Budget Deal Reached - Real Compromise Or More Of The Same?

Political Realities ^ | 12/11/13 | LD Jackson

[LD Jackson]

Let's get something out of the way. I know we are in an era of divided government and that we can not expect to achieve all of our conservative goals. That's a given fact. If we expect to achieve anything, we must be willing to compromise on some issues. That's what Paul Ryan is already saying as he tries to sell the new budget deal he has reached with Democratic Senator Patty Murray to his fellow Republicans. I also know we have moved from government crisis to government crisis with predictable reliability.

No budget deal has been reached for years. Our government struggles constantly to avoid shutting down. We just came through one of those and far too many members of our government believe it was not a good thing. Members from both political parties say it harmed the Republican Party, with little or no attention given to what really happened to trigger the shutdown in the first place. But, that has been the subject of numerous posts, so no need to cover that ground again. Suffice it to say that Senator Murray is telling that story as a way of selling the budget deal she has reached with Paul Ryan.

What does the budget deal do for us? Remember how I spoke of predictable reliability? Well, there's something else that is fairly predictable. In modern times, any budget compromise that is reached with the Democrats is cut from the same cloth. Here are the details of the budget deal. You can be your own judge about how great, or not, this compromise really is for fiscal conservatives.

The Wall Street Journal - The deal, which goes to the House and Senate for approval in the coming days, marks a major change in the landmark 2011 budget-cutting law, which set in motion 10 years of fiscal austerity, including across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration.

The annual discretionary spending target will be raised to $1.012 trillion in 2014 and $1.014 trillion in 2015 under the accord.

The deal responds to the fears of most Democrats and some Republicans that government spending would be cut too much and too randomly under the next round of the sequester, which was slated to reduce the budget for most domestic and defense programs to $967 billion in 2014, down from $986 billion in 2013.

The depth of conservative opposition will become apparent as lawmakers absorb the details, which were released to the public Tuesday night. To draw support from the GOP's fiscal conservatives, the deal includes additional deficit-reduction measures: While the agreement calls for a $63 billion increase in spending in 2014 and 2015, it is coupled with $85 billion in deficit reductions over the next 10 years, for a net deficit reduction of $22.5 billion.

The deal achieves some of those savings by extending an element of the 2011 budget law that was due to expire in 2021. The sequester currently cuts 2% from Medicare payments to health-care providers from 2013 through 2021. The new deal extends those cuts to 2022 and 2023.

This deal is simple, really. They are raising the spending cap that was won by the Republicans in 2011. The sequester, which was President Obama's baby until he discovered the Republicans were going to stiffen their spines and hold him to his proposal, is going to be eased. All for a supposed reduction of the deficit of $22.5 billion over ten years. I would point out that the deficit for fiscal year 2013 is hovering around the $700 billion mark. I would contend cutting $22.5 billion over ten years is setting the mark a bit low.

Here is what is really happening, once again. The Democrats are achieving their never-ending goal of raising spending levels. Republicans are agreeing to that increase, in exchange for supposed spending cuts sometime in the future. I would suggest they hire someone to hold a séance so they can ask President Ronald Reagan about a similar deal he worked out with the Democrats. That didn't work out so well for Reagan. If he could talk to us now, I'm fairly sure he would be raising his voice in protest to this compromise. He would be telling us we shouldn't trust the Democrats to come through with their end of the compromise. Looking at the history of previous compromise budget deals with the Democrats, I'm going to say he would be correct.

[spokeshave]

Hand on nose....isn’t that a sign of lying....?

[gusopol3]

Ryan needed to follow the advise of that analyst who had said that there needed to be a promise for funding department separately, called “regular order, “ rather than by omnibus “continuing resolutions. “ That way Obama and Reid could no longer hold the GOP hostage to a government-wide shutdown, for which they get the blame.

[EricT.]

I see that the Washington D.C. Ruling Class Uniparty is back to using the old standby "more spending now, cuts will come later" approach that has worked out so well for us in the past.

Just don't ever look at this:

U.S. National Debt Clock

Explain to me again why Conservatives and TEA Partiers should vote for Republican'ts, please.

[dalereed]

It’s no budget deal, it’s just an agreement between 2 dirt bag liberals that hasn’t been voted on!

[LibLieSlayer]

paul ryan is a rat and anyone supporting him is a rat.

[DeaconRed]

MOS: MOS=More Of The Same:
We don't have ANY Representatives.
They are all for themselves and nobody else.
How do we get some representation?
We vote them out. Yes every 2 years for the House & every 6 years for the Senate. . .

[USS Alaska]

It is not a great deal but the demonRATS control the senate and the white hut and they get to vote also.

Under the circumstances, Ryan did the best he could.

There is a two year budget deal, the first time in years that both the house and senate have passed a budget resolution, and not relied on an emergency CR.

I won't be drinking Dom over this deal, but I won't be so critical that we don't vote for it.

I wrote to my congress critter and told him that he has my support to vote for it.

I know that there will be a load of screams from my fellow TEA party members, but that just shows we all have minds of our own.

[House Atreides]

The ONLY thing this “deal” is guaranteed to actually accomplish is to increase 2014 federal spending by 45 billion dollars. Anything beyond 2014 is merely theoretical and will NEVER come true.

