Ryan: Deficit committee unlikely to achieve anything remarkable

posted at 7:30 pm on August 7, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Not that my hopes as to what the Super Committee would accomplish were ever that high, but it still hurts to hear one of my congressional heroes call out the improbability of any meaningful accomplishment emerging from the work of the joint committee. The Wall Street Journal reports:

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), a top choice among Republicans for a deficit-cutting super-committee formed last week, on Sunday sought to tamp down expectations for the panel.

“I don’t think a grand bargain is going to come out of this,” Mr. Ryan said on Fox News Sunday. He said that any deal for more than the $1.5 trillion in deficit-reduction over 10 years that the committee is charged with finding would depend on whether Democrats were willing to agree to overhaul entitlement programs. “I don’t see any agreement from the other side getting anywhere close to doing that,” he said. …

“People are overemphasizing what this committee is going to achieve,” Mr. Ryan said.

“I want to make sure people understand that I don’t think this is going to be a committee that is going to fix all our fiscal problems,” he said.

Of course Ryan is right. So far, all that has ever proceeded from the painful and prolonged deliberations surrounding any budget debate — starting with the CR debates at the outset of this congressional session — is the absolute bare minimum to preserve the status quo. But that doesn’t mean whoever ends up on the Committee shouldn’t try — or that those of us watching and commenting shouldn’t encourage their attempt.

In the same Fox interview, the House Budget Committee Chairman was also cool about the credit downgrade. “We more or less saw this coming,” Ryan said. That’s certainly the reasonable position to take, even though everybody from George Will to David Axelrod seems determined to write off the downgrade as anything but what it was: An accurate (and should-have-been-expected!) reflection of the nation’s lack of perfect creditworthiness. Now is certainly the time to stop the blame game — whether whom the pols and pundits are blaming is S&P, the Tea Party, Democrats or Republicans — and focus on solutions. May I humbly recommend the plan put forward by my former employer, The Heritage Foundation? Or, for that matter, the original Ryan budget?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

We will continue to have committees till they find one that says we need to tax and spend more.

Grunt on August 7, 2011 at 7:32 PM

I saw Ryan on Fox News and he had some good ideas, as usual. He did not say that the Super Committee could not accomplish anything..he was just pointing that their goal is to cut a certain amount of spending and that in the long term it will take real reform etc for a change..he did say that he thought there might be some tax reform.

Terrye on August 7, 2011 at 7:34 PM

Ryan: Deficit committee unlikely to achieve anything remarkable

darwin-t on August 7, 2011 at 7:35 PM

I don’t think it fooled S&P either.

Only another large flock of Tea Party patriots to join those there now including one to replace the Chief will have chance to save the nation.

Speakup on August 7, 2011 at 7:35 PM

What you are saying is that nothing will really happen. Right now it looks like a really good deal for the Dems (they got 2.4 trillion more to spend) while we conservatives took it in the shorts and we weren’t even allowed to lubricate up.

chemman on August 7, 2011 at 7:38 PM

(they got 2.4 trillion more to spend)

chemman on August 7, 2011 at 7:38 PM

And Obama is on record saying that he would rather talk about all the new programs he wants to start.
I can’t wait to see cost overrun on these new programs.

Electrongod on August 7, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Allah- nothing will change until ALL congressmen have motivation to change spending- so let’s give them an incentive- a cool $1 mil each if the budget is balanced. Then liberal and conservative alike will fight to control spending. An amendment won’t- look how many they ignore now

drballard on August 7, 2011 at 7:47 PM

All anyone in Washington knows to do is to blame someone else.

Tea Party members were the first to try to make meaningful reform of runaway Federal spending.

The President is the leader of the government. He has to accept the responsibility for not achieving anything. He has to accept responsibility for the S&P downgrade.

But don’t hold your breath for the President or anyone in Congress to accept responsibility for not making effective reduction of the unsustainable government spending.

slp on August 7, 2011 at 7:48 PM

The founders knew folks are motivated by self interest- why in the world would they cut spending? There’s nothing in it for them. Give them some skin in the game

drballard on August 7, 2011 at 7:49 PM

The libs want to raise taxes on the “wealthy.” not because even the wealthiest have the taxable income or wealth to make more than a drop in the bucket of our debt–but purely to have R’s on record raising taxes despite their pledge not to.

These are dangerous times. I will reiterate: If/when the Dems lose and lose big in 2012, it could all be over for the Far Left as we know and (don’t) love it. They are desperate, and will pull any trick in the book to survive.

Sekhmet on August 7, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Don’t project.

You are damaging your own message. We are optimistic that the plans the GOP have presented for the last 7 months are viable and palatable for all parties. Not just Dems and R’s, but for Indies and the Democratic wing of the illegal immigrant soon to emerge party.

/Doy

Key West Reader on August 7, 2011 at 7:52 PM

skin in the game

drballard on August 7, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Obama Toxic Branding

Key West Reader on August 7, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Electrongod on August 7, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Another Obama Toxic Talking Point.

