« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Unanswered Questions for GOP Leaders from Freshmen

What about Paul Ryan's budget?

By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  |  July 24th, 2011 at 07:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Forget the tax issue or the timetable for a moment; any proposed “spending cut” deal that fails to slash funding for discretionary spending and welfare programs to pre-Obama levels, as proposed in Paul Ryan‘s budget, is worthless.  As Congressman Dennis Ross (R-FL) tweeted earlier today, “debt “deals” that count on 10 years worth of spending cuts are the Mr Snuffleupagus of budget tricks. No one sees them except pols.”

If House leaders fail to stand by their own budget, freshmen members like Ross might pose the following question: was the entire Republican majority of the 112th Congress a waste of time?

A record number of freshmen Republicans were swept into Congress to downsize government in general, and repeal/defund Obamacare in particular.

In April, Republicans had their first chance to fulfill their mandate by passing a continuing resolution for FY 2011 that slashed government and defunded Obamacare.  As the clock ticked down to a government shutdown, GOP leaders retreated in fear.  They forced the conference to pass a spending bill that maintained funding for Obamacare and only trimmed a paltry $352 million from the deficit, thereby abrogating their popular mandate from just five months before.

But we were told that the CR was not our fight, and that we should remain patient until we are presented with real opportunities; the debt ceiling fight and the Paul Ryan budget for FY 2012.

The Ryan budget, unlike the impending debt ceiling deal, more or less fulfills the mandate of the 2010 freshmen by defunding Obamacare and downsizing government to pre-Obama levels.  This is not the RSC plan or a Tea Party plan; it is the plan of the entire conference, supported by leadership.  Ever since the budget resolution was adopted on April 15, the House has worked diligently to carry out the budget blueprint and implement comprehensive cuts in every appropriations bill.

But what will come of all those cuts, including Obamacare, when the rubber meets the road in late September?

If GOP leaders could not expend their political capital and fulfill their mandate through the 2011 CR for fear of a gov’t shutdown; if they will not hold the line with the debt limit on August 2 for fear of default, will they hold the line on the Ryan budget on September 30?  Will they suddenly exhibit newfound courage in the face of a government shutdown, or was the entire Ryan budget just a charade?  They certainly won’t have more fortitude when we reach the next debt limit under this new “two-tiered debt ceiling plan.”

When will the conservatives deliver on their promise to defund Obamacare?

An overwhelming majority of voters support repeal of Obamacare; 66% of adults support Cut, Cap, and Balance; 74% of adults support a balanced budget amendment.  Throughout the debt negotiations, Obama has incurred record disapproval, while the GOP has made gains among the young and the poor – those most affected by Obama’s pernicious policies.

If such resounding support is not enough for them to pull the trigger, they will never have the guts to engage in brinkmanship over the Ryan budget in September.  There will be no other “bites at the apple” if Democrats know that Republicans will never force the issue.

The bottom line is that Democrats will never willingly sell out, and will go to the brink for their principles.  If Republicans don’t match their intransigence with a parallel degree of gumption, all of their promises will remain empty.

Those conservative freshmen will have nothing to show their constituents beyond a non-binding commission and unenforceable baseline spending cuts.

In order to preclude such disappointment, GOP leaders must hold the line on Cut, Cap, and Balance.  Additionally, they should opt for a “two-tiered” approach by bringing the Full Faith and Credit Act to the House floor, along with CCB.  This would force the Treasury to prioritize its payments to our soldiers and Social Security recipients.  Consequently, any default that ensues would be Obama’s prerogative.

To that end, our good freshmen won’t find themselves pondering this depressing question:  Is there any purpose of assuming power other than for its own sake?

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • californiagold

    Why didn’t the republican congress vote on a balanced budget amendment in a clean bill earlier this year ? Had they done so and then sold the idea to the public it would have been much more difficult for the opposition to defeat it now.

  • Scope

    “The bottom line is that Democrats will never willingly sell out, and will go to the brink for their principles. If Republicans don?t match their intransigence with a parallel degree of gumption, all of their promises will remain empty.”

    I agree with that perception of the Republicans in the house.

