Washington – Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, was not his usual even-tempered self this afternoon. At a joint press conference with his senate counterpart, Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), a visibly agitated Ryan slammed President Obama’s $3.73 trillion budget proposal, calling it “debt on arrival.” The president’s failure to seriously address the federal deficit and the entitlement programs driving that deficit, Ryan argued, constituted “an abdication of leadership.”
“Americans expect their presidents to lead, they expect their presidents to take on the country’s biggest challenges, and arguably the biggest domestic challenge perhaps in the history of this country is this crushing burden of debt that is coming our way,” he said. “The president punted on the budget and he punted on the deficit. That’s not leadership.”
Sessions echoed Ryan’s disappointed in the lack of initiative from the White House. “We are faced with the difficulty of taking on something as complex as entitlements, as deeply emotional as entitlements, and the President of the United States is not even in the game, and doesn’t even suggest it has to be done?” he said. “I’m sure he didn’t want to have a debt crisis as big as he’s now finding, but leaders have to deal with the problems they’ve got, and we need his help.”
Just how bad was Obama’s proposal? Well, for one, even Andrew Sullivan hated it. And it was even worse than Republicans were expecting. And that’s saying something. “This [debt problem] requires bipartisanship at the end of the day,” Ryan said. “We were hoping for a centrist budget today to advance that kind of dialogue, and we got everything but that…It would be better if we did nothing than if we actually passed this budget.”
In particular, the Obama’s budget was a rebuke to the recommendations of his own fiscal commission, on which Ryan served (though he voted against its final plan). The commission’s co-chair, former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, said the administration’s budget was “nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare.” Indeed, the commission identified $4 trillion worth of deficit reduction measure over 10 years with the aim of heading off a fiscal catastrophe. Obama’s counter-offer? A mere $1.1 trillion in estimated saving over the next decade. And as Ryan pointed out, that number could become a lot smaller once the Congressional Budget Office takes a closer look at it.
The biggest complaint by far was over the fact that the president’s budget does nothing to touch the entitlement programs that are the primary drivers of the federal deficit. However, Ryan initially ducked repeated questions as to whether he would include entitlement reforms in his budget, which is due out this spring. “I can’t tell you what our budget’s going to be because we haven’t written it yet,” he said. “We are not interested in punting, we are interested in leading.” Even when pressed, he refused to give a straight answer. He merely alluded to the fact that he has been advocating entitlement reform “for quite some time’ and is one of the only members of congress to put forward a serious proposal — his “Roadmap for America.”
“Clearly we need to go there, but I’m not going to get into [specifics],” he said. “Anyone who knows anything about me knows we have to tackle entitlements or they’re going to tackle us.” But as Dan mentioned, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) was slightly more direct, suggesting that a Republican budget would include “very bold reforms” to entitlement programs.
Before Ryan can begin crafting his own budget, he must wait for the CBO to score the president’s proposal, which is likely to take several weeks. He’ll take it from there, and likely produce a document sometime in April. Until then, it will be interesting to watch House Republicans as they try to piece together a unified message on entitlement reform, to see if they are actually willing to follow through where the White House budget does not, or if like the president, they too will opt to punt.
"“Clearly we need to go there, but I’m not going to get into [specifics],” he said.""
I'm sorry...how many times are we going to hear that, while Obama sets the chessboard???
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's pretty simple, as long as the GOP continues to pretend that the fiscal crisis can be solved without increasing taxes, the Dems will continue to pretend that it can be solved without cutting entitlements.
Until the pretense is dropped, it's all just posturing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hope to one day see Republicans offer solutions instead of stupid slogans that serve no purpose other than to rile the ignorant.
And the stupid as well.
Where is that GOP health care reform bill? I've been waiting nearly 20 years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis country's political establishment has been in denial way too long. Right now they are just bickering about who gets to drive the bus over the cliff.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's my idea on a first step toward Reforming Social Security that I believe Congress should follow.
