The Phony Democrat Budget


There\'s No Honesty in Here At All

Congressman Paul Ryan, the senior Republican on the House Budget Committe, today laid out the problems with the House Democrat Budget Resolution:

Simply put, President Obama has promised so much that it’s impossible to deliver it all. Worse – it’s impossible to even come close to delivering it all.

Obama has promised to reduce the federal deficit, but the CBO says that his 10-year budget plan increases the debt by more than $9 trillion. He’s also promised health care reform, but his plan doesn’t even pay for that. If he intends to provide tax cuts, that will increase the deficit further. And if Obama intends to rescue the nation’s banking system, it will cost more money (his budget resolution does not provide for any more spending).

Further, since the deficit balloons so dramatically in the second half of Obama’s 10-year budget plan, the House and Senate budget resolutions ignore the last 5 years. (Freshman Alaska Senator Mark Begich says that’s a good thing, because “it’s harder to predict what happens” that far down the road, anyway.)

But for political opportunism, it’s tough to beat the transparent move by Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) to try to wash his hands of Obamacare and cap-and-trade. Conrad has loudly and proudly proclaimed that his budget provides no special protection for those two presidential priorities; he would force them to face filibusters, rather than be included in the reconciliation process. Yet the resolution advanced in the House does include them in reconciliation – and House Republicans hear that Democratic leaders have already decided that the House position will ultimately be adopted.

Why is this so egregious? Because the House does not have a filibuster, or a rule that protects reconciliation bills from a filibuster. Those rules apply in the Senate alone. So when the Senate draws up the portion of the budget resolution that affects only itself, they’ll be politically ‘brave,’ and stand up to Obama on his biggest priorities. But they’ll ultimately cave to the House, and grease the skids for another massive expansion of government. Some of the Senate’s red-state Democrats will undoubtedly lament the fact that the conferees rejected the Senate language, but vote for it anyway. Then people like Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, and Blanche Lincoln will then try to convince their local press to give them political cover, rather than call them out for their opportunism.

An honest budget would be much simpler, but there’s little chance it would pass either the House or the Senate. Democrats aren’t that brave – or stupid.


Category: , , , , ,

RSS feed

5 Comments Leave a comment

I could not disagree more with Rep. Ryan's opening minute.

mbecker908 (Diary) Wednesday, March 25th at 9:59PM EST (link)

It’s time the Republican Party absolutely “made the debate personal” with Democrats. “The Chairman” and members of his party – including and I would say especially Blue Dogs – are enemies of the state. They are nothing more than Marxists masquerading for the cameras whose intent it is to destroy the very fabric of this nation.

Congressman Ryan this country is in a state of war. And the real enemies are not some raghead fools hiding in caves in Afghanistan, they are well coiffed, well dressed men and women with a “D” after their names. They are not, by any measure, “honorable” people, or patriots and they certainly should not be counted amongst your “friends”.

Agreed

DerKrieger (Diary) Wednesday, March 25th at 10:57PM EST (link)

Democrats would make indentured servants of the American people and that is something that I will fight against to my dying breath.

“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” – James Madison

Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.” — John Locke, 1690

 
 

a critique

stevman17 Wednesday, March 25th at 11:36PM EST (link)

It’s my first post, but I do have a slight criticism. You state that if Obama lowered taxes it would increase the deficit. On the contrary, dating back to Kennedy, tax cuts have proven to increase the federal revenue. The logic goes like this: tax cuts help the economy grow, encourage more investment, and even encourage people to declare more of their income.

Check this link out:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120&full=1

“Total Revenue Growth. Nominal federal revenues dou-bled in the 1980s from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real federal revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however, federal tax revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period. “

 

A duality...

DONTREADONME (Diary) Thursday, March 26th at 1:06AM EST (link)

I believe the author was saying you can not increase Government spending and Cut taxes and reduce the deficit. That is Government spending increases in addition to decreasing revenue in the short term if the tax breaks create wealth then revenues to the Federal Government will increase, but doing both on the level of what Obama is doing will restrict economic growth, reduce revenue and increase spending. I made the restrict economic growth and revenue remark since I have not seen any benefit from the so called tax cut, (I guess I am not one of the 95% eventhough I find th at hard to believe) and with the anti business policies of the Government and the pro-Government jobs growth, all we end up doing is tax ourselves to pay ourselves which will never work out or cause us to break even on the budget . Anyway, I agree with reduced taxation can foster wealth production and thus lead to more revenue; however, what good will it do if Government expands in excess of economic expansion without going into massive debt. I hope that helps, and yes I agree with your citing of JFK and the CATO link

That comment was for

DONTREADONME (Diary) Thursday, March 26th at 1:07AM EST (link)

Stevman17 above.