Conservative Caucus: We Can Balance Budget in Five Years
House conservatives will unveil a budget proposal today that vows to balance the budget in just five years without raising taxes — as opposed to nearly three decades in Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) “Path to Prosperity” released last week.
“We feel it’s important to have this budget out there for members to see and for the public to see what really needs to be done,” Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) told reporters in a preview on Monday.
The proposal, “Cut, Cap, and Balance: A Budget for Fiscal Year 2013,” sets FY 2013 discretionary spending at $931 billion and freezes it until the budget balances in 2017.
Like Ryan’s plan, ObamaCare is repealed. Mandatory cuts in defense sequestration are also battled, but are pushed back “in a more straightforward way,” according to Jordan.
“The budget should embrace reforms that will make it easier for this and future congresses to reduce spending,” said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), who is vice-chairman of the Budget Committee.
That includes completely eliminating a number of programs from the National Labor Relations Board to the Presidential Campaign Fund. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Economic Development Agency, and the National Endowment for the Arts would also fall under the ax.
Jordan and Garrett said they felt a responsibility to put forth a budget that wholeheartedly addressed the scope of the debt crisis.
“We have now crossed a line in which our debt is larger than our entire economy,” Jordan said.
“It’s only 2013 spending that this Congress controls and that is why we push so hard on the areas we control,” Garrett said, hence the focus on discretionary spending cuts.
“Obviously there are a lot of us who thought we could do better” than Ryan’s budget-balancing timetable of 28 years, he said. “I think it’s doable; that’s why we want to have a vote on the option of a doable budget.”
The budget enacts the conservatives’ State Health Flexibility Act and the Welfare Reform Act.
Jordan told PJM that the RSC budget is the ultimate conservative contrast to put forth in an election year.
“We certainly think it will help because we’re being realistic,” he said.
In an election year where President Obama has already been pressing a doctrine of urging that everyone in America pay their “fair share,” Jordan said a simplified tax code will be a “great way” to contrast class warfare stoked by the left.
“People understand that any tax code that allows 47 percent of the population to pay no tax is just broken,” he said.
“What we need to do is make our case. We think the budget is a way to highlight that.”
Like the House Budget Committee’s plan, the RSC proposal makes no changes in Medicare and Social Security for those currently 55 and older. It would, however, gradually realign Social Security eligibility by two months each year, to account for greater longevity, until benefits begin at age 70.
All it takes is political will. But where will we find it when so many in the Republican camp refuse to see the writing on the wall. Do we think Bonehead and McMumbles will lead us to a balanced budget. They’re from the old let’s spend and then spend some more.
It’s about time!
“You’d be amazed at all the government you’ll never miss.”
Truer words were never spoken.
But without an actual alternative plan to vote for, all kinds of mischief abounds. Give people an up/down, left/right choice, then let them decide.
If you don’t, I have to doubt your seriousness.
I can see it now: “Republicans want to kill Sesame Street!”
Of course, the CPB should never have been government funded in the first place, but that’s the kind of rhetoric you’re going to hear, of course.
I’d say that this plan doesn’t go far enough. They should also axe the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and Rosie O’Donnell.
The problem with the Ryan plan is that it takes too many years. For it to be successful, it would be necessary to maintain fiscal responsibility over that time period. You can be sure that when the Democrats take control of the government again, which they will at some point, the spending binge will continue.
Shortening the time span for addressing our fiscal problems, is the only way to be successful.
Exactly. Anytime you plan something that far out you are more than likely going to be wrong or the original plan will be adjusted so many different ways that after 5 years it won’t even resemble the original plan or more likely it will just be run over roughshod and forgotten about.
For a plan to work it shouldn’t be more than 5 years out and preferably even shorter. And it must be measured.
I have serious doubts that the will is there in the electorate or the congress to affect a change in current policy. But then I also believe that the defict will be addressed now or later and in either event one will be bad and the other worse in the pain suffered by all. If done now we have some control over the outcome. If we wait the outcome becomes most likely controlled by forces outside our control.
Most of us in our daily lives have to make hard decisions every day to make it all work. The congress and president seem to be above such mundane issues as balancing the family budget as that would interfer with their primary goal of getting re-elected no matter the cost….TO WE MERE CITIZENS.
I think Ryan himself would admit his plan was a first step. He has, after all, said the economy shuts down in 15 years. The idea is to make some cuts, show the public that the worst fears of the Democrats are overblown, and maintain and enlarge the political will for further reform. Basically what the Democrats did to us in the 20th century, but backwards.
The danger of a sudden fix is that our economy is addicted to federal spending, and like any junkie quitting cold turkey would be…disruptive. People don’t like disruption and would likely respond by giving power to the party that would promise to return us to the status quo ante. That would set the conservative brand back decades, which we cannot afford.
I agree that multi-decade plans are mostly fantasy. If I had my way budget forecasts wouldn’t go out past 4 years. As we’ve seen 10 year budget windows simply allow today’s politicians to push the difficult decisions onto not the next administration, but the one after that.
