Several of you wanted me to discuss this piece:
The effort in Congress to put together a belt-tightening budget was dealt several setbacks Tuesday as Senate moderates and House conservatives tugged the budget in opposite directions.
Centrist senators of both parties gained support for attaching to the Senate’s version of the 2006 budget a provision known as paygo, short for “pay as you go.” The amendment would mandate that legislation to raise spending or cut taxes would need the support of 60 of the 100 senators unless it was accompanied by enough spending cuts or tax increases to offset its effect on the deficit.
A similar provision adopted by the Senate last year led to a stalemate with the House and no budget at all.
Meanwhile, the conservative Republican Study Committee complained that the House version of the budget did not cut spending enough and demanded a tougher procedure to restrain spending.
Assessing the budget’s prospects, House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) said: “This is going to be very difficult.”
“The real challenge for us is in the Senate,” Nussle said. “Last year, they were at least trying. This year, I think they almost gave up before they started the process.”
Members of the Senate Centrist Coalition met Tuesday to pledge support for paygo and to urge other senators to join them. They said all 44 Democratic senators and one independent who typically votes with the Democrats would support paygo, as would five Republicans: Voinovich, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, and John McCain of Arizona.
For the most part, after looking into the matter and reading what would happen if this provision were signed, it is my opinion that is pretty much a waste of time and nothing more than another ‘budget-cutting’ gimmick following in the grand traditions of Graham-Rudman-Hollings and the more recent Family Buget Protection Act.
It appears the ‘pay as you go’ system would provide minimal savings if any, and it does not include entitlements into the calculus. That in and of itself does not mean anything bad, except that this appears to be another quick fix to a general air of irresponsibility. What needs to be done is that our Congressmen need to act with some discipline and say no. Congress can easily pass these quick fix laws to provide budgetary control, but that is all they are- quick fixes. Inevitably, the quick fixes contain exemptions and situations to get around the enforcement mechanism, and, surprise, they are usually used.
While I can understand the sentiments of those who think this might do something, and there may be some who honestly think this is useful, this really is nothing more than a partisan ploy by the Democrats. All 44 Democrats signed on- that means Robert Byrd is now really interested in legislation curbing spending? The same Robert Byrd who ‘stood up for the Constitution’ to fight the Balanced Budget Amendment when he just so happened to be Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee?
It doesn’t take much to put two and two together on this one…
Darrell
All 44 Democrats signed on- that means Robert Byrd is now really interested in legislation curbing spending?
And that about says it all regarding the sincerity of the Dems
Sojourner
Where was the pay as you go plan for the tax cuts for the wealthy?
Exactly how much should those of us who are middle class or below have to pay? We have to cover the cost of the tax cuts, cuts in social security, and now cuts in other programs? Screw that.
Try again, Repubs. Stop ripping us off.
p.lukasiak
I’ve never understood the mania for building new sports stadia. (or is the plural actually “stadiums”?) Winning teams fill seats — losing teams don’t, unless they are giving away “official” baseball hats or football jerseys or something. The nature of the stadium itself plays a very marginal role in how many seats are filled — and certainly far less of a role than can be justified by the costs involved.
Fledemaus
The same Robert Byrd who ‘stood up for the Constitution’ to fight the Balanced Budget Amendment when he just so happened to be Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee?
Deficit spending is not always a bad thing. But deficits should be modest and occasional. Under Reagan and Bush II they became commonplace. The whole “cut spending and taxes” make for a great campaign slogan. I’ve yet to see the GOP actually put it into effect.
The GOP is not cutting spending.
Yes, yes, the Dems are worse they want higher spending and taxes. If the GOP hasn’t cut spending by now (when they have control of both congress and the white house) when are they ever going to do it.
Fact is they are not. Occasional deficits are OK in my book, a lot of corporations take on debt to expand or get through bad times. But year after year Bush has run up the debt like a poet with a charge card. It’s time to take the card away.
John Cole
Fleder-
I hope you were not implying that defecit spending in times of emergency was the reason Robert Bryd fought tooth and nail to stop a Balanced Budget Amendment and the Line Item Veto.
If you are, let me laugh in advance.
Fledemaus
Line Item veto I am totally in favor of. But If I understand the Balanced Budget Amendment correctly it would forbid the federal government from ever running a deficit. If that is the case then I am opposed to it. deficits are not per se bad, there is a time and a place for such things.
Deficits just should not be part of business as usual.
John, I sure we disagree on a lot of policies, but if the GOP is going to increase spending on war, and prescription drugs they shouldfind the revenue to pay for it.
I gave GWB a pass in 2002 and 03 on account of unexpected surprises (to put it mildly) but now there is no excuse. Cut entitlements or raise taxes those are the options. The GOP has shown no inclantion to do either. Therefore they are unfit to run the US Government.
John Cole
John, I sure we disagree on a lot of policies, but if the GOP is going to increase spending on war, and prescription drugs they shouldfind the revenue to pay for it.
I’m with you 90%. I was just questioning the characterization that Byrd is for Pay/Go as a matter of his bedrock hard devotion to fiscal responsibility.
I am all for fiscal discipline, but it won’t be achieved my gimmicks and partisan ploys like this.
Fledemaus
Yes, but.
(the collary of no, if)
I can only assume, if he holds true to the Dem line that if Byrd proposed increased spending he would also propose new taxes to pay for it. I would certainly expect him to.
If he didn’t I would say “Shame, shame on you Sen. Byrd” and wouldn’t vote for him ever. Thankfully I’m not in that position. You, however, are.
Rick
We have to cover the cost of the tax cuts, cuts in social security, and now cuts in other programs? Screw that.
I don’t know what can possible be the “cost” of a tax cut, but ar we cutting SS and other programs? Sweet!
Why didn’t John Cole post the good news?
Cordially…