Democrat Patty Murray and Republican Paul Ryan have jointly proposed a budget for the Federal Government. (http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/murray-ryan_leg_text.pdf) This is news since it is the first one since 2009, bipartisan, and has a chance of passage. It would seem from reports the only ones holding this historic achievement up are “conservatives”. The Republican leader of the House Boehner called those against it “using the American people for their own goals” and called opposition “ridiculous”. Though the Democrats didn’t get everything they wanted their support seems assured.
So what’s inside this budget deal, if you got the chance would you vote for it? The sound bites talk about some cuts to spending and highlight no new taxes. All looks good until you get a close look at the details. The 23 million in cuts sound substantial, but the fine print says it is over ten years and only for the last eight of those ten. No one could argue with no new taxes (except a liberal) but the sound bites don’t mention fees. The current $2.50 DHS (Department of Homeland Security) fee will jump to $5.60 per ticket. The increase isn’t even guaranteed to go to hire more molesters in training; it is destined for the general fund to be spent on….. whatever. Absolutely not mentioned in the sound bite is the 45 billion in new spending part of which is labeled as “sequester relief”. Without this budget spending would be $967 billion this budget allocates $1 trillion per year.
So the question is where does the extra money come from? One place is not renewing the extended unemployment benefits. Then health providers to the elderly are asked for their fair share by taking a 24% cut in payments for Medicare procedures. Lastly the Federal workforce is asked to contribute an additional 1.2% to their retirement fund.
So does this historic bipartisan bill meet or exceed your expectations of reigning in federal spending? Or does it justify your belief that Washington could care less what the people want. Does cutting .0028% of spending or 28 cents for every $100.00 sound like a draconian cut? Do fees cost the taxpayer less than tax increase or are the optics just better?
Patty Murray needs no excuse for wanting to increase spending and taking more money from taxpayers, she’s a Democrat. Paul Ryan is defending the budget by saying it is the way Washington is, not the way we want it to be. Democrats and liberals from local school boards to the President always start with a ridiculously high tax increase and then they can compromise on just a big tax increase. Conservatives should counter offer with a cut just as ridiculous, like reduce spending by half. That way if the liberals don’t meet in the middle at a cut they are the ones being obstructionist.
No one that is paying attention could say the government is too small or doesn’t spend enough. We are quickly arriving at the point where the system will collapse of its own weight. Just some facts to mull over. Federal spending grew at 69% higher than inflation over the last 20 years. Sixty four percent of the federal budget is major entitlements and other “income security”. (IE: unemployment, food and housing assistance) Do you agree that cutting .0028% of the federal budget will be enough?