“Everyone loves new Programs”

/You heard it here first, on Hot Air.

Key West Reader on August 7, 2011 at 7:57 PM

These are dangerous times. I will reiterate: If/when the Dems lose and lose big in 2012, it could all be over for the Far Left as we know and (don’t) love it. They are desperate, and will pull any trick in the book to survive.

Sekhmet on August 7, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Voter fraud will be an issue, however, when they do lose, I anticipate major civil unrest fueled by race baiters and unions.

a capella on August 7, 2011 at 8:05 PM

When have there EVER been cuts in the budget? Ever? It’s always cuts in the “out years”. WhateverTF THAT means. The “out years”. Right up there with unicorns and fairies. I’ll believe it when I see it. No. It won’t happen.

Paul-Cincy on August 7, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Nothing is possible with this President. He is too set on his re-election and preserving his Medi-Scare tactics to get anything done…

RedSoxNation on August 7, 2011 at 8:15 PM

When have there EVER been cuts in the budget? Ever? It’s always cuts in the “out years”. WhateverTF THAT means. The “out years”. Right up there with unicorns and fairies. I’ll believe it when I see it. No. It won’t happen.
Paul-Cincy on August 7, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Two words: Calvin Coolidge…

RedSoxNation on August 7, 2011 at 8:17 PM

All of this means nothing…

… until an actual budget is put into place based on current revenues, and any spending over that budget is stopped.

Not future “cuts” in increased spending amounts…

… Actual spending over the budget.

Until then, every day we get further into debt by hundreds of billions of dollars until our currency is worthless…

Now who would want to do that?

Seven Percent Solution on August 7, 2011 at 8:21 PM

You wanna talk “Grand Bargain.” Hey, how’s this for a grand bargain? Obama and Biden submit their resignations in the morning and Boehner becomes President. In addition, Reid submits his and goes back to Nevada to tend to his pomegranate trees and rose bushes, while at least 30 of the D Senators, a little more than we need but, God knows, we still have Snowe, Collins, McCain, Graham, Brown, etc., submit their resignations as well.

Our part of the bargain: to fix the damn mess in 90 days.

TXUS on August 7, 2011 at 8:21 PM

This is why my first choice for President was Mitch Daniels, who is the closest thing to Coolidge…

RedSoxNation on August 7, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Allah-

drballard on August 7, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Are you praying or did Tina change her name…?

/

Seven Percent Solution on August 7, 2011 at 8:23 PM

Dow futures down 230 @ 2030. Gold up $22 to $1685/oz. All of this was totally predictable. Like watching a slow-motion train wreck. Heckuva job, Benny.

shawk on August 7, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Dow futures down 230 @ 2030. Gold up $22 to $1685/oz.

shawk on August 7, 2011 at 8:34 PM

My mouth is worth a fortune.
Oh wait…
I don’t have any crowns.
I picked the wrong time not to invest in my mouth.

Electrongod on August 7, 2011 at 8:38 PM

NOTHING will get done because the Dimocrats will want more taxes and the Republicans HAD BETTER hold the line. Stand by for the automatic triggers.

The Republic’s only hope is to vote out PBHO and elect as MANY Republicans to the US Senate in 2012, and again in 2014.

Khun Joe on August 7, 2011 at 8:41 PM

Allah- nothing will change until ALL congressmen have motivation to change spending- so let’s give them an incentive- a cool $1 mil each if the budget is balanced. Then liberal and conservative alike will fight to control spending. An amendment won’t- look how many they ignore now

drballard on August 7, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Like your concept, but they spill a million at lunch each day. I say go for $100 million each with $1 billion to Obama (that’s only a one-time $54.5 billion), but with a condition or two. The balancing of the budget can only be done via spending cuts, and after lowering all corporate and individual tax rates to no more than 25% at the highest bracket. Second, they only get their stash upon retirement but it is voided should they vote to ever mess with this formula or, in Obama’s case take any executive action to do so. Finally, all regulatory changes that have been made since January 20, 2009, must be repealed and all executive departments having regulatory authority must stand down for a moratorium period of two years.

P.S. Allah ain’t here on this one and, by God, how could any red-blooded, guy forget Tina?

TXUS on August 7, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Allah- nothing will change until ALL congressmen have motivation to change spending- so let’s give them an incentive- a cool $1 mil each if the budget is balanced. Then liberal and conservative alike will fight to control spending. An amendment won’t- look how many they ignore now

drballard on August 7, 2011 at 7:47 PM

I wish we could give those particular politicians an incentive but I’m not sure about money. They love power more than money, and the liberals live for the making of their socialist utopia.

youngTXcon on August 7, 2011 at 8:49 PM

They couldn’t even change a flat tire without F’in it up… and this economy stuff is much harder than that./duh
-

RalphyBoy on August 7, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Allah- nothing will change until ALL congressmen have motivation to change spending- so let’s give them an incentive- a cool $1 mil each if the budget is balanced. Then liberal and conservative alike will fight to control spending. An amendment won’t- look how many they ignore now

drballard on August 7, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Dangling a carrot can be effective.

