Skip to main content

Paul Ryan  speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 10, 2011.
Yeah, him again.
Wednesday night the House Budget Committee approved chairman Paul Ryan's latest collection of magic asterisks and snake oil with a party-line vote, 22-17. Dedicated Ryan watchers might remember that last year's budget came up against some intra-party opposition in committee. Leadership quickly dealt with that problem.
That budget passed out of committee on a single vote margin after two conservatives—Reps. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.)—voted against it.

Huelskamp and Amash were removed by GOP leadership from the Budget Committee last year.

Outside of committee, there is some grumbling from Republicans about the budget and the fact that it's not ideologically pure enough because of some of the smoke and mirrors tricks Ryan uses. Namely, it relies on the $600 billion in tax revenue from the fiscal cliff deal, the $716 billion in Medicare cuts from Obamacare, as well as other revenue from tax increases included in the law to "balance" the budget in 10 years. Which, by the way, also makes the budget kind of a sham since it also would repeal Obamacare.

Note that these Republicans are pissed that Ryan assumes accomplishments of the Obama administration in his budget, not that his proposals would make life hell for all their constituents who are old, young, poor, middle-income and who enjoy things like clean water, air, and safe food.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 07:51 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (17+ / 0-)

    "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." —Warren Buffett

    by Joan McCarter on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 07:51:02 AM PDT

  •  I hope the House passes it. (6+ / 0-)

    We will use those votes agasint Republicans in 2014.

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 07:52:30 AM PDT

  •  Hey look, the exact opposite of the presidential (7+ / 0-)

    election.  Who'd have thought that our elected officials would do exactly the opposite of what the American people want?

    You'd almost think that our votes meant absolutely nothing.

    /Snark

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 07:58:16 AM PDT

  •  the ryan principle, verbatim: (8+ / 0-)
    "This is something we will not give up on because we are not going to give up on destroying the health care system for the American people." -- Paul Ryan

    "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

    by Sybil Liberty on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 08:01:48 AM PDT

  •  Let's clear something up (3+ / 0-)

    1) It wasn't a budget it was a Randian Manifesto.

    2) Anybody who still believes that cutting taxes leads to economic growth and expansion after three decades of contrary evidence should never be allowed near a Federal spread sheet.

    Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

    by jsfox on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 08:04:02 AM PDT

  •  What are the odds of Ryan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OleHippieChick, shoeless

    ..losing two elections in a row?

    He makes my skin crawl.

    And according to Alan Grayson at least - He wants me to "die quickly."

    It's a long-shot but Democrats taking the House next year would have me on my knees weeping for joy.

    For Christ's sake, let's help more of our frightened people get through this thing, whatever it is - Kurt Vonnegut on our "faithless custodians of capital"

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 08:52:08 AM PDT

  •  so annoying that we have to waste our time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OleHippieChick

    with this theater

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 08:56:18 AM PDT

  •  Whow! Such speedy Committee approval! (3+ / 0-)

    No hearings. That means no public input - no testimony or statements. No examination or analysis by experts outside the ambit of the Chairman of the committee.

    What awesome leadership! A complex Federal budget, but one so compelling in its logic, its underlying policies, its impact on Federal government operations and on the economy ... that it scoots through committee untouched by so much as one typical Congressional-hearing question!

    Now that is government in action! What a model for us all.

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 09:03:27 AM PDT

    •  This is how a well-oiled political machine (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shoeless

      is supposed to work. Create an agenda and then ram the bills that support that agenda through the legislature. You may be unaware that this is the norm because the Democratic Party hasn't done any of that since the mid-1960s . . .

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 09:11:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's easy to do when you don't recognize dissent! (0+ / 0-)

        I would note that the GOP purified its own Budget Committee membership this time around, to be sure their principals matched their principles.

        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 09:31:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you've created your party structure (0+ / 0-)

          well enough, there shouldn't be much dissent on legislative items designed to achieve your agenda. That should have already been taken care of in the agenda/platform-building phase. You don't pass a party platform of core issues that cause volatile dissent, unless compromises--within the party--have been made such that you get a "back-scratching" approval from everybody. (I.e., will vote for your pet issue in the larger Congress if you vote for mine.) This kind of mechanistic approach is the whole purpose behind having a political party in the first place.

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 09:44:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, but Congress's committees have minorities. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bryduck

            Typically, committees have hearings and allow a range of views of constituents, analysts, experts, etc.

