What a minute-is this the way it's supposed to work? However, the framework on the one hand mitigates the sequester over the next few years and on the other hand has no grand bargain. I'd call that a win-win. The Heritage Foundation isn't happy-a feature not a bug.
" Heritage Action fired a warning shot Monday against an emerging budget agreement between Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) to set spending levels for a few years and mitigate some of the sequester cuts."
"Heritage Action cannot support a budget deal that would increase spending in the near-term for promises of woefully inadequate long-term reductions," the group said in a statement. "While imperfect, the sequester has proven to be an effective tool in forcing Congress to reduce discretionary spending, and a gimmicky, spend-now-cut-later deal will take our nation in the wrong direction."
"The group's leader, Michael Needham, said on Twitter that it isn't unequivocally opposed yet. "We have an open, but not empty, mind," he said.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/heritage-action-bashes-ryan-murray-budget-framework
Ahem-good to know they're going to keep an open but not an empty mind! The Washington Post editorial page isn't happy either-another feature not a bug.
"Where would that leave the nation’s financial outlook? Not in a particularly good place, budget analysts say. The most recent Congressional Budget Office projections show the red ink receding over the next two years. But annual deficits would start growing again in 2016 as the baby-boom generation moves inexorably into retirement. And the debt would again soar."
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/12/what-deficit-mania-doing-news-pages
As Krugman points out the claim that things are going to go down hill in 2016 aren't supported by any actual facts.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/counterattack-of-the-deficit-scold-deadenders/?_r=0
There isn't a lot of time with a December 13 deadline:
"Talks remain fluid and sources caution that a possible deal could still fall apart. But Senate Budget Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) and House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) are said to be more optimistic about an agreement than they have been. They've been speaking regularly and exchanging offers, and have narrowed the scope of the discussions to the more achievable goal of replacing the sequester for two or three years. No grand bargain, no long-term deal."
"The tricky part is how to satisfy each party's red line by the Dec. 13 deadline for the budget conference. "
"The contours of the potential deal are as TPM reported in late October. There is broad agreement that a portion of the sequester should be replaced with targeted cuts to discretionary spending. But Democrats demand revenues in the mix and Republicans categorically reject new taxes. So to thread that needle, sources familiar with the negotiations say, Murray and Ryan are weighing revenues in the form of asset sales and government fees, rather than Democrats' preference for raising revenue by scaling back tax loopholes."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/murray-ryan-budget-deal-sequester
The devil is certainly in the details on what the discretionary cuts are and what the fees are as well for that matter. If these fees bite the middle class and the poor more then it's counterproductive. The impetus of the deal is Dems who are sick of the cuts and Republicans who want to end the deep military cuts.
Murray however, has made it clear she will not agree to a deal that's lopsided towards nonmilitary cuts while getting rid of the defense cuts.
"Just 10 days remain for the budget conference committee, initiated by the Oct. 16 law to re-open the government and lift the debt ceiling, to hash out a deal. Murray and Ryan are seen as ideal negotiators as they are influential with their respective rank-and-file members as well as leadership. But there remain several sticking points that could derail the talks."
"The first is the topline spending level. Some conservatives, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), want next year's spending figure to be no higher than $967 billion, the sequestration level called for by the Budget Control Act. But replacing some of the automatic cuts with non-tax revenues would necessitate lifting that cap, which won't sit well with tea partiers who want to sustain every dollar of spending cuts they've extracted."
"The second is Democrats want a balanced deal that addresses the sequester's cuts to defense as well as domestic programs like health care, education and scientific research. Murray has drawn a line against a lopsided deal that unwinds the defense sequester but leaves the non-defense sequester in place. But Republicans are largely concerned with the military cuts and it's unclear how much Ryan will compromise to get rid of the domestic cuts."
That the VSP don't like the emerging deal is, again, a feature not a bug.
" Heritage Action fired a warning shot Monday against an emerging budget agreement between Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) to set spending levels for a few years and mitigate some of the sequester cuts."
"Heritage Action cannot support a budget deal that would increase spending in the near-term for promises of woefully inadequate long-term reductions," the group said in a statement. "While imperfect, the sequester has proven to be an effective tool in forcing Congress to reduce discretionary spending, and a gimmicky, spend-now-cut-later deal will take our nation in the wrong direction."
"The group's leader, Michael Needham, said on Twitter that it isn't unequivocally opposed yet. "We have an open, but not empty, mind," he said.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/heritage-action-bashes-ryan-murray-budget-framework
Ahem-good to know they're going to keep an open but not an empty mind! The Washington Post editorial page isn't happy either-another feature not a bug.
"Where would that leave the nation’s financial outlook? Not in a particularly good place, budget analysts say. The most recent Congressional Budget Office projections show the red ink receding over the next two years. But annual deficits would start growing again in 2016 as the baby-boom generation moves inexorably into retirement. And the debt would again soar."
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/12/what-deficit-mania-doing-news-pages
As Krugman points out the claim that things are going to go down hill in 2016 aren't supported by any actual facts.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/counterattack-of-the-deficit-scold-deadenders/?_r=0
There isn't a lot of time with a December 13 deadline:
"Talks remain fluid and sources caution that a possible deal could still fall apart. But Senate Budget Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) and House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) are said to be more optimistic about an agreement than they have been. They've been speaking regularly and exchanging offers, and have narrowed the scope of the discussions to the more achievable goal of replacing the sequester for two or three years. No grand bargain, no long-term deal."
"The tricky part is how to satisfy each party's red line by the Dec. 13 deadline for the budget conference. "
"The contours of the potential deal are as TPM reported in late October. There is broad agreement that a portion of the sequester should be replaced with targeted cuts to discretionary spending. But Democrats demand revenues in the mix and Republicans categorically reject new taxes. So to thread that needle, sources familiar with the negotiations say, Murray and Ryan are weighing revenues in the form of asset sales and government fees, rather than Democrats' preference for raising revenue by scaling back tax loopholes."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/murray-ryan-budget-deal-sequester
The devil is certainly in the details on what the discretionary cuts are and what the fees are as well for that matter. If these fees bite the middle class and the poor more then it's counterproductive. The impetus of the deal is Dems who are sick of the cuts and Republicans who want to end the deep military cuts.
Murray however, has made it clear she will not agree to a deal that's lopsided towards nonmilitary cuts while getting rid of the defense cuts.
"Just 10 days remain for the budget conference committee, initiated by the Oct. 16 law to re-open the government and lift the debt ceiling, to hash out a deal. Murray and Ryan are seen as ideal negotiators as they are influential with their respective rank-and-file members as well as leadership. But there remain several sticking points that could derail the talks."
"The first is the topline spending level. Some conservatives, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), want next year's spending figure to be no higher than $967 billion, the sequestration level called for by the Budget Control Act. But replacing some of the automatic cuts with non-tax revenues would necessitate lifting that cap, which won't sit well with tea partiers who want to sustain every dollar of spending cuts they've extracted."
"The second is Democrats want a balanced deal that addresses the sequester's cuts to defense as well as domestic programs like health care, education and scientific research. Murray has drawn a line against a lopsided deal that unwinds the defense sequester but leaves the non-defense sequester in place. But Republicans are largely concerned with the military cuts and it's unclear how much Ryan will compromise to get rid of the domestic cuts."
That the VSP don't like the emerging deal is, again, a feature not a bug.
No comments:
Post a Comment