To start 2011, a good sign from Congress
Just listen to the squeals coming from Democrats, as they realize their four-year spending binge is over. From The Hill:
A proposed House rule granting new powers to the GOP chairman of the Budget Committee has sparked outrage from Democrats.
The proposed rule would allow the Budget Committee chairman to set spending ceilings for 2011 without a vote by the full House. By approving the rules package, the House would give authority to the new Budget panel chairman to set budget ceilings at a later time and his decision would not be subject to an up-or-down vote on the floor.
In practice, this would give power to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the incoming chairman of the panel, to impose deep spending cuts since spending bills cannot exceed the budget ceiling for the 2011 fiscal year.
The House is set to vote on the rule soon after it convenes on Jan. 5.
Democrats argue the provision would give unilateral power to Ryan and flies in the face of GOP promises of transparency.
“Allowing incoming Chairman Ryan to have unilateral power to set spending limits — instead of subjecting those limits to a vote on the floor of the House — flies in the face of promises by House Republicans to have the most transparent and honest Congress in history,” said Doug Thornell, spokesman for incoming House Budget Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), in an e-mailed statement.
“Unfortunately, the House GOP is reverting back to the same arrogant governing style they implemented when they last held the majority and turned a surplus into a huge deficit,” he added.
Drew Hammill, spokesman for incoming Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), also criticized the rule change. He said the decision to cede power to Ryan “runs counter to the Republicans’ promises of transparency and accountability.”
Republicans argue allowing the Budget chairman to set spending ceilings is necessary because of the failure of the last Congress to approve a budget last year.
“This provision is only necessary because of Democrats’ historic failure to pass a budget last year. They have nothing but their own ineptitude to blame for this temporary authority,” Brendan Buck, a spokesman for the House Republican transition, said in response to the Van Hollen statement.
Where to start? How about the good news here: Setting an overall budget ceiling makes for a firm limit on spending, and it means House appropriators will have to make choices as they put together their 12 annual appropriations bills. They’ll either have to make reductions in all 12, or cut more deeply in some to make up for holding the line in others. House members will still have a say in how the money is spent; they’ll just have to fit the total amount of money within a pre-determined limit. What a concept.
Second, having a solid budget hawk like Paul Ryan in charge of setting that limit helps to make up for the assignment of the more spendthrift Hal Rogers to chair Appropriations. Now, Ryan just has to stand up to pressure from other Republicans who don’t want him to be quite so hawkish. After all, let’s not pretend that he will be working in a cone of silence, free from attempts by other members — Republicans and Democrats — to influence him. That said, the fact that Speaker-to-be John Boehner wants to reset spending at 2008 levels — a good start, if not a satisfactory goal — should help to bolster Ryan’s position.
Now, for the Democrats’ objections, which are so lame as to remind us why they lost power so sweepingly in the midterm elections.
The Van Hollen spokesman said the rule would contradict “promises by House Republicans to have the most transparent and honest Congress in history.” Really? What is not transparent or honest here? The rule will state that the Budget chairman will set the budget ceiling. We know who will be acting, and we know what he will be doing — setting a budget ceiling at a certain dollar amount. Is there any mystery here? Is there any obfuscation — you know, along the lines of waiting until after the election to cram those 12 appropriations bills into one “omnibus” package and pass it before other members and the public have had a chance to review it, as Democrats tried to do just last month? I didn’t think so.
As for this being the “same arrogant governing style [Republicans] implemented when they last held the majority and turned a surplus into a huge deficit,” that claim is refuted later in the Hill article:
Another House aide argued the powers are not unprecedented. The GOP gave the chairman of the House similar powers in the opening days of the 1999 Congress, when the GOP also controlled the chamber.
Let’s see…what happened with the budget in 1999? Oh, right — it was in surplus, not deficit.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
89 comments Add your comment
Tychus Findlay
January 3rd, 2011
11:31 am
The real issue lies with Congress’s lack of culpability when it comes to spending, whether the party attached to that spending is red or blue. The Left wants greater entitlement programs without cutting spending and the Right wants tax cuts without cutting spending. Both concepts are fine so long as they don’t contribute to ever greater debt.
The average person knows what their income is, and how much they can spend each month. The Fed just prints money and spends like a drunken sailor on shore leave.
