And the Budget Winner Is… Paul Ryan
The pair called the move “an admission that our budget creates too many jobs and saves too many popular government programs to be discussed when the public is watching.”
The Congressional Black Caucus also had a budget on the floor, which included an $841 billion financial speculation tax and increasing individual Pell grants $1,000 each over the president’s budget. The CBC claimed their budget would reduce the deficit an additional $769 billion over the Republicans’ plan over the next decade.
It failed with 107 votes to 314 members in opposition.
CBC Chairman Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), who called last fall’s debt-ceiling deal a “sugar-coated Satan sandwich,” slammed Ryan’s budget without demonic food analogies.
“Budgets should be a window into the moral compass of our conscience as a nation—and our compass is evidently off,” Cleaver said. “The American people do not deserve this. …Hardworking American families may not be the priority of the Republican leadership, but they are the priority of the ‘Conscience of the Congress’: the Congressional Black Caucus.”
Still, the House liberals got more votes than poor Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson.
A budget proposal built off the recommendations of President Obama’s bipartisan deficit-reduction commission choked on 38 “yes” votes Wednesday night, with 382 members voting “no.”
Sponsors Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio) and Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) touted it as the only truly bipartisan budget plan on the menu.
“The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles plan had been vetted, but never tested,” said Blue Dog Cooper. “Powerful special interests and the leaders of both parties opposed it tonight, but 38 brave souls were willing to do the right thing for the country. When we eventually solve our nation’s deficit problem, the final blueprint will look like this.”
Still, the entire hodgepodge of budget proposals all fared better than President Obama’s spending plan, which got a doughnut hole’s worth of votes as 414 members united against it.
It was because Republican Mick Mulvaney (S.C.) introduced Obama’s budget as an amendment to the GOP spending plan, with Democrats brushing off the move as a gimmick.
“It’s not a gimmick – unless what the president sent us is the same,” Mulvaney said. “We are voting on the president’s budget. I would encourage the Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it.”
White House spokesman Jay Carney was not asked about the lonely lack of votes at today’s press briefing, but the administration did issue a statement from the press secretary on Ryan’s budget.
“Today’s vote stands as another example of the Republican establishment grasping onto the same failed economic policies that stacked the deck against the middle class and created the worst financial crisis in decades. …Any serious attempt at tackling our deficits must be balanced, fair and demand shared responsibility. The Ryan Republican budget clearly fails that test.”
Even though the victorious Ryan plan now heads to a Senate not known for passing budgets, Democrats were still licking their wounds over the predictable vote.
“In light of the fact that the Super Committee failed to find $1.2 trillion in cuts or revenues, it is unlikely that anybody will figure how to fill this $5 trillion hole in the Republican Budget,” said Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.). “…Last night, the House of Representatives considered several alternative budgets to the Republican Budget, including one offered by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) of which I was the primary author.”
“The Republican Budget chose millionaires,” he said. “We chose Medicare.”
– Syndrome.
“”Democrats were united in opposing “Prosperity.””
Why, yes, they are. Was that intentional?
“Prosperity.” for whom? I see a couple of thousand getting a raise but how about the rest of us?
Huh? It is “the rest of us” who get hurt by expanded entitlements and big government. Unfortunately it’s going to take many more years and the gradual destruction of our economy before this is understood by the average person – and maybe not even then since the Liberals are so good at directing blame away form their own policies.
Liberals are good at it? Look at Republicans. Look at fake conservatives like Paul Ryan leading the charge for a budget that adds trillions to the debt and doesn’t balance the budget until the year 2040. 2040! Ab-freakin’-surd.
Patriot Act, NDAA, big spending, big government… fake conservatives are for these things.
And a sad sack “winner”(loser) it is.
No Congress can bind another. So the claim to balance the budget in 2040 is total BS.
Thank God, I’m not the only one who sees through this impostor.
Paul Ryan is part of the problem. He is a just another career politician. He has never run a hot dog stand in his life. How is he any different than Obama?
Paul Ryan voted for Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, the TARP Bailouts etc. etc. etc. How is he a conservative? He is a disgrace to the Republican Party! The last thing Conservatives need is this impostor speaking for us.
Paul Ryan is clueless. He is a career politician. He doesn’t know jack about the economy. Has he ever run a business? Has he ever produced a product, or provided a service that anybody needed? He is an egghead academic masquerading as the savior of the US economy. He is a joke. How you people take him seriously is beyond me. He is an embarrassment to true conservatives.
The Ryan 2013 Budget is a joke. It is totally unrealistic. Paul Ryan is a fool if he actually believes his own budget has any chance of coming to fruition in the real world. The Ryan 2013 Budget isn’t a policy-based document. It is a political statement. Nothing more, nothing less. How you people take it seriously is beyond me.
If the Ryan 2013 Budget (that hopes to cut US budget deficits), is the best that the Republican Party can offer, then America is royally screwed, as according to page 5, the first time that the US resumes a budget surplus is in… 2040.
The Ryan 2013 Budget is pathetic. It is Big Government Republicanism at its finest. It assumes that revenues will miraculously grow from $2.4 Trillion to $4.6 Trillion in 10 years by cutting taxes. Which is totally and utterly preposterous as anyone with an IQ above room temperature can surmise/deduce. And the Ryan 2013 Budget will EXPLODE the size of the federal government from $3.6 Trillion to $4.9 Trillion in 10 years.