    What I don’t agree with is your idea that the newbies in Congress were “forced” to go along with the current House Republican leadership. If they don’t use their voices, every microphone they can get in front of, and every press release everyone of them can put out, they have caved to the current Republican leadership. Were the newbies sent to Washington to buck the leadership when they were not willing to fight for conservative positions? Surely they can’t be already entrenched in Washington go along to get along politics, right? Seems to me that the newbies are being played like only a Washington fiddle can play them.

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ Daniel Horowitz

      is that all of the negotiations have been done behind closed doors. These guys have doesn’t everything they can to push CCB. As for the details of various sellout plans, they are sadly kept in the dark. In fact, they seem to find out about the details no earlier than any of us. That is what happened with the late Friday night CR deal in April.

      • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

        It is indeed correct that the backroom dealmaking process is how horrible bills like Obamacare got cooked up and its how the GOP leaders are getting picked apart over these issues.

        Keeping things in the dark ends up selling out members of Congress on all sides. Why didn’t they just use regular order and a committee process to get the bill done?

        What was Reid, Obama and even Boehner afraid of?

        Boehner, Cantor and others have ‘walked out’ of these negotiations, when in fact the error was in not publicly stating:
        “While we are willing to talk to the President and others, these talks are no subsistitute for a true, open, transparent and participative process of legislation that is the duty and responsibility of Congress. Any proposals from the White House for due consideration need to be public and written, to ensure proper consideration by the house of Representatives as a body. Legislating behind closed doors is a corruption of that process and leads us to fail in our promises to be open and transparent.”

        Now, Speaker boehner PROMISED, as did Speaker Pelosi, to put bills up on the internet and give TIME to review bills. Pelosi broke her promise and engaged in the backroom dealmaking.

        We need to make sure Speaker Boehner keeps his word.

  • Adjoran

    Budget authority does extend for ten years; it cannot by statute be extended any longer than ten years. Of course future Congresses can change the numbers for most of it, but that is ALWAYS true of any projection beyond the current fiscal year. And even that can be changed in the same year through supplemental appropriations.

    Ryan’s budget also counts savings through ten years, which is how it gets to over $5.6 trillion in total cuts.

    So the whole complaint about the “ten years” is ignorant.

    However, Ryan’s budget is the ONLY one presented thus far which cuts enough in the ten year budget window to avoid a downgrade to our bond rating.

    • snowshooze

      That is why I disdain the thought of it. No real face value.
      I want to see real cuts in the current fiscal year, real action.
      And so far as our credit rating, they are looking for the same thing.

      • edintexas

        While the 10 year period is legitimate, history shows that projections of budget cuts out to the 10 year limit are just that, projections for this point in time. Actuality is, as Ross said, that the “cuts” are invisible to all but the politicians who are promoting them today because they are non-existent as soon as next year.

    • edintexas

      “So the whole complaint about the ?ten years? is ignorant.”

      So you can provide examples of 10 year spending reductions which actually occurred, as projected, in the previous 50 years? If Rep. Ross claimed a decade long budget period was unlawful, that information was not in the article above. What was claimed was any projections of cuts for the next decade would result in invisible cuts in the future (though to be honest, I seem to recollect my children watching a “Muppet” of Mr. Snuffleupagus in the early to mid-70s, so he couldn’t have been invisible). History bears this out to be true. So are you claiming the truth is “ignorant”, or did you utterly misread the reported “tweet” comment by Rep. Ross?

  • cordpt

    Because it also relies in 10 years of spending cuts. Even though it’s not even in the same planet of the Ryan budget because those cuts aren’t even specified – and there isn’t a hint about entitlement reform. Those programs – the real issue – are left completely untouched. It’s basically a generic pledge to cut spending in the next 10 years (with an implicit promise to raise taxes too, assuming the balanced budget mechanisms can work… which I doubt).

    I can’t understand why Ross voted for the CCB in that case (well, I do, he voted for the same reason everyone else did – it gives them some creed as spending cutters and doesn’t force them to take responsibility for any concrete spending-cut proposal at all: the best of both worlds) . What exactly is he angling for? To make the cuts in 2 or 3 years? Good luck with that, the economy would contract so fast that after the cuts the government share of the economy would be actually higher. And it’s not like the next Congress can’t reverse things anyway.