Intown
January 3rd, 2011
11:57 am
There is nothing good about this. (1) The Dems objections are completely reasonable. By not having to take public votes on spending limits, it is NOT transparent and does not hold people accountable. (2) It does show how arrogent the Republicans are. (3) Resetting spending limits at 2008 levels is a political move, and nothing more. Why not set them at 1/2001 levels (when Bush took office). To erase the 8 years of runaway spending on tax cuts and two wars under Bush might be a more palatapble austerity measure to Dems.
CJ
January 3rd, 2011
11:57 am
Just yesterday, it seems, Republicans “squeeled” about back-room deals, lack of transparency, and lack of bipartisanship. Now Paul Ryan, honorary president of the Ayn Rand fan club and author of the ridiculous plan to balance the budget decades from now, is given unprecedented dictatorial power in the House to continue GOP borrow-and-spend/trickle-down policies of the past with little to no recourse among the minority or even members of their own party.
Democrats are raising hell? Good. The rest of us should join them.
Jimmy62
January 3rd, 2011
12:02 pm
Yeah, what’s the point of having a ceiling when you can just vote to raise it ever year. Kind of defeats the purpose, does it not?
detritusUSA
January 3rd, 2011
12:14 pm
Somehow the word Fascist just came to mind.
DB17
January 3rd, 2011
12:18 pm
@CJ: hate to break the news to ya bub, but your precious Democrats got voted out of the House and lost ground in the Senate because of their narcissistic attitude, draconian Nanny-state policies being rammed down our throats (oh gee we have to PASS a bill before finding out what’s in it), and their sheer absolute INCOMPETENCE at running this nation from jobs to oil prices.
We’ve got a lot of cleaning up to do after four years of the Pelosicrats – that “most ethical congress in history” mind you. Here’s a little factoid about your precious Democrat-run Congress run by Pelosi & Reid – and CNN, PMSNBC, the New York Slimes, and Washington Compost sure won’t be telling us this:
“The federal government has accumulated more new debt–$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)–during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.In fact, the 111th Congress not only has set the record as the most debt-accumulating Congress in U.S. history, but also has out-stripped its nearest competitor, the 110th, by an astounding $1.262 trillion in new debt.”
WOW.
Great job Democrats. And you people are STILL soiling yourselves and blaming Bush for everything.
Jefferson
January 3rd, 2011
12:31 pm
VETO is where the real power is.
Kyle Wingfield
January 3rd, 2011
12:34 pm
“unprecedented dictatorial power in the House to continue GOP borrow-and-spend/trickle-down policies of the past with little to no recourse among the minority or even members of their own party.”
CJ, CJ — it’s so early in 2011; leave yourself some room to up the ante on hyperbole and inaccuracy! At this rate, you’ll hit up against a ceiling of your own before week’s end.
“unprecedented” — except that, as noted in the Hill article and this blog post, it’s been done before.
“dictatorial power” — except that the budget, and thus any limit that Ryan sets, still must be approved by the (Democratic-majority) Senate and (Democratic) president.
“in the House” — your qualifier for the preceding, albeit one that ignores the fact that the House can vote to amend this or any of its other rules anytime it is so moved, and that Ryan can be replaced as chairman of the Budget Committee.
“to continue GOP borrow-and-spend/trickle-down policies of the past” — exactly how does a *limit” on the total budget contribute to “borrow-and-spend,” much less “trickle-down,” which is the liberal denigration of conservative policies on taxation, not spending?
“with little to no recourse among the minority or even members of their own party.” — see the above note about the House’s ability to amend its own rules.
If you had written “and” somewhere in there, I could have paraphrased Mary McCarthy about your little screed. Oh, well. Next time!
ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
12:38 pm
more politicians who wanna get back to the “good ole days”
Kyle Wingfield
January 3rd, 2011
12:38 pm
From the Wikipedia entry on Mary McCarthy:
McCarthy provoked [Lillian] Hellman in 1979 when she famously said on The Dick Cavett Show:
every word [Hellman] writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’.
ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
12:40 pm
just think the conservative christians main goal is to roll back healthcare so people will die….its amazing how these folks love god but hate people they deem unworthy…
ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
12:41 pm
why do repubs say they want less government, yet want the government to tell a woman if she can have an abortion or not
ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
12:44 pm
the repubs will try to roll back DADT also…
ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
12:57 pm
why do god fearing christian conservatives want to repeal. healthcare?…do they honestly believe JESUS would rather people die than get universal healthcare? Why dont the dems call the repubs out on their hypocricy? why dont the dems call out these self righteous hate mongers
ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
1:08 pm
THE REPUBS WILL PROBALY TRY TO ROLL back the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1964…with all their states rights talk..lol..the “evil” federal government didnt have no right telling them good god fearing southern christians to treat blacks humanly…aint that right, KYLE
CJ
January 3rd, 2011
1:12 pm
Ryan would be empowered to single-handedly establish spending levels if the House and Senate struggle to agree on a budget resolution.
