Rep. Paul Ryan has introduced the House’s version of the federal budget and, not surprisingly, it’s gotten kudos from Bob McDonnell (in his role as chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association)…
“For the second year in a row, Republicans in the House of Representatives have introduced a clear plan to strengthen our economy, encourage job creation, give states more flexibility and restore our nation’s fiscal health, and these ideas deserve bipartisan consideration. I hope that Senate Democrats will consider a similarly serious budget plan instead of making this year the third consecutive one in which Democrats fail to pass a budget.
And from House majority leader Eric Cantor:
The budget that Chairman Paul Ryan and the House Budget Committee have put forth today represents our vision of how we will get our fiscal house in order and return America to a place of economic growth and prosperity. This serious, pro-growth budget provides greater certainty for hardworking taxpayers, middle income families and our nation’s seniors by tackling the drivers of our debt, lowering taxes, and cutting spending.
All to be expected – just as is the coming rejection from Democrats of just about every portion of Ryan’s proposal.
But for a more sober view of what Ryan’s plan does and does not do, we must cast our gaze away from Capitol Hill. Cato’s Chris Edwards has burrowed through the documents and finds that it is actually a rather modest plan that contains deficits as far as the eye can see:
In sum, Ryan’s proposals would make modest reforms to the giant federal welfare state. By Washington standards the Ryan plan is bold, and Paul Ryan certainly deserves his reputation as the sharpest and most energetic budget reformer on Capitol Hill.
However, there is too much happy talk in the Ryan plan about how failed big-government programs can be made to work better, and not enough focus on terminating activities that are properly state, local, and private in nature.
So it’s not really a blueprint for shrinking government, let alone balancing the books. That doesn’t mean Hill Democrats won’t be spoiling for a fight, or a possible government shut down:
Democrats quickly attacked the Ryan budget not just for cutting what they called necessary government programs, but also for ostensibly reneging on a bipartisan deal reached after tough negotiations in August.
That deal set a 2013 spending level of $1.047 trillion for discretionary programs, but the Ryan budget establishes a figure of $1.028 trillion. Republicans say the initial figure was an upper limit, not an ironclad level, but Democrats disagree.
“By desperately attempting to appease their extreme conservative base, House Republicans are reneging on a deal their own Speaker shook on less than eight months ago,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.), a member of the Senate Budget Committee who is coordinating the Democrats’ Senate campaigns.
“They have shown that a deal with them isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on, and they are threatening families across America yet again with the prospect of a government shutdown.”
To recap:
* The Ryan budget makes modest changes to government programs, does not eliminate the deficit, and, again according to Chris Edwards, “…increases federal spending from $3,624 billion this year to $4,888 by 2022 represent[ing a] fairly robust annual average growth of three percent.”
* It might spend $19 billion less than the agreement reached last summer on discretionary programs, which is enough for Democrats to threaten to bring the whole government to a grinding halt.
Washington standards, indeed.
