Paul Ryan Gave Away the Sequester, Along With Fiscal Discipline

RCM ^ | 12/12/2013 | Wayne Brough

[SeekAndFind]

With the clock quickly winding down on the legislative year, Congress has cobbled together a budget deal, something they have failed to do since April 2009. The details have yet to be finalized, but many are praising it as a return to regular order, ending the budget brinksmanship that dominated Washington for most of Harry Reid's tenure as Senate Majority Leader.

Unfortunately, the budget deal breaches the spending caps created under sequestration-the only measure of fiscal discipline that has made it through Congress in recent years-in exchange for promises of budget cuts down the road.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) led the process to broker a deal-a process established in the agreement that ended the recent government shutdown. Current reports suggest that the deal will include spending levels of just over $1 trillion for the fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Spending caps are currently $986 billion for 2013 and will be reduced to $967 billion in 2014, more than $30 billion below the numbers for the Ryan-Murray budget deal. Importantly, this is discretionary spending, and for 2014, most of the cuts will come from defense. So the Ryan-Murray deal would beef up discretionary spending and make it even more difficult to address excessive spending on defense.

Many in Congress claim the boost in discretionary spending is more effective fiscal policy than the arbitrary and damaging across-the-board reductions in spending mandated by sequestration. In reality, the budget deal abandons the only mechanism that has limited federal spending in the 113th Congress. In fact, sequestration provided an opportunity to address politically charged fiscal decisions on defense spending, giving cover to members of Congress who could point to sequestration as the reason for the cuts. Instead, the budget deal appears to be creating another round of short-term spending increases

[Vigilanteman]

Paul Ryan's biggest accomplishments:

1. Lost a debate to Joe Biden.
   
2. Snookered into a so-called compromise by the dumbest member of the U.S. Senate.

[svcw]

He has got to go

[JohnG45]

But, but, but Ryan said this morning that, “it was the best deal he could get.”

He is pathetic, absolutely pathetic!

[mrsmith]

http://bearingdrift.com/2013/12/11/when-you-crunch-the-numbers-ryan-murray-is-a-bad-deal/

In depth analysis- from basically a GOPe site no less!- that says it’s smoke and mirrors.

And there’s another $30 billion increase in annual spending coming in Jsanuary with the Medicare “doc-fix”...

[Paine in the Neck]

Paul Ryan wants to be Speaker but would settle for Minority Leader and thinks the way to get there is to be limper and more accomodating than Boehner. Maybe Bob “Footstool” Michel is his model.

[Steely Tom]

What is “RealClearMarkets” and why should i care what they think about anything? You can find any opinion about anyone in the blogosphere.

[CodeToad]

Georgia Representative Tom Price (RINO) was on the radio yesterday touting they did not raise taxes, but then went on to claim they raised TSA fees at airports.

This is the typical dipwad polidiot that claims taxes at airports were raised because otherwise 'taxpayers' were funding the TSA, but now with these increased fees those that travel will pay the costs.

So, to this Republican dipwad, Tom Price (RINO), travelers are not taxpayers and travelers paying more is not a 'tax increase'.

On top of that, if taxes were not raised, then what did he do with the money he supposedly saved by raising TSA fees on travelers? If taxpayers are no longer paying the TSA fees then where did that savings go? What did he do with the saved money? Did we get a tax decrease? Nope. He kept the money.

Tom Price (RINO) is an idiot, a liar, and a prime example of why this nation will not survive.

[bigbob]

This seems like a fair analysis.

I know from having been a mid-manager in a large corporation that actual spending reductions never occurred unless either a) there was a “sequester”, e.g. an across-the-board budget reduction so the money just wasn’t there, or, 2) additional approvals were requried, such as “1 over 1” or “2 over 1” where my boss and/or his boss would have to authorize spending in certain discretionary areas like travel. It’s amazing how quickly the mindset turns from “other departments should cut back but not me” to “you bet your job”.

[skinkinthegrass]

bye, bye, Ryan...This is what sleeping w/the Establishment got you.
...now your discredited amongst your peers, to the joy of 0'Butplug.

[mosaicwolf]

Ryan didn’t give away anything if the House Repubs vote for the deal.

[Hostage]

Ryan is a loser.

Further, he is dangerous because the liberal media promote him as the kind of republican they can tolerate.

Mark Levin perhaps said it best, Ryan is a ‘Mickey Mouse’ republican. But the comparison may be unfair.

I like Disney’s Mickey Mouse but Mickey is a cartoon character for family entertainment whereas Ryan is a member of Congress. What Levin is saying is that Ryan’s schemes and plans are not to be taken seriously as they have the weight of cartoon entertainment because they are devoid of real substance and lack wisdom. On the other hand the comparison is unfair to Mickey who as a media vehicle for Walt Disney expressed substance and wisdom.

In any event Ryan needs to be stopped and made to realize his place. His ego is a danger to America.

[sickoflibs]

Remember when the sequester bill passed in 2011 and Ryan called it a historic deficit reduction achievement on vid, then the following year 2012 he went around on TV interviews claiming he was against it?

I guess he was against it after all.

LOL

Paul Ryan suckers bought his lines...

[Arm_Bears]

The Republicans are confident of holding the House and re-gaining the Senate in 2014; but are not giving conservatives any reason to support them.

[EQAndyBuzz]

A republican in a rat district. Ryan is democrat light.

[chris37]

When the devil offers you a deal, Stupid Paul, refuse it.