Does it matter that the Ryan budget doesn’t balance?

posted at 3:40 pm on March 29, 2012 by Tina Korbe

As the House passes Paul Ryan’s latest budget, a minor controversy brews outside Congress about whether it matters that, according to the CBO, it doesn’t balance.

The controversy is occurring on the conservative side of the aisle — but it’s easy for liberals to exploit. Some lefties are already suggesting Ryan’s budget is proof positive that we can’t balance the budget without raising taxes, for example, and/or reviving the argument that, if deficit reduction really matters and Republicans refuse to raise taxes, then all spending cuts — including cuts to defense, which the Ryan budget reverses — should be on the table.

If we don’t want to become mired again in a debate about whether we should raise taxes, then now is the time for conservatives to rally around Ryan. For balanced budget diehards, the purest reason to support his budget is that Ryan says the budget will definitely balance by 2040 and could could balance within 10. Even if other experts are right that the U.S. might never have a balanced budget again, though, supporting Ryan’s budget is still the best way to avoid Obama’s tax trap, as The Wall Street Journal explained in a recent editorial:

The GOP critics are wrong on the economics and politics. Mr. Ryan’s plan may not balance the budget within 10 years, but that’s the wrong policy guidepost. Mr. Obama can easily balance the budget faster—by raising taxes.

Mr. Ryan wants to avoid a tax increase and reform the tax code because he realizes that the budget will never balance over the long term without economic growth faster than today’s 2% a year. By stressing budget balance over growth, Mr. Chocola and the tea-party critics are falling into Mr. Obama’s deficit and tax trap. …

They are also playing by the Beltway’s big-government budget rules. The critics on the right are judging Mr. Ryan’s budget according to Congressional Budget Office estimates that assume little or no economic benefit from better policy. Mr. Ryan’s official budget proposal follows CBO scoring, but he is also trying to break out of that straitjacket.

Voters have every reason to be skeptical of Republican promises, but Mr. Ryan’s budget is hardly a status quo document. It’s light years better than the Tom DeLay budgets of the 2000s.

Mr. Ryan is thinking ahead of his critics by focusing on the two most important priorities: growth and reform. Without both, limited government will be nothing more than a tea party slogan and a balanced budget will be nothing more than a tax-increase trap.

Similarly, shrinking from supporting the portion of Ryan’s bill that protects defense spending just encourages liberals to encourage spending cuts in that area. The Constitution mentions “providing for the common defense” as a major purpose of government, though. Surely, it shouldn’t be the first place we look to make cuts — and we have good reason to reevaluate the specific defense spending cap that was included in the Budget Control Act. In case you’ve forgotten, it was included to try to compel Republicans on the Super Committee to agree to tax hikes.

The Ryan budget enjoys the support of House leadership, most of the GOP faithful and leading conservative voices. While I’m always sympathetic to those who criticize policy from the rightmost possible perspective, this is definitely one of those occasions when we need to rally around the plan that exists instead of waiting for a perfect plan that nobody has presented.

Update: This post originally mistakenly suggested the CBO had corroborated Ryan’s claim that the budget would eventually balance, but CBO can’t actually project beyond 10 years. My thanks to Guy Benson for the correction.


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

What’s a budget?

Bmore on March 29, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Double Standards

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 29, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Double Standards

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 29, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Double the standards of your guy 0 , for sure.

Bmore on March 29, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Double Standards

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 29, 2012 at 3:43 PM

As opposed to y’alls no standards, and no budget.

cozmo on March 29, 2012 at 3:45 PM

It’s a start, which is more than can be said about anything Bambi and the Dems have done in the past 6 years.

teke184 on March 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM

0=no standards. No nothing, not much of anything really.

Bmore on March 29, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Ryan’s plan may not be my ideal solution, but with the political reality being what it is, and with Democrats having moved so far left on spending/taxation, I think it may be the best hope we have of at least beginning to apply the brakes. I have a ton of respect for Ryan for all his work to put forward a viable plan that at least moves us in the right direction. We’re going to have to accept that we won’t right this ship’s course in one fell swoop, much as we’d like to. The left has had success (if one may call it that) only because it began incrementally and gradually worked it’s way to Obamacare and similar statist schemes. We have to take every bit we can get, and build on it.

thirtyandseven on March 29, 2012 at 3:50 PM

While I’m always sympathetic to those who criticize policy from the rightmost possible perspective, this is definitely one of those occasions when we need to rally around the plan that exists instead of waiting for a perfect plan that nobody has presented.