The problem with the Paul Ryan plan is that he’s a fake conservative. He supports TARP, the Patriot Act, NDAA, constant spending increases via the b.s. that is Baseline Budgeting, and then he comes out with his absolutely ridiculous “fiscally conservative” plan that adds trillions to the debt and takes 30 years to balance the budget. 30 years!
Vote big-spending, big-government Paul Ryan out. The guy is a poster boy for what is wrong with the Republican Party.
Does this plan have a away of cutting out grants for junk science? You’d be surprised at what passes for science nowadays.
The Southern Avenger The hunger games is a Libertarian movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oo75rjXSeI
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has introduced a new FY 2013 budget. Unlike his last effort, which cut exclusively — though deeply — from discretionary spending in order to show much could be cut without touching entitlements, this one includes some entitlement reforms. Paul claims his budget: Reduces federal spending by $11 trillion relative to President Obama’s budget Balances in five years, within the balanced budget amendment window supported by all 47 Senate Republicans Achieves a $111 billion surplus in FY 2017 Eliminates four Cabinet-level departments (Energy, Education, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development) while privatizing the TSA Freezes foreign aid at $5 billion a year Reduces most discretionary spending to 2008 levels Rand Paul Unveils Latest Budget Proposal By W. JAMES ANTLE, III on 3.8.12 @ 2:22PM
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/03/08/rand-paul-unveils-latest-budge
Well, it’s a start (the Jordan plan). But it seems like the defense budget is still more or less a sacred cow. People need to read what Rep. Ron Paul and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) have said about the need for an across-the-board cut in spending.
As an aside, the entire corporation for public broadcasting and national endowment for the arts could be funded by buying ten fewer F-35 fighter jets. Regarding the F-35, the Government Accountability Office has just completed a study of the first 63 jets and found $1 billion in cost overruns. The GAO identifies that the program lacks a reliable design and efficient manufacturing.
Regarding the Dept. of Commerce, it seems like the Obama Administration already has a plan to re-do this department. There are components within Commerce; like the US Patent Office and the Census Bureau; that simply can’t be eliminated.
The Dept. of Education includes the Rehabilitation Services Administration which, among other things, provides assistance to state vocational rehabilitation agencies in helping get persons with medical disabilities retrained and back to work. I don’t have a problem with that.
Some things like defense, the patent office and the census are valid functions of the federal government (they are specified in the constitution) and some things aren’t . The federal government has specific powers, those not mentioned in the constitution are reserved to the people or the states. There is no constitutional justification for the federal government to be funding art, producing and broadcasting of radio and television programs , or training and educating anyone .
If you like assistance to state vocational rehabilitation, that doesn’t mean the Department of Education itself should exist. Spin specific programs off if you want, but the main parts of the Department of Education shouldn’t exist. It’s a monstrosity and a waste of money.
Here’s something for people to chew on… if the U.S. doesn’t get its spending and debt under control SOON, be prepared for the dollar to lose its status as the world reserve currency. And then the U.S. people are really in for a hurtin’.
The debt is the biggest threat to U.S. national security at this time. Ron Paul is the only candidate who seriously gives a damn about it. Heck, today his finance committee is having a hearing on The Fed having secretly been bailing out Europe. People better start taking the debt seriously.
This shows the problem with these so-called “conservatives”. They should be balancing the budget immediately, and paying down the federal government debt over a period of 20-30 years. But, instead, they’re simpering about maybe thinking about trying to balance the annual budget possibly 5 or 10 years out… all the while continuing the unconstitutional spending and the over-spending indefinitely. If anything Boehner, Rubio et al., are working against the citizenry… just not quite so violently as the left (Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Lofgren, cousin Obummer…).
They perpetuate the fraud that any of the federal government’s spending is not “discretionary”. It’s all at the discretion of congress. Even the executive, despite the unconstitutional “Anti-Impoundment Acts”, has the discretion of spending UP TO what congress had authorized, and the informal duty to economize (i.e. to spend less than authorized). Even leftist FDR noted that.
“gradually realign Socialist Insecurity eligibility by [6] months each year, to account for greater longevity, until benefits begin at age” 80 and taxes reduced by 10% of the remainder each year until, 2 years after the eligibility reached 80 years, the taxes and benefits would be permanently eliminated.
“the CPB should never have been government funded in the first place”. Yes. CPB and NPR, the National Endowments for Arts and Humanities, the Socialist Insecurity Abomination, Obummercare, Medicare, Medicaid, FHA and HUD, Fannie, Freddie, Sallie, 90% of the Department of Educationism (with the rest focused on reporting the state of the union in that regard), 60% of the Department of Energy (with the rest moved to Defense), much of NIH and NFS and NAS and NAE, at least half of the EPA, half of federal DoT, all of World Bank, IMF, WTO, and UN funding should be eliminated. Judges should be doing the legitimate portions of the functions of the NLRB, i.e. hearing law-suits.
“The Dept. of Education includes the Rehabilitation Services Administration which, among other things, provides assistance to state vocational rehabilitation agencies in helping get persons with medical disabilities retrained and back to work. I don’t have a problem with that.”
I do have a problem with that. It’s not in the federal government’s purview. That’s a function for insurance and charity and family solidarity, not the state governments and certainly not the feral federal government.
