Ryan Deal Limits Senate GOP’s Power to Block Tax Increases

National Review ^ | 12/11/13 | Jonathan Strong

[Mount Athos]

Senate Republicans scrubbing the Ryan-Murray budget deal have come across a little-noticed provision that will limit the GOP’s ability to block tax increases in future years.

The bill includes language from the Senate Democrats’ budget to void a budget “point of order” against replacing the sequester cuts with tax increases.

The process is quite complicated, but in practice it grants Harry Reid the authority to send tax increases to the House with a bare majority, rather than the 60 vote threshold that would be required under the point of order.

The provision has angered key Republican Senators. Reeling from Harry Reid’s unprecedented use of the “nuclear option” to end the filibuster on presidential nominations, they are incredulous that Paul Ryan would have backed another limit to their power.

“This is an appalling power grab that should never have been allowed to be in a final agreement. It’s essentially the ‘nuclear option’ part two, eroding minority rights in the Senate even further. Harry Reid must be very happy,” a Senate GOP aide says.

A House aide says Reid can send tax bills to the House all he wants, since they will never fly in the lower chamber. “House Republicans would never approve a tax increase,” he says.

While the point is true, the change will likely give Reid a potent political cudgel with which to hit Republicans over, since passage of a bill can put pressure on the other chamber to follow suit.

In the Ryan-Murray bill, the change is found on 17-18 in the legislative text, where the bill sets up a “deficit neutral reserve fund” and incorporates 57 individual sections of the Senate Democrats’ budget as having “force and effect.”

These provisions are a big loophole for Paygo rules that give senators the authority to raise a point of order on spending and tax bills, setting a 60 vote threshold. There is a detailed explanation for the process in this 2009 document from then-Senator Judd Gregg’s staff when he was Budget Committee ranking member.

Although the (current) Senate rules generally require 60 votes for passage of a bill, a bill can be amended after cloture has been achieved. In the case of the fall shutdown fight, Republicans helped provide the 60 votes to obtain cloture on the CR, after which Reid took out the defunding Obamacare provision and passed the bill with a bare majority.

Under normal rules, even after cloture had been achieved, any amendment would still be subject to a point of order and 60 vote threshold if it “pays for” spending increases by raising taxes. The Ryan-Murray deal waives that point of order in many cases, prompting the fear that Reid will use it to put political pressure on the House to replace the sequester with new taxes.

[1010RD]

The old “we gotta win elections to get anything done” line is old because it’s true. Ryan traded Reid nothing on this. This budget deal should be sequester neutral - no increase in spending. I don’t like the deal Ryan put together because of the numbers, but not because of this.

Let the headlines read: House GOP Refuses to Pass Senate Tax Increases.

Do you really think that will work well for Democrats during a recession/election year?

[Diogenesis]

Team Romney STABS America in the heart, again.

The are RATS, starting with Willard the Backstabber.

[plain talk]

Possible? Sure. But I dont see the need to grab at conspiracies when a RINO does what a RINO does. Roberts and ryan are moderates.

[TurboZamboni]

A Budget Deal That Breaks Budget Control Act Caps is the Wrong Approach

http://heritageaction.com/2013/12/budget-deal-breaks-budget-control-act-caps-wrong-approach/?utm_source=heritageaction&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=budget-deal

The Budget Control Act is “settled law”. They didn’t need to make any deal.

[Lazamataz]

Ryan is so far from a conservative, he spells it STALIN.

[Lazamataz]

We wuz fool’d.

[riri]

What about the article by National Review yesterday that says this "deal" limits the Senate GOP's power to block tax increases?

The bill includes language from the Senate Democrats’ budget to void a budget “point of order” against replacing the sequester cuts with tax increases.

The process is quite complicated, but in practice it grants Harry Reid the authority to send tax increases to the House with a bare majority, rather than the 60 vote threshold that would be required under the point of order.

[kobald]

He parroted the old “we gotta win elections to get anything done” line.

OK, he won election to his seat. We're waiting for him to do something...

[riri]

Listening to Mark Levin last night he made a very simple but excellent point.

You don't need to fight when you are in power. You fight when you are out of power.

[CodeToad]

"The tax increases that WILL come to pay for this spending."

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.

[cherokee1]

Murray is a little runt and I could butt-fling her quite a ways. There’s no way I trust her that far or even past the wind-up step. She has the record to earn that distrust.

[1010RD]

I’m not crazy about the deal, but I think the goal right now is to keep the heat on Obama and the Democrats. They’re signature program is killing them.

We hold one of the three branches necessary for moving legislation and not by a lot. We need to strengthen the House and take the Senate. That’s the short term goal right now. With that, it won’t matter what Obama suggest or does. He will be out cold the last two years of his term.

Of all the things to worry about I’d rather control Congress for a generation and a couple of years with veto proof majorities, than have a balanced budget right now.

Keep our eye on the long game and don’t give the Dems a chance to change the narrative.

[JediJones]

How in the world does not balancing the budget help us get more votes? The majority of the public wants a balanced budget.

There were massive problems with the government BEFORE Obamacare. It is not the be-all, end-all issue. A balanced budget and paying off the debt is far more important a goal than repealing Obamacare.

[JediJones]

I don't get what changed about Ryan. Do Democrats have things against him?

The GOP elders probably lined up a sweet high 6-figure salary job for him after early retirement through some lobbyists.

[JediJones]

So does this budget go 2 years or 10 years out or whatever, if we’re planning to win the election this year? Why give away future years that are past the point where we’re supposed to have the power to do what we want?

[JediJones]

no.no. they invented it...and they were pushing it hard as recently as 2007.Senator Jim Demint was pushing for indv mandate in 2007

Obamacare is not all about the individual mandate. The subsidies, the Medicaid, and the forcing of plans to cover things are the most onerous parts fo it. The mandate is trying to make sure people pay into the health care system instead of taking a free ride. It's anti-welfare.

[Political Junkie Too]

I don't think this is constitutional. Each chamber has the power to set its own rules. Rules are not legislation.

All legislation is subservient to constitutional powers via the supremacy clause. No Congress can pass a law that delegates away a constitutional power from future Congresses, nor are chamber rules decided via legislation. They are decided via rules votes.

-PJ

[1010RD]

Agreed, but you have Obama. He doesn’t want a balanced budget. You have a Democrat Senate. They don’t want a balanced budget. If we win big in 2014, then we will have the Senate and the House and then we won’t care what Obama wants, will we?

We’re never going to win the shutdown fight with just a single House and LIV running around. Right now Obama and Co. need another issue. A shut down would be it.

We also know they’re going to come after us on the extension of benefits. Fine, make them pay for it by killing the ethanol subsidy/mandate or the sugar tariff or some other crony capitalist item.

Of course we want to help the long-term unemployed, we just don’t want to increase the debt doing it. That’s how to play it.

[riri]

In normal times, I would whole heartedly agree with you. These are not normal times. I do not expect the communists to ever lose another election they need again. By hook or crook. And, I do not even expect these spineless quislings in the GOP to even acknowledge it is happening, let alone do a thing about it.

[1010RD]

Nonsense. People said the same thing when Clinton was around. We’re wiser and better connected now. There will elections, if we’re smart we’ll win.