Posted on 03/27/2015 7:17:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Remember when a disagreement between Republicans on the budget was “cataclysmic” for GOP claims to governance? Democrats last passed a normal budget resolution six years ago, but Republicans went all of seven days before both chambers finally passed budget resolutions. Our long national nightmare, at least as envisioned by Politico, is over:
The Senate passed a Republican-authored budget plan early on Friday that seeks $5.1 trillion in domestic spending cuts over 10 years while boosting military funding.
The 52-46 vote on the non-binding budget resolution put Congress on a path to complete its first full budget in six years. It came at the end of a marathon 18-hour session that saw approval of dozens of amendments ranging from Iran sanctions to carbon emissions and immigration policies.
The House passed its budget resolution on Wednesday after a similar process of debate and amendment. Some journalists might be unfamiliar with this process after six years of Democratic Party grandstanding under the cataclysmic leadership of Harry Reid, but this is called “regular order” budgeting. Reid’s decision to abandon that process was what led to several years of budgeting by brinksmanship, “fiscal cliffs,” debt-ceiling standoffs, and the like.
Oddly, Politico didn’t seem to recall those cataclysms at the beginning of a normal budget process. Hmmmm.
Of course, the two budget resolutions still have to be reconciled, which will take a conference committee to resolve the differences. That’s also a part of the normal budget process, rendered exceptional by Reid and his cohort in their attempts to aggrandize the executive branch by breaking the legislative. It’s also where Republicans plan to take a page out of Reid’s playbook to challenge Barack Obama:
In addition to aiming to eliminate deficits within 10 years, both documents seek to ease the path for a repeal or replacement of President Barack Obama’s signature health care reform law.
But differences between the two documents still need to be worked out and a combined budget passed next month by both chambers. Doing so would allow Republicans to invoke parliamentary rules to repeal “Obamacare” with a simple majority in the Senate rather than a tough-to-achieve 60 vote threshold.
Funny how that worked out, eh? What a coinky-dink. Looks like Republican leadership can actually, y’know, govern.
The budget resolutions themselves still have a lot of room for criticism, of course. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul both opposed the final budget resolution in the Senate because it did not cut enough spending over the next ten years, and conservatives had hoped to roll back more of the encroachment in federal governance that has grown over the last generation. The conference committee will not help in that regard, as it will operate on the two budget resolutions to close the gap for the final conference reports.
There’s not much that Barack Obama can do about it, either. Budget resolutions don’t become law; they just act as a framework for the appropriations bills that come later, and which Obama does have the ability to block. The real fights on the budget will come this summer, as those appropriations bills work their way through a similar process. Still, it’s the first time in six years that Congress has done its job at all, let alone on time. The return to regular order may end up being the best argument Republicans make for continued control of Congressional leadership for the 2016 election.
(And a set of golf clubs for when things really go wrong).
year 1: gop cut 5 trillion over 10 years
year 2: gop caved on budget deal with obama and reneged on last years deal because of possible government shut down
year 3: gop cut 5 trillion over 10 years and make a big deal out of it
What a joke using a ten year number. We all know this is a reduction of the increase and really means more $$$.
Now we get a pi$$ing match over a rounding error?
IF they cut anything at all, it will be max of $500 billion. More likely, it will be 5 million.
We’re going to get a $50 trillion spending cut over 30 years because by Year 20, the unsustainable government spending Ponzi scheme is going to collapse and there will be no more government spending as we know it. Both parties are disgusting.
Hubby to Wifey: We have only $100 to spend!
Wifey to Hubby: But it’s on sale at 50% off!
Hubby to Wifey: Well! That’s great. Let’s ring it up!
Cashier to Hubby and Wifey: With tax that will be $219.83. Will that be cash or credit?
Later ....
Wifey to Friend: I can’t believe it was on sale at 50% off! I saved so much!
Hubby to Friend: I cut her spending by 50%!
Friend to Hubby: But the numbers show you spent more than twice what you had. How did you swing that?
Hubby to Friend: Hehehehe! I just used my special Federal Reserve Credit Card! Hahaha! And and ...hahahehoho...I never have to pay it back! Bwahahaha!
The old increase spending this year but promise to decrease spending ten years down the road trick.
And when he vetos the budget bill... SHUT THE WHOLE G-D THING DOWN.
BOOT THE VETS FROM THEIR MEMORIALS... SET FIRE TO THE NATIONAL PARKS... SHUT DOWN THE INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS.
Of course it will all be Ted Cruz’s fault.
That’s a start. Now, if they’d take away the muzzy in chief’s pen and checkbook.
Sadly, this is not even a cut in spending. It is a cut in the scheduled rate of growth for spending. I would cut actual spending by $1T a year or more if I controlled the budget, although I would ease the transition by cutting perhaps $400B the first year, $300B the second year, $200B the third year, and $100B the fourth year. Then I’d look at what was left and try to find more cuts in FedGov.
“National defense is the number one priority of the federal government,” Paul said on the floor. “My amendment increases defense spending but pays for it with spending cuts. It is irresponsible and dangerous to continue to put America further into debt, even for something we need.”
Cruz & Paul are fiscal conservatives. Rubio not so.
How can they cut anything with Base Line Budgeting in play?
Obama vetoes, says what he will sign, and he will get it from them, probably with Democrat votes being necessary. Can't have the Leviathan shut down, ya know.
Sounds like another Paul budget!
Aren’t we already @ $1.5T+/yr deficit? So, over the next 10 yrs, presuming the same spending, I’m supposed to jump for joy that we’ll *only have* $1T+/yr deficits?
Say, don’t we have a Constitution that LIMITS the power and authority of D.C.? Isn’t ONE of those Amendments, I THINK it’s the 13th, that made slavery illegal.
Can anyone tell me what it’s called when one has to work for the benefit of another??
So, exactly how am I NOT an economic slave? Or the newborn with a $50K+ bill attached to their umbilical cord?
The bill does not cut spending, just spends less than Democrats want over 10 years.
Besides, these 10-year plans are ALWAYS rubbish anyway
Lol. Yep and he voted against this bill
A spending freeze would do the job faster
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.