            There are many elements, macro and micro, to the Federal budget and not necessarily unanimity on many of them, even amongst members of a single party. Varying views do not constitute dissent. And even so, a democracy allows for a lot of dissent.

            Tradeoffs of all kinds are at the operational core of politics. As in, "I'll give you yours if you help me get mine." "Or, you can't have it all, but I'll make sure you get some of it if ..." But ... I'm not at all sure that is the purpose - certainly not "whole" and I don't know about the "otherwise" - of having a political party. The Party is a gathering of members who can unite on more things that are important than those that might divide them, especially (at least in the past) on getting elected and electing generally like-minded people.

            The lockstep nature of today's Far Right is a whole different phenomena. The command McConnell exerts in the Senate and the obduracy of Tea Party zealots to affirmatively block what other Republicans are willing to yield on goes way beyond the purpose of either Party in the past.

            Passing the entire US budget through a committee with 39 members in a rigged "markup" without a single hearing is way beyond acceptable.

            2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

            by TRPChicago on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 10:48:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Their "lockstepness", though, (0+ / 0-)

              is only found when voting. They have a bunch of sub-groups (evangelical Christians, neocon thugs, racists, etc.) that they seemingly mollify long before the voting begins. Yes, not having hearings is a bad thing for America, but only because they don't want to hear from non-Republicans (who happen to represent an actual majority of the country's citizens.) Would you really want a hearing where the majority of speakers' time is spent lauding this budget? Ick.
              I also think that the functional use of a party is exactly what you are describing as the core of politics. I don't see that as distinct from their "purpose", given that they exist to collocate similar pols' views as a means of gaining and maintaining power in a legislature.

              "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

              by bryduck on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 12:58:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You have a point. I'm old-fashioned when it comes (0+ / 0-)

                ... to political parties. Platforms, for example, were once a forum for actual disagreements, debates, etc., not that they even then, they made much difference, but there was a time ...

                Still, it would be hard to have a hearing on the Federal budget without getting analysis and, hopefully, testimony from the Congressional Budget Office. Whose representatives might - might! Hope springs eternal - have some light to shed on the subject, at least with a few pointed questions from minrity members of the committee.

                Then, at least, the ITBM (new one: the "Inside the Beltway Media") would have something else to report than just Cong. Ryan's mis-pitching of what his highly flawed budget screed is and does.

                Imagine the Republican shout-out if Democrats tried to get away with no hearings, no meaningful markup, no public display of views. Sen. Murray's Budget Committee over on the Senate side is the antithesis of what Cong. Ryan is doing. See her "most open process" wherein she solicits the views - gasp! - of the actual public!

                2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                by TRPChicago on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 02:46:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  But the platform itself (0+ / 0-)

                  did not encapsulate the disagreements, it encoded the consensus or compromise end position. Which the party members would then pledge to support whenever pieces of it would be written into bills.
                  External, "unbiased" analysis or evidenciary hearings could/would serve to allow legislators to modify or abandon their efforts to pass the platform, if necessary--it certainly would give members a place to hide if they found their original plank didn't poll well, that's for sure.
                  I agree with you that all non-Dems would howl endlessly if we did things this same way, to be sure. Then again, they howl endlessly now, so what's the diff?

                  "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                  by bryduck on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 04:41:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Publicity For A Working Class Budget? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shoeless

    The Progressive Caucus' Back to Work budget is receiving some press, but not nearly enough.  Isn't it as "serious" as Representative Ryan's?

    If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

    by stewarjt on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 09:11:10 AM PDT

  •  Can we safely assume... (0+ / 0-)

    Huelskamp and Amash are dependable "NO" votes on everything, including motherhood and apple pie?  

    Reminds me of the old cereal commercial where the kid says "Let's feed it to Timmy!  Timmy hates EVERYTHING!"

  •  The Political Equivalent of a Serial Masturbator (0+ / 0-)

    Paul Ryan loves to hear himself speak especially when it's followed by people applauding. Even if he has to stock the room with his own people, he simply loves any adulation that validates his overinflated opinion of his intelligence.

    This head movie makes my eyes rain.

    by The Lone Apple on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 09:27:36 AM PDT

  •  Is it really Paul Ryan's budget? (0+ / 0-)

    Or is it ALEC's?

    Ryan has never seemed to me to be as sharp as the rest of the Republicans seem to think he is. I have to wonder who's putting together the budget that he's presenting as his own?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site