It has a great political side benefit of taking away (or at least reducing) the Social Security scare tactic from those who think we should do nothing.
I believe it is simple, effective, and who could vote against this bill-- Democrat or Republican?
You should present this as “This is the first step in a comprehensive review of Social Security. We wanted to guarantee that reform will NOT hurt people already on the current system, or those who are close to being eligible with no time for other programs. These citizens will be GUARANTEED their benefits for life..." Here's a Brief Description of the bill:
Bill to Guarantee Social Security for
Anyone Who Currently Receives Social Security
or is within X Years of Eligibility
With Guaranteed Benefits As Currently Defined
The purposes of this bill are:
1) This will guarantee current and "almost" retirees their benefits for life. It clearly acknowledges that the US government has an obligation to provide current and almost retirees with the benefits that have been “promised”. We are simply guaranteeing that we will make good on that obligation. Since Republicans have no intention of ever taking these benefits anyway, why not get the political benefit of making it official goverment law?
2) This will open the Social Security reform debate as Step One. It allows you to open the needed dialog on Social Security Reform for younger and middle-aged people (who want to discuss the issue), without the usual charges that the Republicans are trying to "starve old people, widows and orphans".
3) This will simplifiy needed Social Security reform by removing worry of seniors. By taking the Seniors (and the Dem scare politics aimed at them) out of the Social Security debate in large part. In fact, once their Social Security is "Guaranteed", then seniors can actually think rationally about the welfare of their children and grandchildren's retirement issues without worrying about their own.
4) Politically and very importantly- passage would immediately take this scare-tactic away from Democratic campaigns. They can no longer scare old people every election that a vote for GOP threatens to take away their monthly check. THEIR CHECKS ARE GUARANTEED FOR LIFE. You should get a much higher percentage of the senior vote without this "hot-button" always being used to scare them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, it's a horrible budget proposal. But as usual, Obama can count on his MSM buddies to carry his water. They're all reporting this budget as containing "deep" "severe" or "massive" cuts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt doesn't, but the MSM never lets facts get in the way of their Obama worship.
I won't be back.
You are nothing but cowards for refusing to post contrary opinions.
Your stupid slogans serve no one. Freedom Fries? How'd that work out?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, I guess we shouldn't really be surprised. Obama and the rest of the left really don't intend on spending less of our money. They are delusional about how it's going to be paid for someday. They may talk about cutting a little but they aren't even committed to that by much.
Someday the budget will have to be cut deeply. Whether or not we do it before the disaster or after it is the question.
Someday the federal government will no longer be able to issue debt. Then there won't be anything like Social Security or Medicare because it will be gone overnight.
Too be honest, I really don't think the budget will be cut as deep as it is necessary before that happens. It will be far worse if it doesn't get done before the federal government is insolvent.
Too many are delusional that there isn't a problem about spending like a drunken sailor.
This really is our last time to finally slim our federal government. Once its insolvent its largely too late the damage will be done.
Some things will be harder to cut then others. The unwillingness to cut the easy things is not good news.
Cutting things like PBS,NPR,PP,NEA, NEH,DOE are easy cuts! They don't want to even do that!
None of these things are the role of government and the biggest point is WE CAN'T AFFORD THEM. So even if we wanted to, we can't afford it.
All non-defense budgets have things that could be cut. Many departments simply need to disappear.
Many everyday people have a better grasp of this reality then most congressmen. The tea party exists because of this very issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom what I have read, Rep. Paul Ryan voted against the Debt Commission's plan because it did nothing to tackle the newest drain on our solvency: the bloated Obamacare boondoggle.
(Yay, I can still successfully answer the "simple math problem" in order to post a comment. I bet that I could prepare a fiscally sound federal budget, too.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“We are faced with the difficulty of taking on something as complex as entitlements, as deeply emotional as entitlements, and the President of the United States is not even in the game, and doesn’t even suggest it has to be done?” Yes, Congressman Ryan, that's right. And did you really expect anything different, given all those "present" votes from Illinois while he was in the U.S. Senate, and given his abdication of leadership to Reid and Pelosi on Obamacare and everything else during the first two years of his administration?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe President relies on a public that frequently has ADHD. But I have not forgotten what he said during the election season last summer and fall. He said that "next year we are going to see who is serious about the deficit." Well, now we know.