With this rule change, the House would essentially be adopting a budget resolution and limits for appropriations bills that it has NEVER seen, debated, or had an opportunity to amend. When Ryan places in the Congressional Record discretionary funding limits that he sets, then they’re binding on the House. Any attempt to modify them are out of out of order.
Again, the Republican Party that disingenuously whined about backroom deals (before seeking backroom deals about extension of the Bush tax cuts with Obama) now implements a rule in which the House is forced to honor mandatory spending levels established by a single crackpot from Wisconsin whose bible is “The Virtue of Selfishness.”
Yes, I took a page from the GOP playbook and deliberately used hyperbole. But the point if valid.
(And yes, “trickle-down economics” applies to both taxation and spending. Contrary to the myth, there’s no evidence that the GOP spends less than Dems. They spend elsewhere and they do it less efficiently [e.g., misbegotten wars, Medicare Part D, farm subsidies, military industrial complex, prison industrial complex, and many other corporate giveaways]).
jconservative
January 3rd, 2011
1:12 pm
I would love to see spending decreased. But I will just wait and see.
The last time the Republicans had control of the House spending went through the roof for 6 straight years. So pardon me if I have a wait and see attitude.
How do I get this 112th Congress to cancel Bush’s Senior Citizen Drug Plan? This is the most blatant Socialistic Program now run by the Federal Government. Massive amounts of dollars are taken from all and re-directed to a few. Classic redistribution of wealth. And I am the only guy hollering. Why?
Happy New Year to all!
carlosgvv
January 3rd, 2011
1:24 pm
Giving Paul Ryan this much power makes no sense to me but you may be sure it makes perfect sense to the big corporations who sponsor the Republicans.
Stephen Jackson
January 3rd, 2011
1:24 pm
They are doing better than I did last night!
Typical
January 3rd, 2011
1:36 pm
In the news today
“Muslims Chant “AllahuAkbar” After Car Bomb Kills 21 Christians….”
Ahhhhh, the peaceful, serene, tolerant, loving religion of Islam.
ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
1:38 pm
@typical
no religion is peaceful….just look at the thousands of people the U.S. military has killed over the last decade
Typical
January 3rd, 2011
1:42 pm
ohwell
Oh yeah, was thinking about all those murders those evil Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, and Epicopalians have been committing in the name of God.
joe
January 3rd, 2011
1:44 pm
Please, Paul Ryan, cut, cut again, then cut some more…cut til it hurts baby! Thats the only way we’ll get out of this entitlement mentality.
ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
1:50 pm
@typical
it doesnt matter if they did it in the name of GOD or country…the fact remains that this christian government has killed to for no reason [wmd's]….just because this government doesnt cloak its butchering in a religious context doent make it less violent
Typical
January 3rd, 2011
1:53 pm
ohwell
OOOOhhh, you “moved the goalposts”. And The Great and Powerful Community Organizer stated, “We are no longer a Christian nation”.
Are you going to compare religions, or militaries? Which is it?
ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
2:04 pm
@typicaI
mUSLIM COUNTRIES SEE US AS A CHRISTIAN NATION…and whats wrong with being a community organizer…whats wrong with doing positive in your community…why do u conservatives taKE SOMETHING NOBL.E AND and see evil in it…smh….
Typical
January 3rd, 2011
2:08 pm
OH THE HUMANITY!!! They see us as a Christian nation!!! We must do all we can to appease the loving, serene, tolerant, caring religion of Islam!!
ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
2:14 pm
@TYPICAL
we attacked a muslim country for no reason [IRAQ]…butchered thousands trying to defend their homeland and labeled them terrorists…yeah, christians are real peaceful
Typical
January 3rd, 2011
2:20 pm
ohwell
Saddam Hussein killed his own people…many with WMD’s. That’s a fact. NOONE has killed or butchered as many in the name of Religion as the ever-loving, peaceful, serene, tolerant, and caring religion of Islam.
Not a very sharp one, are you?
