Getty Images
For some, fiscal responsibility is a laughing matter.
We know that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) frequently argues that a "debt crisis" threatens to destroy civilization as we know it. We also know he doesn't mean it.
It's a fairly straightforward case, actually. Not only does Ryan's budget plan rely on deficit financing to pay for more tax cuts in the coming decades, the right-wing lawmaker is also suddenly against spending cuts, too.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has introduced legislation to replace $1.2 trillion in across-the-board discretionary spending cuts required by last summer's deal to raise the debt ceiling.
The effort is a bid to prevent $600 billion in defense cuts that both parties argue would reduce U.S. national security. The defense cuts were supposed to pressure a supercommittee of lawmakers to find alternative cuts in the budget, but that panel failed to come up with a plan.
Ryan's Sequester Replacement Act, H.R. 4966, would eliminate language in last year's Budget Control Act that requires the cuts, known as the "sequester."
I suspect for many of you, words like "sequester," "triggers," and "supercommittee" immediately make your eyes glaze over. But Ryan's bill says a great deal about Republican lawmakers' approach to fiscal responsibility.
Let's consider a quick review of how we got to this point, because, looking at this step by step, makes clear who's being responsible and who's not.
Step 1: As part of the debt-ceiling crisis, congressional Republicans said they would crash the economy, on purpose, unless Democrats agreed to a massive debt-reduction agreement.
Step 2: Dems accepted $900 billion in debt reduction, on top of another $1.2 trillion agreement to be worked out by the so-called supercommittee. To ensure both sides would take the process seriously, the parties created incentives: if no bipartisan deal is reached, automatic cuts would be triggered, with Republicans accepting $600 billion in defense cuts and Dems accepting $600 billion in non-defense domestic cuts.
Step 3: The supercommittee failed when Republicans refused to compromise. The parties were told they had until the end of the year to find $1.2 trillion in savings or the automatic cuts would kick in.
Step 4: Paul Ryan introduced a bill to make the automatic cuts Republicans said they wanted go away.
All of this, by the way, comes on the heels of House Republicans arguing that they want all of the Bush-era tax breaks to be made permanent -- and they have no intention of even trying to pay for them.
Anyone who still thinks GOP policymakers have the high ground on fiscal responsibility clearly isn't paying close enough attention.
Leave a Comment:
Anyone who still thinks GOP policymakers have the high ground on fiscal responsibility is clearly in possession of less connection to reality than your average Twilight slashfic writer.
what is truth?......A lie agreed upon.....by sheple.
Not surprised about this at all...
My only surprise is that Ryan's not trying to find a way to eliminate the sequester while still keeping the $600 billion in non-defense domestic spending cuts on the table...
"Yes, Virginia, there IS a free lunch, after all"- Paul Ryan.
"national security" meaning buying votes and posing as "strong on defense" with military spending. Neither party has the guts to face cutting military spending. That is why the are playing a game- "if no bipartisan deal is reached, automatic cuts would be triggered, with Republicans accepting $600 billion in defense cuts"- and then they dorked it.
Unless military spending is brought under control, and neither party has shown the competency to do so, the country is headed for bankruptcy. Military spending is the exact means by with this country will be destroyed. Military spending is greater than the entire federal revenue, that is, all of your federal income tax goes to the military. On the other hand, all of the federal debt and deficit is caused by military spending. If anyone wants a huge military at least pay for it, which is not happening. Watch Republicans whine that "entitlements" are causing debt, which is a lie. Entitlements are not causing a penny of debt. All debt is caused by military spending. Military spending is doubly pointless since the United States has no enemies to defend itself from by military spending. Military spending itself is the enemy.
And lest we forget, it was military spending that tanked the Soviet Union.
I would like Rachel to comment on Bill Moyer's theory that the conservatives lie about defecit control when in fact they use defecit as the foundation of control and everything they do contrary to what they say always adds to the defecit. Control by debt and defecit.
If the budget was just a math problem, we'd be done. It's a political problem, so we'll never be done.
The republicans have no intention of reducing the deficit. Rachel has said this before, but it needs to be said often: Dems will spend like crazy, but raise revenue. Rs will spend like crazy and cut taxes. Neither party is great at reducing the deficit, because we won't let them. But at least the Dems don't lie as badly.
Romney's campaign is a complete lie. Liar, liar, pants on fire. Sing with me, kids....
Not really on topic, but... Is this what Ryan looks like (the picture above) when he laughs? Then I really have to wonder what he looks like when he catches his short and curly in his trou zipper.