Ryan is either a closet enabler of the “progressives” or is a fool. Perhaps he is both.

[mulligan]

A joke, more of the same.

[Theodore R.]

No need to read the article; with Ryan involved it is more of the same for sure.

[Mr. K]

As another $10Trillion in debt is piled on, Ryan proudly announces a $28billing ‘savings’ ... over 10 years... or $2.3 billion per year

All to avoid those 0.083% sequestration CUTS (the first ACTUAL reductions in the rate of growth in years)

[McBuff]

They agreed that the 10 ft wide hole in the sinking boat should be repaired by making it a 12 ft wide hole instead of a 15 ft wide hole. Hooray for compromise!!

[House Atreides]

Here are some “highlights” from the Summary of the proposed deal:
********************************************************

Restriction on access to the Death Master File This provision creates a program under which the Secretary of Commerce restricts access to information contained on the Death Master File (a list of deceased individuals and their Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and dates of death, maintained by the Social Security Administration) for a three-year period beginning on the date of an individual’s death—except to persons who are certified under the program to access such information sooner. A penalty of $1,000 is imposed for each improper disclosure or misuse of information obtained from the DMF, up to a maximum of $250,000 per person per calendar year. The Secretary is required to establish and collect user fees sufficient to recover all costs associated with the certification program.

THIS COULD BE USED BY OBAMA’S POLITICAL APPOINTEES AND VARIOUS BUREAUCRATS TO LIMIT THE USE OF THE DEATH FILE TO PURGE DECEASED INDIVIDUALS FROM VOTER ROLLS. ALLOWS THE DEAD TO REMAIN ON THE VOTER ROLLS TO BE “VOTED” BY CORRUPT DEMS.

*********************************************************

Approval of agreement with Mexico and Amendment to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act This provision approves the U.S.–Mexico Transboundary Agreement, which will set up a framework to explore, develop, and share revenue from hydrocarbon resources that lie in waters beyond each country’s exclusive economic zones. Another provision gives the Secretary of Interior the authority to implement the U.S.–Mexico agreement and any future transboundary hydrocarbon reservoir agreements entered into by the President and approved by Congress.

THIS WILL ALLOW THE DEMS TO EXTORT MONEY FROM AMERICAN PETROLEUM COMPANIES TO GIVE TO MEXICO (WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY INCAPABLE OF DEEP WATER DRILLING).

*********************************************************

Federal Retirement These sections increase federal-employee contributions to their retirement programs by 1.3 percentage points. The proposal affects new employees hired after December 31, 2013 with less than five years of service. Annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts for retired members of the Armed Forces under age 62 This provision modifies the annual cost-of-living adjustment for working-age military retirees by making the adjustments equal to inflation minus one percent. This change would be gradually phased in, with no change for the current year, a 0.25 percent decrease in December 2014, and a 0.5 percent decrease in December 2015. This would not affect service members who retired because of disability or injury. Service members would never see a reduction in benefits from one year to the next.

I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES ONLY NEW EMPLOYEES WILL BE SUBJECT TO THIS BUT FOR OUR MILITARY ALL MILITARY MEMBERS (PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE) ARE IMPACTED. TYPICAL DEMOCRAT PLOY.

**********************************************************

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Here is what is really happening, once again. The Democrats are achieving their never-ending goal of raising spending levels. Republicans are agreeing to that increase, in exchange for supposed spending cuts sometime in the future”

Their #1 goal is to avoid another shutdown.
The last one didnt work out very well, except for Obama.

Paul Ryan did introduce it by reminding us of his '10 year balanced budget resolution' that balances the budget by cutting taxes and no cuts in medicare for 10 years.
=(dessert for everyone now, brussel sprouts much later for just the younger kids)
Remember how ga-ga most freepers were over that at one point or another?

[Jack Hammer]

It’s often said that there’s nothing certain in this world but death and taxes.

Well, these days there’s one more thing every American can count on: Your government is screwing you - and charging you an arm and a leg for it, too.

[Nextrush]

Saying that something is going to happen ten years down the road is political gimmickry.

Its a great way to fake the voters.

Obama got elected promising Obamacare and got Obamcare through Congress in just over a year.

How about a balanced budget plan in just over a year if the Republicans gain power in 2016 with a five year window of implementation. Rand Paul said the budget could be balanced in five years?????

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Saying that something is going to happen ten years down the road is political gimmickry.”

He first pitched it in Spring 2011 and because Rush, Levin, Hannity praised it many here went ga-ga over it at that time.

Then he revived it this past Spring 2013.

Balance budget in 10 years by having no cuts to medicare for 10 years, then after 10 years those born after a certain date would just be out of luck on the medicare. They would get a discount coupon to give to a doctor. The older ones would still get the free electric wheelchairs etc.

Amazing that this didnt catchj on...LOL

[sickoflibs]

...and Ryan kept repeating ‘...its saves medicare so its still there...’

Oh yes, ‘and us anti-government conservatives didnt want a shutdown. That was the last thing we wanted’.

These cant be for the general audience.

[pfony1]

Please explain to me how refusing to vote for Romney and other Republicans in 2012 was “good” for America.

Please explain to me why DOING EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA WANTS US TO DO in 2014 would be “good” for America.

And please explain to me why anyone’s self-righteous, suicidal vanity is something to be PROUD of....