House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) has proposed a budget under which Congress would cut federal spending. Let us repeat that: U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan has proposed a budget under which Congress would cut federal spending — not the rate of growth in federal spending, not future federal spending at some distant date, not federal spending vs. an imaginary baseline, but actual federal spending. The $1.087 trillion in discretionary spending under the current continuing resolution would be replaced by $1.055 trillion in the new budget, an actual, honest-to-God reduction in federal outlays of $32 billion.
Advertisement
Conservative budget hawks, Sen. Rand Paul (R., Kent.) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) prominent among them, have argued that this cut is insufficient. It is. Further spending cuts will have to be made and our broken entitlement programs will have to be made rational. But let’s not underestimate the magnitude of the political challenge that task involves. A five- or ten-year effort that continually reduces federal spending is vastly preferable to an attempt to achieve everything in a single shot that misses.
Senator Paul, to his credit, argues that Republicans should enact a full $500 billion in spending cuts this year. He should look to his left, look to his right, and do the arithmetic: Republicans remain in the minority in the Senate, Barack Obama remains in the White House, and a piecemeal approach to spending reform therefore has a greater chance of contributing to real success than do more radical approaches. Representative Ryan’s proposal already is $74 billion less than the president’s budget request; Republicans will have a hard enough time making those cuts, much less Senator Paul’s.
If the Paul Ryan budget is enacted, Republicans will have a real accomplishment off the bat: They will have drawn first blood in the battle against federal fiscal incontinence. They will have actually reduced discretionary spending and taken the first steps on the road toward national fiscal recovery, and they will have done so without compromising core federal responsibilities (national-defense spending will in fact see a small increase, reflecting the reality that we still are fighting two wars). Which is to say, Republicans will have gone a long way toward reestablishing their credibility as the party of fiscal responsibility, something it is absolutely necessary for them to do before the next stage of this campaign: the very difficult process of reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with making the additional discretionary-spending cuts needed to bring the budget into sustainable balance.
One of the reasons that Democrats suffered their ignominious shellacking at the polls last November is that they tried to do too much too quickly. The legislative fights were polarizing, the lack of debate appalling, the parliamentary thuggery off-putting. Republicans should be careful not to mimic their performance. Their goals should be ambitious, their means gradual. Senator Paul and Representative Flake are right to hold Republicans’ legislative feet to the flame, and we trust that they will continue to do so. We also trust that they will back the Ryan budget as the most efficacious realistic avenue toward reform.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article has been amended since its original posting.
Yeah, glorious, a 28 billion reduction, and, can you imagine, a full 72 billion less spending than the president's proposed budget which is more than 3 500 billion overall!!! So bold, 0.5% percent reduction!
An iron clad proof that you are just a bunch of GOP big government proxies, not an independent conservative institution. The left wingers over at the New Republic mocked your puppet status by saying that Rich Lowry was a first guy given the "pledge" to read, so much confidence the republican leadership has in you.
"Conservative budget hawks, Sen. Rand Paul (R., Kent.) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) prominent among them, have argued that this cut is insufficient. It is."
Clearly Djovanelo lives in a world of political impossibilities. The inability to be pragmatic is the trademark of the ideologue who lives in a fantasy world where they have free will to enact whatever they wish.
If the GOP listened to ideologues like yourself, the same fate that befell the Democrats in '10 would punish the GOP in '12
However much the Republicans propose to cut, the Dems will get the vapors and cry over these "draconian" measures.
I am a Paul Ryan supporter because he has a long view of creating fiscal solvency. However, from a negotiating standpoint on this budget, he should aim for a higher cut that would allow some wiggle room yet be more realistic than Flake's and Paul's in being achievable for passage with this Congress and administration.
If Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) fails to live up to his promise of cutting at least $100 billion in federal spending cuts by September 31, 2011, he will forever be known as "read-my lips" Ryan.
They promised in their phony "Pledge" to cut $100 billion. I am not talking here about Rand Paul's 500 billion which is in my view minimum we can accept. I am talking about their own explicit promise during the last election campaign. If this is what they want to do, they have exactly zero credibility on budgetary and fiscal issues. This is almost comical.
What does that mean that Ryan is a budget hawk? He is not. If he did not agree with this he could say so and refuse to support. I suppose that his almost hero status here at NRO and among the republican establishmentarians would help him to convince others. No, he is not a budget hawk. He is intellectually corrupt insider. He voted for the bank bailouts, that's a litmus test which shows you who is a phony and who is not.
So, yeas, "read my lips" Ryan, and "read my leaps" Boehner...And president Obama in 2013.
Rep. Ryan's plan is only a down-payment and represents a move in the right direction. Anyone who thinks Paul Ryan is some kind of RINO budget squish is either seriously misinformed or completely detached from reality.
To those right-wing ideologues who are foaming at the mouth with rage that this "just ain't good enough", answer this question -
After you throw yourselves on the floor kicking and screaming like a petulant 5-yr old and hold your breath until you get your way on an unrealistic (politically) budget measure, what are your plans for after Obama vetoes it and casts you in the light of a person who is deranged enough to want to cut off grandma's social security check? Hmmm, what then? Force a government shutdown fight?
In that case, go read a history book about the 1995 budget battles that then-speaker Newt Gingrich launched and see how effective that was...I'll spoil the ending for you, it resulted in Clinton's 2nd term...
I have to agree with onlineanalyst. Ask for more, settle for what you can live with. This negotiation is set up for Obama to give up $37B, Ryan to give up $37B, and we end up with this year's number plus $5B. Obama then gets to paint the GOP as not serious, and the liberal myth of "spending cannot be cut" gains credence. I think to effectively negotiate an actual reduction, you have to propose more than the increase proposed by the other side, i.e., begin at a reduction greater than $43B.