The Republican Study Caucus submitted a budget that balances faster than Ryan’s ….. without raising taxes. Just cuts spending much deeper.

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 3:50 PM

On the batting deck….Team GOP!
—————————————

US House votes down Democrat budget proposal, 163-262; debate begins on GOP budget

Submitted 38 mins ago
http://www.breakingnews.com/
=============================

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 3:21 PM

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 3:50 PM

The Ryan budget may be ahead of the rest by an order of magnitude but it’s still a pile of used dog food. Until I see the exact names of the departments and federal program getting the chainsaw treatment, it’s all about arranging chairs on the Titanic.

Archivarix on March 29, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Jus Rollin in!

US House OKs $3.5 trillion GOP budget that revamps Medicare, cuts spending, rejects tax hikes on rich

Submitted 6 mins ago by editor
===============================

@frankthorpNBC tweeted:
***********************

House GOP budget now has 218 with 45 members yet to vote.

Submitted 15 mins ago from twitter.com/frankthorpNBC
http://www.breakingnews.com/
=============================

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 3:39 PM

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Safe bet that Ryan’s budget gets more support than Obama’s budget.

Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 3:52 PM

RE:Budget!

@politico tweeted:
*******************

The House approves Rep. Paul Ryan’s fiscal 2013 budget on a partisan 228-191 vote.

Submitted 9 mins ago from twitter.com/politico
http://www.breakingnews.com/
============================

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 3:41 PM

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 3:52 PM

It’s a starting point. Question though. Doesn’t Paul Ryan also support a balanced budget amendment? So if that were to pass under a GOP Congress next year and signed into law by President Romney(who’s also publicly supported it), wouldn’t they be required by law to balance the budget before 2023?

Doughboy on March 29, 2012 at 3:52 PM

So,looks like a rough/tough day for Hopey,this too went down in
Political flames!!
——————–

O/T…..Team Obama loses once again!
———————————–

US Senate defeats oil subsidies bill despite Obama’s call for Congress to pass the bill –

@nationaljournalStory
Submitted 2 hours ago from nationaljournal.com
http://www.breakingnews.com/
=============================

Updated: March 29, 2012 | 2:08 p.m.
March 29, 2012 | 11:57 a.m.
http://nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/despite-obama-s-call-senate-blocks-oil-subsidies-bill-20120329
*****************************************

US President Obama says oil companies are raking in record profits, must cut tax subsidies to them – @ReutersStory

Submitted 4 hours ago from af.reuters.com
==========================================

@markknoller tweeted:
*********************

In Rose Garden, Pres Obama says the three biggest U.S. oil companies took home more than $80 billion in profit & dont need US subsidies.

Submitted 4 hours ago from twitter.com/markknoller
http://www.breakingnews.com/
============================

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 3:17 PM

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Two things:
1) ryans budget is nowhere near enough. We need to stop accumulating new debt, and begin paying down old debt while interest rates are still (artificially) low before just paying the interest on the debt eats up our whole budget. As in cutting trillions from this years budget, not cutting rate of growth for the future (which no future house is tied to voting for either).
2) Tina, no offense, but you seem to have very little insight into or knowledge of a fair share of the issues you write about.

Timin203 on March 29, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Textbook leftist argument – non sequitur buzzword:

Double Standards

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 29, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Care to actually make a point?

peski on March 29, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Double Standards

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 29, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Care to actually make a point?

peski on March 29, 2012 at 3:57 PM

I was wondering, but declined to ask…maybe because I doubt any answer that person would give would be worth reading.

bridgetown on March 29, 2012 at 4:00 PM

2) Tina, no offense, but you seem to have very little insight into or knowledge of a fair share of the issues you write about.

Timin203 on March 29, 2012 at 3:56 PM

“No offense.” Uh-huh. Nobody’s making you read this stuff, pal.

In the meantime, let’s hear your genius proposal that both accomplishes your impossible conditions and gets more than ten votes in each house of Congress.