    This “OMG, 10 years, they’ll reverse it in the future, not acceptable, hold the line!!111″ stuff we’ve been reading is completely nonsensical. All political arrangements are precarious. Even the constitution can be amended.

    • snowshooze

      I want to start with a one year budget, and live through that before I start another. But I want it balanced. Now. I think everyone else is with me on that, except our representatives.
      If our young guns do not blow out, we have a chance. If they fail, we may not be able to send reinforcements quick enough.

  • whiskeyjim

    Dan, look at the bond markets:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/19/markets-bonds-idUSN1E76I0NE20110719

    Does that look apocalyptic to you?

    This whole conversation sounds like TARP scare, which was the worst legislation ever enacted. It is the reason for stagflation. Worse than GM bailout. You have to reprice bad debt.

  • wbb1950

    Boehner is nervous and anxious for a deal. I hope the rank and file are made of sterner stuff. They need to play this thing out. They need to force the Administration to prioritize what will get cut if no agreement is reached. And they need to let the take the Obama’s threat to withhold social security checks and Geithners threat of default away from them by passing a bill that covers both contingencies. Prioritizing what gets paid and what does not could become a bridging issue to the larger question of what gets cut in the budget. It sets the stage for cut cap and balance. And they need to do it in such a way that Obama gets blamed for any disruption. Given his state of mind, this will be the death of a thousand cuts. First, no grand plan he could take credit for. Second, the palpable risk of default which he can get blamed for. I would say the equation is in perfect balance.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    The point has been made here, correctly, that every budget after FY2013 can be changed by a later Congress. As such, the really IMPORTANT and UNALTERABLE decisions the Congress makes on spending are the decisions that impact FY2012.

    Are we cutting spending in FY 2012 and by how much?

    Will we go to the mat over the FY 2012 budget? If we get the right result in the debt ceiling debate, we wont have to. If we dont get a good enough result now, the Congress will HAVE to go to the mat on that, or we will face a 3 strikes you’re out scenario, wasting this Congress and failing to move the ball towards fiscal responsibility for 2 critical years. Failure now will not be recoverable in 2013. It will only be in FY 2014(!!) that the next Congress can make a big change.

    There are many ways to get what is needed, but one main result required: CUT THE SPENDING. NOW.

    FY 2012 is or strongest opportunity to change the budget, but the question will (again) be – what do we want to change and are we willing to stand up and say “No, we will NOT vote for any bill that funds Obamacare, funds Obama’s big Government schemes, and funds more deficit spending.”

  • dajeeps

    ObamaCare is nasty stuff to be sure. But what about Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank? Just look at the names on the Dodd-Frank legislation, and one can get the idea that it should be repealed just as a matter of principle alone.These are nearly as bad for the economy, smothering growth, competition, and jobs. They ALL need to go if we are ever to climb out of this monster recession.

  • grandma

    Do what we sent you to DC to do. Don’t vote to raise the debt ceiling. Boehner is using scare tactics just as Obama does. The earth will not implode if the debt ceiling isn’t raised this month or next month.

    And, why haven’t we heard any discussion of the Santorum plan. It sounds more logical than any other I’ve heard.
    http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/43-taxes-and-economy/1075-the-nation-could-use-santorum-omics

  • crimsonandclover

    I know it’s been a while now, and one tends to forget, but a record number of freshmen Republicans were NOT swept into Congress to downsize government in general, and repeal/defund Obamacare in particular. They were swept into office on a platform of creating JOBS.

    So far, Republicans have been unable to pass ANY legislation that will help businesses create jobs – in fact, they haven’t really accomplished anything. Talk is easy, but results matter, and that is where the Republican House so far has come up completely empty handed.

  • pmiller683

    When the senate and/or the executive branch are voted back conservative. The freshman and takeover of the Congress in 2010 was and is not enough. We need to be focused on winning the Presidency and the Senate between now and 2012. Period. For now ? we win on articulating the argument. Compromise if we have to, make sure we let it known that it is a compromise. Stay on message about conservative economics and fiscal policy.