For 2012, state what the expected revenues will be, list in order the "untouchables" (interest, entitlements) and force the Pres to justify all expenditures above the expected revenues. It helps to lay the groundwork for how entitlements crowd out growth in all other spending areas. Next year, cutting Defense to zero and cutting discretionary to zero would bring us into balance. Recognizing that is not possible but stating it helps to shape the budget battlefield.
- Voted YES on TARP (2008)
-Voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140 (2008)
-Voted YES on $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. (Dec 2008)
-Voted YES on $192B additional "anti-recession" stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
-Voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients.
(Nov 2003)- Voted YES on No Child Left Behind Act (2001)
According to Michelle Malkin in 2009, “[Paul Ryan] gave one of the most hysterical speeches in the rush to pass TARP last fall; voted for the auto bailout; and voted with the Barney Frank-Nancy Pelosi AIG bonus-bashing stampede. Milwaukee blogger Nick Schweitzer wrote: ‘He ought to be apologizing for his previous votes, not pretending he was being responsible the entire time, but I don’t see one bit of regret for what he did previously. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let him get away with it’.”
Common, prove me wrong. Please. Did Ryan voted for all these things or not? Do you consider a guy who voted for the Bush's 700 billion bank bailout, No Child Left Behind, the biggest increase in MEdicare spending, and all kinds of deficit spending under Bush a"spending hawk"? If yes, you must have a very idiosyncratic (liberal) notion of what does it mean to be a spending hawk.
I am no friend of the left, but your article insults my intelligence.
An "honest" reduction of 32 billion?
I am reminded of author Bernie Goldman, who coined the descriptive phrase regarding the political parties:
"The party of evil vs. the party of stupid."
The article should have been titles “Bloodbath.” Proposing a balanced budget NOW (FY12) is imperative. Anything short of this is unprincipled and a betrayal of the voters who elected Congress. Reality dictates that the initial proposed budget will not be passed as is. But what will produce better results (i.e., a smaller deficit): starting with a deficit of $1,300,000,000,000 or starting with a deficit of $0?
If the GOP thinks they are going to get high praise for a $32 billion cut they are as deluded as Nancy Pelosi. As others have said, aim higher than what you will settle for (probably double). Are they going to settle for $16 billion after negotiating? If so they can kiss the Senate and White House goodbye in 2012--and maybe the House as well. Goodbye, GOP; hello, third party.
Dear Editors, this is a deep disappointment. You are supposed to be unelected journalists. You can't be more daring in expectations on this than a politican?
Far from being pragmatic, this proposal is in fact very unpractical considering your dire fiscal position and arguably, a dereliction of the duty Mr. Ryan so movingly expressed to voters in his rebuttal to the SOTU.
Really! The GOP can't be more daring and bold on this than Cuomo? This proposal reminds me of what Churchill said to express his disappointment in the ill-fated but ambitious Anzio landings, when their lack of drive almost saw them thrown back into the sea due to timidity and slowness:"I had hoped we were hurling a wildcat into the shore, but all we got was a stranded whale."
I fear the Dems will have a jubilee as the whale is almost ready for oiling. Take it from an old Plaintiff lawyer, always ask for WAYYY more than you want or need. You'll never get what you want unless you ask first and then let THEM explain why 25% of the economy has to be gobbled up by the Feds every year (as much as in WW2 for God's sake!). The people will not just support you but thank you for it.
Isn't that what your friends in DC were elected to do?
If your team fails to meet even the modest goals of the Pledge, the BO will get reelected and he will have secured not just Obmacare, but also a vast expansion of the fed govt that bids fair to destroy all that that man you were just celebrating on Sunday worked to build.
I hope to God as a Canadian who can do nothing about it that I'm wrong.
How very depressing! How very unbold! How hopeless these comments make it all seem. If ever there was an argument for term limits, this is it. They all begin to look the same after one term. Maybe we could unite Americans in a term limits pledge upon which we all base our votes, regardless of party.
Any proposed cuts will be reduced through negotiations to get it passed by the Senate and signed by the president. Therefore, we need to start with much higher proposed cuts, that includes the military. We don't need many hundreds of military bases in over 100 countries around the world. I think Rand Paul's 500 million is a good number to start at. It leaves alot of room for negotiation.
This is beyond belief! I, like many,for too long have paid horrifying quantities of quarterly taxes, foregone travel and entertainment, turned off lights, turned down thermostats, all while awaiting the exhaustive raping and pillaging of all that I've scrimped and saved that is coming, and they (you) come up with THIS?????
The cuts referred to in this article are for the balance of '11. The budget the Dems wouldn't write and vote on prior to the election.
"If Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) fails to live up to his promise of cutting at least $100 billion in federal spending cuts by September 31, 2011,"
The above statement referring to the date 9/31/11 would be for the '12 budget. The amount, $100 billion, would be a good start for next year.
Rome wasn't built in a day and you cannot eliminate the debt in a mere six months. Look at it as a bonus reduction, thanks to the 'fraidy cat Dems of the 111th Congress.
In the Pledge to America the promise was $100 billion in the first year. This is the first year. We just handed them the biggest win in... how many years? And they offer us the old canard "it's a good start, it'll take years...."
It will never happen at all until the GOP obtains some fortitude and actually does what we elected them to do: Reduce the size and spending of the federal government. Now. By huge quantities.
And please don't feed me that "you don't understand the system" and "Rome wasn't built in a day." We'd never have become a nation at all with that attitude.