Ryan's credibility (if he ever had any) on fiscal matters and policy is gone. Both the budget plans he presented would had trillions to the deficit -- not eliminate it. But see, that's what Ryan and the GOP want. By keeping the country in deficit crisis mode (or, more accurately, Shock and Awe Economics), they ensure they will be able to make bigger cuts in programs they abhor until they are eventually able to eliminate them all together. This is a long-range plan.
Dems, meanwhile, would do well to ignore corporatists like John Breaux who said the other day that the Dems will give into Ryan's plan to end Medicare as we know it.
There is no reason at all for the fiscal slash and burn of Ryan. Eliminate offshore tax loopholes, eliminate tax subsidies for Big Oil, end Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy, eliminate the Export-Import Bank, give the Pentagon the budget they asked for (and not the fatted calf Ryan and the GOP are trying to force through) and, voila, the deficit is gone. Overnight. Not in decades. Overnight. And not one single social program (including Social Security) would need to be touched. Given that, it's no wonder that Ryan's budget is so fiscally reckless. It's also no wonder the GOP doesn't want to stand by the Sequester they agreed to. It's not about serious fiscal discipline, it's about pursuing a radical agenda designed to shift the poor and middle class into permanent serfdom.
Remember that when a republican politician talks about the government in D.C. being broken, they are not complaining; they are bragging about what they have accomplished!
Ever notice that when they have no war drum to beat and their bible thumping flag waving bull has been overplayed, the republicans get downright testy.
The Republicans have never believed that the debt was an overwhelming threat, otherwise they would have done something about it. But they use it to frighten the electorate, just like they frighten them with the asinine TSA and Homeland Security. I heard Ryan say that Congress didn't believe the generals when they said they were fine with the proposed cuts. So he and his ilk continue to force money on them. You would think the Republicans had money to burn. Apparently they do, ours! I fear no terrorist; my sole fear is Congress and its self-serving members. Everyone should be fearful of them.
Defense spending cuts and the end of two wars means private defense contractors are going to lose a lucrative business. The Republicans are reacting to their campaign contributors who see the end of the gravy train from the Bush era. This attempt by Ryan to stop the sequester has nothing to do with security. The same concerns underlie Ryan's disagreement with the top military about spending cuts. Follow the money.
There was a time when important people advocated nationalizing defense industries so their profiteering off the public could be neutralized by returning those profits to the public. Politics has moved so far to the right that such a "socialist" action would be derided by all. That is because defense industry profiteering is the goal and politicians are the paid agents of the defense industry.
There was a time when an American president raised taxes to 90% to recover war profits. Those days are over. Robbing the treasury is all there is.
I suspect there may be defense contractors in his district and he has probably heard from them, loudly.
The contractors do not have to be located in his district for him to hear them. They can contribute to any Congress-critter. When big money talks, Republicans listen.
"But Ryan's bill says a great deal about Republican lawmakers' approach to fiscal responsibility."
Never ever equate the GOP with FISCAL responsibility! As long as it's not "their money" they are happy spending like drunken sailors after a 9 month cruise in the Pacific with NO WOMEN IN SIGHT & they've now come onshore ready to spend! And even then, they only spend it on the "right girl" (aka the corporate elite), other than that, the rest of US can sink or swim!
The rubes who vote Republican do not get the concept that the Republicans are willing and eager to spend trillions in other countries (for wars and nation building), but they claim there is no money for our own country. Sounds unpatriotic to me.
Steve , this does not make eyes glaze over imo , it is a sum up of how untrust worthy the gop are , and how making deals with them is a waste of time , a lot of people new it would play out like this , hopefully the president will not buckle , again ...
I AM an obama / dems supporter , but the bots that claim THE ONLY ADULTS IN THE ROOM , while they refuse to grow a back bone and address our overly bloated military budget , are just full of it , watching them agree to take an axe to legitimate economic security programs , then saying nothing while passing military spending bills, is enough to make a person puke and just stop voting all together
So, Steve, here you are, writing a blog post about what a bad boy Paul Ryan is. And you're right, of course. But in the course of doing this, you quote The Hill making the claim that "both parties argue" that $600 billion in defense cuts "would reduce U.S. national security." And it doesn't even occur to you to point out that this bipartisan agreement is in fact infinitely crazier than anything Paul Ryan has ever said or done. You simply use the quote and let the lunacy lie there untouched.
Why??
And in case I'm not being clear, let me say it simply: $600 billion in defense cuts would not reduce national security by one iota. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world.