Typical
January 3rd, 2011
2:23 pm
ohwell
just for you
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm
ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
2:25 pm
@TYPIC AL
SO WHAT SADDAM was our ally when he did those things and we looked the other way…an d i see u still repeat the WMD lie…we attacked IRAQ because on 9/11 BUSH looked lik,e a fool to the rest of the world….BUSH LIED to stroke his fragile ego that OSAMA bruised
Mr. Dithers
January 3rd, 2011
2:28 pm
Who elected Paul Ryan Comptroller of the USA?
bob
January 3rd, 2011
2:29 pm
detritusUSA, So fascism now means cutting spending ?
Typical
January 3rd, 2011
2:33 pm
ohwell
Many of your Liberal Dems said he had WMD’s. Check your facts.
Grasshopper
January 3rd, 2011
2:33 pm
“no religion is peaceful….just look at the thousands of people the U.S. military has killed over the last decade”
Just when did the US military (you know, the one that allows you to sleep safe at night and gives you the freedom to type stupid comments on the internet) become a religion?
Typical
January 3rd, 2011
2:35 pm
Grasshopper
ohwell is…….oh well, hopeless.
ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
2:36 pm
@typical
so my liberal dems were WRONG”…..NEXT!
ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
2:38 pm
@GRASSHOPPER
I DIDNT SAY TRHE MILITARY WAS religion so you told a lie…and this military is used by christians to butcher and maim people for no reason ….just ask the IRAQIS
Typical
January 3rd, 2011
2:40 pm
Grasshopper
Hysterical, isn’t he? LOL!!!
HDB
January 3rd, 2011
2:43 pm
“The proposed rule would allow the Budget Committee chairman to set spending ceilings for 2011 without a vote by the full House.”
THAT’s the main issue! That eliminates the representation from EVERY Congressional district in budget matters…since all appropriations originate in the House!!
CJ @ 1:12 is quite on point here!!
Grasshopper
January 3rd, 2011
2:45 pm
“no religion is peaceful….just look at the thousands of people the U.S. military has killed over the last decade”
Your moronic comment speaks for itself.
Kyle Wingfield
January 3rd, 2011
2:45 pm
HDB: Ryan won’t decide how to spend the money, just what the limit is — based on CBO projections about revenue.
Would you make the same claim about lack of representation if the House adopted a rule saying spending could not exceed revenues, or 98 percent of revenues, or whatever?
ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
2:52 pm
@GRASSHOPPER
DIDNT dubya the christian president send the military to butcher IRAQIS to restore his fragile ego….the christian president sent his army to kill musalims for no reason…sorry if u hate the truth
HDB
January 3rd, 2011
2:57 pm
Kyle Wingfield
January 3rd, 2011
2:45 pm
“Would you make the same claim about lack of representation if the House adopted a rule saying spending could not exceed revenues, or 98 percent of revenues, or whatever?”
If the r ule were voted up or down by the FULL House, I’d have no issue. Let the rules come from the Committee and be voted upon by the House…that’s all I ask!
Grasshopper
January 3rd, 2011
3:04 pm
DIDNT dubya the christian president send the military to butcher IRAQIS to restore his fragile ego
No.
ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
3:06 pm
@grasshopper
yep
detritusUSA
January 3rd, 2011
3:09 pm
Bob @2:29. Doesn’t all that power in the hands of one man at least make you nervous?
HDB
January 3rd, 2011
3:12 pm
Grasshopper
January 3rd, 2011
3:04 pm
Lest you forget — many believe that “Shrub” invaded Iraq because of REVENGE….in that Saddam threatened to kill Daddy Bush!! The point many should not fail to remember: When Colin Powell asked GHWB should he proceed in traking Baghdad in Desert Storm, GHWB STOPPED the invasion! Why?? GHWB knew that keeping Saddam in power also kept the IRANIANS at bay! No Saddam….look at the havoc the Iranians are brewing!!
Typical
January 3rd, 2011
3:13 pm
Grasshopper
“ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
2:52 pm
@GRASSHOPPER
DIDNT dubya the christian president send the military to butcher IRAQIS to restore his fragile ego….the christian president sent his army to kill musalims for no reason…sorry if u hate the truth…”
LOL!!!! You’re dealing with a real brilliant one, Grasshopper—just check the spelling. Gee, didn’t know Bush had “his army”. What’s a “musalim”? LMAO!!
ohwell
January 3rd, 2011
3:16 pm
@typical..
wow i misspelled “muslim”…did u have an orgasm….lol