The GOP should cut his budget, and the Debt Commission report, into 3 inch squares and mail them to the White House. Perhaps they could be of use in the White House toilets!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...it will be interesting to watch House Republicans as they try to piece together a unified message on entitlement reform, to see if they are actually willing to follow through where the White House budget does not, or if like the president, they too will opt to punt."
I applaud the effort, but I'm skeptical of the follow through. Specifically, I question Boehner & Co's ability to keep their members in check. On the starboard side of this very blog, there's a GE-sponsored ad quoting Michelle Bachmann in support of a second engine for the F-35. Anyone who's studied the issue knows it's a complete waste of money and a total giveaway to GE, Rolls Royce, the unions, etc., but evidently the chair of the Tea Party Caucus disagrees. This abject refusal to make even the most rational of cuts is an ominous warning regarding the Speaker's ability to shepard more controversial proposals through the House.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLike RPMcMurphy, count me as a clapping skeptic. Not giving up on this (R) House by any means, but this first budget from them will make or break their trust with me and many others. Its importance cannot be emphasized enough.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would be hesitant reading too much into Rep Ryan's answers. Boehner has given him extraordinary powers in crafting the budget, yet they both know they need the votes. I see Ryan's reluctance to make commitments more as buying time for him to solicit input and form collaboration. If he spouts off already, this is the way, etc., he risks alienating many. He has a tricky path to walk, ESPECIALLY if they tackle entitlements. The Dem's will try their absolute hardest to paint anyone who touches entitlements as mean, cold hearted ......ds. They are already doing it with Medicare ads for O'care. Ryan is a committed fiscal conservative, he's had the Roadmap public for over a year already. Give him time, it took 60 years to get this deep!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI demand a bill that Andrew Sullivan is satisfied with.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"It's pretty simple, as long as the GOP continues to pretend that the fiscal crisis can be solved without increasing taxes, the Dems will continue to pretend that it can be solved without cutting entitlements."
We have seen what increased taxes and regulations have done to Detroit, California, and Illinois. Look at Europe and the austerity measures they have finally had to face. The problem with your equation is that entitlements never get cut. Government increases in size to consume the additional funding.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBased on those facts, our interpretation of reality is correct, yours is the one based on fantasy.
The republicans are blaming the President for failing to lead. This is such a stupid strategy. We put them in charge of the House to lead. Do it already. I'm tired of the games.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseU have 2 B kidding, it is well past time to re-think the "starve the beast" strategy. So far, this strategy has only succeeded in ruining our country's balance sheet. Let's cut spending to the bone, but then, to be fair the next generation, it is time to match revenues with costs.
You can say "we have seen what increased taxes and regulations have done to Detroit, California, and Illinois." And I would respond by saying we have also seen what tax cuts that do not match spending levels have done to compromise our country's solvency.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRaise the ridiculously low earnings maximum($106,800) on the SS portion of the FICA tax and make the wealthy pay to fix the instability they created by raiding the system for more tax cuts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe GOP should start with a Medicaid reform - most voters, especially the independents who swung heavily to the GOP, are not beneficiaries of Medicaid, so you're not opening yourself to a lot of scare tactics aimed at seniors about taking away their social security and medicare. Moving towards a block granting system for Medicaid, with additional freedom for states to tailor their programs without a lot of regulations would begin to bend the cost curve down on that program and may even improve outcomes for those relying on Medicaid.
That reform can then serve as a model (and an example that the world doesn't end when you reform an entitlement) for Medicare and Social Security reforms that move us toward the defined contribution model and away from the outdated, bloated, and financially crippling defined benefit model we're currently using.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse