

Neither of the non-binding blueprints has a chance of passage in the opposing chamber, leaving Congress no closer to resolving deep differences over how to shrink U.S. deficits and grow the economy. But they give each party a platform from which to tout their respective fiscal visions.

More at the link.

I'm rather surprised at the 50-49 votes. Specifically, I'm surprised that the perma-filibuster was missing. Assume that there was some kind of a deal struck, to lift the filibuster.

The Democrats' plan from Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray aims to reduce deficits by $1.85 trillion over 10 years through an equal mix of tax increases and spending cuts.

The Republican plan from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan seeks $4.6 trillion in savings over the same period without raising new taxes. It aims to reach a small surplus by 2023 through deep cuts to health care and social programs that aid the poor.

[Fergasun]

Economist.com: Why the Senate Hasn't Passed a Budget (Parliamentary Procedure)

It is true that the Senate can pass a budget resolution with a simple majority vote. But for that budget resolution to take effect, it must have either the cooperation of the house, or at least 60 votes in the Senate.

...

{B]udget resolutions are supposed to set limits on discretionary spending in appropriations bills and facilitate changes in taxes and entitlements via reconciliation instructions or via allocations to authorizing committees. But nowadays, discretionary spending caps have already been set by the Budget Control Act (which ended the debt ceiling standoff) and there is little or no prospect of cross-party agreement on tax or entitlement policies.

The Senate passed a Budget Resolution; which is why there was an open floor for amendments. There were more than 100 amendments to the Senate Budget Resolution.

So now the question is how are they going to actually resolve the FY14 budget? The Senate passed the Murray budget, and the House passed the Ryan budget. There's no $%^-ing way they are going to be able to resolve the differences in a conference... which takes us back to high level negotiations between Obama, Reid, Boehner, McConnell, and Pelosi (at most). The Senate budget reverses sequestration; the House budget keeps it in. The House Budget balances, the Senate won't. The major sticking points will be entitlement reform and sequestration.

The GOP will be trying to defend the spending levels set by sequestration (a win, as it means the discretionary caps set by the 2011 Budget Control Act) will be in place. The Democrats will be trying to defend entitlements.

[Larry]

They're more like guidelines, anyway.

[oisn1]

Heh, so Democrats are hawking 50/50 spending cuts to tax increase plan while Republicans are pushing for a full spending cut plan, yet conservatives have the audacity to speak about socialism and liberal intransigence. It really is a bad joke.

I wish there was a fiber of reality to this Congress to look around the world and see what austerity does. Total austerity is destroying Europe (or at least the concept of the Union) yet the idea of any kind of taxation results in abject horror to some people here in the US. I used to hate the concept that was bandied about by socialists in college about greedy boomers (the so-called most Selfish Generation), but unfortunately, I'm starting to believe that more and more. I sadly feel that boomers (and even some of the generation x'ers) will not be looked at kindly in the history books.

There was a great greek proverb that once said, “A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in”, and I fear we have forgotten that.

[Jumbo]

Oboy! I get to say "Yay Republicans!" :cool:

Lawmakers tighten belts amid automatic budget cuts

There probably won't be much sympathy for a senator or congressman making $174,000 a year who is in no danger of being furloughed or laid off, at least until the next election. Still, there has been an effort, especially in the Republican-led House, to show that no one should be exempt from sacrifice.

"As those who are charged with the care of taxpayers' dollars, we need to lead by example," Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., who chairs the House Administration Committee, said last week in promoting a bill to slash the budgets of House committees by 11 percent.

Earlier in March — after Congress and the White House failed to come up with an alternative to across-the-board cuts in most federal programs — the House imposed an 8.2 percent reduction in lawmakers' personal office budgets. That came on top of 11 percent cuts to members' office budgets during 2011-2012.

"We've drastically reduced travel both for myself and my staff," said Republican Rep. John Campbell, who must cross the country to visit his southern California district. He said he tends to stay in Washington on two-day weekends rather than return home. "I'm more productive here when I'm not rushing to get home," he added.

<more at link>

[Larry]

Now if only they weren't getting like 75% of their income on the side.

It's a symbolic gesture. But it's a good one. Props.

[Larry]

Yahoo: Obama budget to offer program cuts, seek deficit deal: official

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will offer cuts to Social Security and other entitlement programs in a budget proposal aimed at swaying Republicans to compromise on a deficit-reduction deal, a senior administration official said on Friday.

Under a proposal that would cut the deficit by $1.8 trillion over 10 years, the president will offer to apply a less generous measure of inflation to calculate cost-of-living increases, the official said on condition of anonymity. That change would result in lower payments to some beneficiaries of the Social Security program for retirees and is staunchly opposed by many congressional Democrats as well as labor and retiree groups.

Obama would agree to cuts to other so-called entitlement programs, the official said.

However, the president will only accept these spending cuts if congressional Republicans, for their part, agree to higher taxes, the official added. The president's budget proposal is due to be laid out in full on Wednesday.

More info (but not really anything new that I notice) at the link.

Glad to see some negotiation that isn't being done during a hostage situation. Maybe things are getting better?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Yahoo: Obama budget to offer program cuts, seek deficit deal: official

More info (but not really anything new that I notice) at the link.

Glad to see some negotiation that isn't being done during a hostage situation. Maybe things are getting better?

The thing that's new about this is that he's offering a compromise to start, instead of offering his wish list which leads to a freeze in negotiations. If republicans can appreciate the compromise and then come to the table, something big probably can get done. And I think a lot of republicans will want to get it done.

I guess the goal here is to build a coalition of half-dem, half-GOP because a lot of people on both sides of the aisle will hate Obama's budget.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Or maybe that goes nowhere too:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obama-budget-medicare-social-security-89658.html?hp=t1_3

[Larry]

I'm shocked.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Also:

The economic recovery, which looked promising as the year began, appears ready to stall for the third year in a row. And once more, Washington gets much of the blame.

Friday’s disastrous employment report, which showed a gain of just 88,000 jobs, down from 236,000 last month, is a flashing red signal that the economy is again in serious danger.

* * *

“Washington fiscal policy, between the expiration of the payroll tax cut and the sequester, is the fundamental reason we could have another spring swoon,” said Jim O’Sullivan of High Frequency Economics. “It’s still to be determined how big a deal the sequester is. But you are going to have furloughs in addition to layoffs.”

Those furloughs and layoffs in the public sector mean less consumer spending, the engine that drives two-thirds of the economy. Wall Street estimates suggest the sequester cuts could shave up to 1 percent off GDP growth this year, which could be the difference between an economy that feels decent and one that scares the daylights out of people.

“The sequester will start to do some real damage,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “I also suspect health care reform is going to be a weight as employers nail down what their costs are going to be and work to get below that 50-employee threshold” — the level at which the law’s requirements for businesses kick in. “All these things come together and we get to midyear feeling disappointed. And, depending how bad the fiscal drag is, we could get close to zero growth, which would be very uncomfortable.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/march-2013-jobs-report-89668.html?hp=t1_3

Everyone thought that Obama looked wrong saying the sequester would harm the economy... well, it looks bad. As bad as its looked for the last few years.