If the Ryan 2013 Budget is the best that the Republican Party can come up with (in the most aggressive case, it will grow revenues to be greater than outlays, at the earliest in just about 30 years) then it is all over. Adios America.
Take a look at this worthless piece of trash here: http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/summary_tables.pdf
In the future “conservatives” will support ObamaCare — just like they now support Medicare & Social Security.
In the future when they try to pass ChavezCare, “conservatives” & the pathetic Tea Partiers will march & carry signs saying “Keep your Government hands off my ObamaCare”.
Think it can’t happen?
Today “conservatives” & the pathetic Tea Party overwhelmingly support Medicare & Social Security — & they also support Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Act of 1965 (90% of immigrants are from the Third World). “We support all LEGAL immigration. It is ILLEGAL immigration that we are opposed to.”
So “conservatives” & the pathetic Tea Partiers support Medicare & Social Security & Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Act of 1965… Great! Wonderful!
> “the pathetic Tea Party overwhelmingly support Medicare & Social Security”
Source? And what is meant by “support”? Results from a small poll indicated that about 30% of the Tea Party doesn’t want those things touched. But if you mean “support” to include people that would allow those programs to still exist but would like to see them downsized, then the number is probably much higher.
> “they also support Ted Kennedy’s Immigration Act of 1965″
Okay, so? The majority of both parties supported it. Assuming you don’t, what do you not like about it? Do you want to restore the policy of ethnic quotas that it abolished? Do you think the number of available visas shouldn’t have a capped amount, which it established? Without such explanation, it seems like you’re simply implying that ‘ “conservatives” & the pathetic Tea Partiers’ are hypocrites for supporting something that a Democrat also supported rather than judging anything (neither people nor policies) on actual merit.
When is everyone going to “discover” the one proven and experienced true conservative, Sarah Palin? When Romney gets his clock cleaned? I think all these so called conservatives that are belittling Sarah bought the MSM’s dumb, stupid line and I’m beginning to think it really belongs to them. I kinda look at things this way, if I had to trust one of these politicians, on either side of the fence, with my life’s savings, who would it be? Hands down, Sarah.
Cut now or wait until a currency crisis and probable hyper inflation does it for you.
The first keeps the United States a first world country in 2020. The later results in Panem or the Disunited States of Mexetina, Yes we can!!. The later is the change Obama wants for us all.
Choose wisely or horde gold/silver coins and get your passport ready…
Democrats were united in opposing “Prosperity.”
Yup. Thus endeth the lesson.
National socialists, not “democrats”. Prosperity to them means less government control. Keep the “fairness” argument out of it as it doesn’t apply. It’s just word they use like all socialists do, to get the hoi polloi to come along willingly instead of with pitchforks and torches.
Simple question: Throughout history, every nation that has held the notion that “fairness” is the ultimate goal for the citizen has resulted in what?
Answer: A despot-run nation where the greatest majority of citizens are all equally miserable, suspicious of government and the black-markets are the real economy of the nation.
This is the direction oh-so-desired by people like Blumenthal in CT and hundreds of other die-hard national socialists who, for whatever reason, think that government should be the be-all/end-all for problems the people face in their day-to-day lives.
It’s sickening. Someday I’ll be in my 70′s and I’ll tell some gestapo a-hole to get out of my way and stop sticking their finger in my nose because I still use my gas-powered lawnmower. Then I will be relegated to some re-education or just jail for “killing Gaia”. Don’t believe me? Just wait and watch.
“Ryan’s budget, which cuts spending $5 trillion over the next decade compared to President Obama’s plan,”
Look at that statement. That’s how Paul Ryan markets his plan. “My plan spends a little less more money than Obama’s plan!”
Ryan’s plan ADDS trillions to the debt and doesn’t balance the budget until the year 2040. Ridiculous! This is what passes for “fiscal conservatism”?
Paul Ryan also supports TARP, the Patriot Act, and NDAA. He also likes to send U.S. citizens to fight wars in other countries in the name of freedom and then when they come back he doesn’t think they should be allowed the freedom to play poker online.
Paul Ryan is the epitome of what is wrong with the Republican Party.
Nice informative piece, but much ado about nothing: Ryan’s plan is a dead letter in the Dem-controlled Senate. Reid will probably bring it to a vote just for election year red meat.
And that’s all this is: election year political posturing. (“We’re fiscally responsible!” “Oh, yeah, at least we’re not killing Grandma!”) I respect Ryan for trying, but he knows this is going nowhere. Nothing budget-wise will get done until next January when a different executive branch — one way or another — will be setting the agenda.
I’m honestly serious here. Can anyone define for me a Conservative and give me 3 examples of public figures who are? Sarah Palin doesn’t count, unless she is the only one. Really, its getting silly. Paul Ryan was until he wasn’t. Chris Christy was until he wasn’t. Marco Rubio was until he wasn’t. Its a freaking moving target. Is DeMint?
Presidential candidate Ron Paul is a real conservative.
Some people label him as a libertarian because he thinks states should decide the legality of drugs, not the federal government. But that’s not really being libertarian. That’s being constitutional.
“Conservative” has been a moving target the last 10 or so years because neoconservatives have done a good job of changing the meaning of the word. Hey, look at me, I’m for big-spending, big-government, Patriot Act, NDAA indefinite detention, letting the President kill U.S. citizens without trial or due process, policing the world and spreading my values via war and invasions and force… I’m a “conservative.”
…there’s nothing conservative about those things.