“‘People understand that any tax code that allows 47% of the population to pay no tax is just broken.’, he said.”
When income extortion was hatched in 1912, people who earned less than 150% of the median paid no tax, and the first bracket paid 1%. Lavish promises were made that only “the rich” would ever pay a cent and, besides, the top rate would never ever reach 9%. It was created as an amendment to the import tariffs. Until the elimination of the frontiers and infilling in the late 1800s, most federal revenues came from land sales and import tariffs, and yet, in those “high tariff” times we rarely had tariffs as high as our current “trading partners” (48%). (Our current tariffs average about 2% the last I saw a pronouncement on it from the Shrub administration. Don’t get me wrong; of course, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were outrageously excessive, and I’m certainly not advocating that, but there’s plenty of room in the reasonable 2% to 9% range.)
Income extortion is “just broken” which is why the regressive leftists love it. They like the way it robs productive people. They like the way it artificially divides the citizenry into some semblance of their crack-pot “class interests”.
The real trouble is that the financial sleight of hand regressive income extortion facilitated, along with the Fed (which was created in 1913 along with direct election of senators), took the brakes off of federal over-spending and power, which even most of the so-called “conservatives” have come to love and be addicted to.
The conservative caucus is a tool. Its rolled out every year or so to hook constitutional conservatives into the Republican Party. Depending on the back-loading of cuts, five years may be to late to save our financial system.
No matter who controls Congress and the White House, spending will be a product of negotiations. Promoting five years as a starting point indicates that even the “Conservative” Caucus is not serious.
It is interesting to imagine that politicians can actually come up with a realistic solution. This may be such a proposal. However, the end of this fiasco is already baked in the cake. Reps or Dems, they are going to keep spending until the money runs out. On that day, when lenders stop lending, all those who lent in the past will get stiffed. They will be the first to suffer, a la GM bond holders. The next will be those who have been promised or entitled, whether FDIC insurance or lush pension benefits. No money means no way to keep promises. Only then, will we be able to start over, using pay as we go budgeting. The wise can prepare as best they can right now. Don’t depend on government promises and don’t invest in government debt or companies that rely on government for income or survival.
A five year plan is probably the best. Trying to go cold turkey all at once and people are going to be hurt. Anything more than five years and the id10ts we have in Congress from both sides of the aisle are going to start getting itchy palms. Any money we manage to bank will start looking very tempting and even if we are only close to getting things back in balance the same thing will happen. Passing a law to keep a balanced budget won’t work, the Pols will just ignore it or start amending it in so many different ways it would soon be unrecognizable.
Can only echo the sentiments above: It’s a start.
The time window for getting the nations finances under control and ending the economic fantasy of print and spend to infinity/hyperinflation arrives is slamming shut in our faces as we speak.
The 2012 election is the LAST chance the United States will have to turn the ship around. If Obama is re-elected, sell everything and buy gold and silver coins and bury them in a secure location (banks WILL confiscate when the time comes), purchase 6 months of non-perishable food and get your passport ready.
Argentina 2001, that’s the change Obama’s bringing… you have been warned…
Don’t forget to buy all the bullets you can lay your hands on. The ones you don’t use to kill the rioting savages can be used for barter.
The plan looks interesting, too bad it isn’t getting any press, But then if got press, and people understood the impacts, the plan would be DOA. Increase defense spending, eliminate Medicare and put seniors into a non-existent free market, raise retirement age, and cut taxes on the high end. Cut regulations and increase energy production. A voluntary tax system – really? This isn’t serious budget, it is a series of powerpoint bullet points. Pure amateurism, my 14 year old daughter could have written something more sensible, and certainly more specific. If it is serious, let’s see a CBO costing.
Good points Brutus. That’s why I called the plan “a good start” above. Any budget plan that cuts entitlements and does nothing about bloat & waste in the Pentagon ought to be DOA.
Serious conservatives should be checking out the budget plan from last July offered by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).
#10 jgo “family solidarity….” what if people don’t have families?
This is a great proposal but it will never get through the current Senate nor the idiot at the helm – Hussein. However, if we don’t propose it then we are most certainly doomed. Keep trying!
At least my state has two of the most down-to-earth Senators that we are very proud to call Oklahomans.
Way back in 1980 Reagan promised to abolish the Education and Energy Departments. Fast forward 32 years, and those hideous abominations are not only still with us, but have grown like metastasizing cancers. Any budget reduction plan needs to start with killing those agencies. Then move on and axe HUD, DHS, HHS, Transportation and Agriculture.
In fact, the only Cabinet agencies with any constitutional standing are DOD, State, Treasury and Justice. All the others should be eliminated. Minor stuff the Constitution authorizes like patents, copyrights and the census should either be combined into a separate agency or folded into one or more of the surviving four.
While you’re at it, don’t forget to euthanize the USPS. That dinosaur is already on the verge of extinction. Let whatever private companies can do the job best deliver what little mail remains.
For poetic justice, after abolishing FEMA put its employees into the gulags they had built to hold the rest of us.
And does that presidential election fund still exist? Last I’d heard, hardly anyone did that checkoff on their 1040s anymore (I never have and never will).