But I think a stick is also needed: Base their pay and their staff budgets on the ratio of tax revenue to spending. A 40% cut in pay and staff would get their attention.

iurockhead on August 7, 2011 at 9:00 PM

See to keep taxes down you add another mil if they keep revenue at 18% of GDP. As for the power, the only current power is the senior members bribing the freshmen with appropriations. But if we give em a million based on results, the seniority thing loses it’s luster
Sorry about the Allah thing, Tina

drballard on August 7, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Like the addendums txus- that keeps em honest. I really think it would work- costs less than a billion, keeps both parties wanting to keep spending down and most congressmen would vote for it. An amendment process would be watered down too much to have teeth. If the motivation is there, they’ll find the cuts

drballard on August 7, 2011 at 9:32 PM

Hell if beck or rush started talking about it, it’s an actual
Soluton that works no mater who’s in power

drballard on August 7, 2011 at 9:34 PM

A new troll name “CRN66″ is haunting the blog. I suspect it is the replacement of “CRR66″.

andy85719 on August 7, 2011 at 9:35 PM

“A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain.” Lazarus Long

mrt721 on August 7, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Jobs Return to US
25% tariff on specific Chinese imports. 0% loans to manufacture those items here. Cap gains holiday for manufacturing investment here. Cut payroll taxes, reform tax codes. Repeal Ocare, Soxley, DudFrank & more. End ethanol subsidies, drill baby drill. Trump tp Treasury. Bolton to State. Thats a start…

Rea1ityCheck on August 7, 2011 at 10:24 PM

This thing is likely to fail before the members are even named. The Democrats will pick far leftists from extremely safe Democrat districts. There will be a surprising number of ( harder to criticize ) minorities. They will refuse to name their choices until the Republicans name theirs, and then they will claim the Republicans are too right wing which will be their excuse for choosing pure leftists, although it would have been the same choices no matter who the Republicans picked. They might decide to submit envelopes with the names all at once to get past the first stalemate.

If Boehner picks anyone except for the most fiscally conservative Republicans from the safest Republican districts, then he was a Democrat plant all along. Ryan doesn’t qualify as being fiscally conservative enough, nor is he from a totally safe district.

Buddahpundit on August 7, 2011 at 11:01 PM

Yep, should Obamacare get tossed out, the Dems (and any RINOs) on the commission are likely to look at it as an opportunity to SPEND more to make up for the “savings” of not implementing Obamacare…

drfredc on August 7, 2011 at 11:06 PM

The libs want to raise taxes on the “wealthy.” not because even the wealthiest have the taxable income or wealth to make more than a drop in the bucket of our debt–but purely to have R’s on record raising taxes despite their pledge not to…

Sekhmet on August 7, 2011 at 7:52 PM

True, they want to replay President George H. W. Bush’s predicament. They think that all they need is “Republican breaks promise not to raise taxes” and they will win again. Okay, it could work, but nothing is that simple.

slickwillie2001 on August 7, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Let’s get rid of every one of these wormy politicians and just put a permanent “committee” on salary. Then instead of the grandiose, ego stimulating position of “president”, we could hire the equivalent of a “city manager” and give him or her a corner office in the Pentagon or some other contracted building in or around the District of Columbia. They most likely wouldn’t accomplish much but their incompetence would be at a much lower cost than the current gaggle of babblers.

rplat on August 8, 2011 at 8:04 AM

Committee schmittee. If we had had real leaders during this debate there would be no committee. Committees = group think = nothing new.

RDE2010 on August 8, 2011 at 8:32 AM

Dow futures down 230 @ 2030. Gold up $22 to $1685/oz. All of this was totally predictable. Like watching a slow-motion train wreck. Heckuva job, Benny.

shawk on August 7, 2011 at 8:34 PM

Don’t give those copper thieves any ideas. Next thing you hear, they will be running around pulling teeth left and right, holding people hostage for the gold.

RDE2010 on August 8, 2011 at 8:36 AM

Many years ago, I had completed the course work for a Ph.D. in Computer Science and was looking for a job. An interesting position was with the Civil Service at a fairly good rate. But I could not be hired because there was a Federal Civil Service Hiring Freeze.
Question: Why haven’t we heard about a Civil Service Hiring Freeze?
Why isn’t this part of any package?
If a department really needs someone, get the person from elsewhere.
How about an Civil Service Promotion freeze and a wage freeze?
(I know that this would conflict with hiring across departments, but perhaps some kind of exception could be made for these cases.)
This should be added to any new package, and could be done completely separately. I bet a lot of people who are not in federal government would support this, and probably some in the government.

dswardstrom on August 8, 2011 at 10:18 AM