KingGold on March 29, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Tina – ignore the misogyny. Females scare them. Beautiful young women terrify them.

Your biggest critics are Buffalo Bill wannabes who prefer to “tuck it and dance” to Q Lazzarus.

ROFLMAO!

Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Double Standards

0bamaderangementsyndrom on March 29, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Care to actually make a point?

peski on March 29, 2012 at 3:57 PM

That’s an impossibility for that one.

Bitter Clinger on March 29, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Me thinks the Democrat Budget,is in the same boat as the Democrat
IMAGINARY Jobs Plan,and its almost heading to 4 years in Team blues
term,

and it spells…..Cat 0 Strophic Failure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 4:04 PM

2) Tina, no offense, but you seem to have very little insight into or knowledge of a fair share of the issues you write about.

Timin203 on March 29, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Its a dang good thing you ain’t forced to read this stuff. Ain’t it?

Now go get Miss Korbe a Dr Pepper.

cozmo on March 29, 2012 at 4:05 PM

I believe that a “balanced budget” amendment is worth nothing and is only political cover for those supporting it.

Would it be desirable to have a balanced budget even if it spends 3 trillion dollars? Is it okay for a budget to balanced but spend 5 trillion?

What is being done to combat the continued use of the Federal Reserve to add to the debt and deficits? That has nothing to do with taxes yet it is a way for the Treasury to continue to borrow money (at interest of course) from our own central bank.

I haven’t read the Ryan proposal. Does it address this issue?

joey24007 on March 29, 2012 at 4:06 PM

2) Tina, no offense, but you seem to have very little insight into or knowledge of a fair share of the issues you write about.

Timin203 on March 29, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Um, is this because you disagree with Tina’s analysis, or is there some legitimate reason the perfectly relevant insight she provided in a well-written, longer-than-average post strikes you as uninformed?

thirtyandseven on March 29, 2012 at 4:08 PM

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Did you see that the Maine twins, Collins and Snowe, voted with the Dems to cut that oil subsidy?

onlineanalyst on March 29, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Its a dang good thing you ain’t forced to read this stuff. Ain’t it?

Now go get Miss Korbe a Dr Pepper.

cozmo on March 29, 2012 at 4:05 PM

That’s Dr. Paper. Show some respect to the college president.

Doughboy on March 29, 2012 at 4:10 PM

Timin203 on March 29, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Put the lotion in the fricking basket!!!

Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 4:10 PM

I’ve always wondered how demented minds think you can tax the living h#ll out of people in a recession. It’s like trying to whip a mule to go faster after he’s been pulling your cart at full speed for the past 20 miles.

You don’t ever get more of anything that way.

Turtle317 on March 29, 2012 at 4:13 PM

The Republicans can and have sent a lot of bills cutting spending to balance the budget to the Senate to no avail. This budget is for the year that begins October 2012, and can be balanced by the Republican President, after he is inaugurated.

I am with Ryan in spirit, and on Medicare reform. Now that the House has passed a budget it goes to the Senate.

It is time to force Harry Reid to vote on the Obama budget and vote on this one. They can’t let him hide, he was supposed to be passing a Budget every year, and he has not put one on the Table for the first year of the next Presidency. Let’s SEE it.

Without a Budget, Harry Reid intends not to spend any more money? That’s what it means to me. Harry wants to Shut down the government in October before an election.

Fleuries on March 29, 2012 at 4:14 PM

At least we are submitting, voting on, and passing budgets…

See “Epic fail” a.k.a. Senate Dimocrats for the last 3 years… AND COUNTING!!

Khun Joe on March 29, 2012 at 4:14 PM

While I’m always sympathetic to those who criticize policy from the rightmost possible perspective, this is definitely one of those occasions when we need to rally around the plan that exists instead of waiting for a perfect plan that nobody has presented.

When the budget pushed by Santorum and others was written into law by Clinton. It was not supposed to balance anywhere near as soon as it did.

The CBO is terribly flawed at predicting anything. Just like Obama Care is far more expensive. Tax Savings are always short changed by the CBO who ignores that people ever do things to save on their taxes.

Steveangell on March 29, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Can we safely assume then that another bill, a bipartisan one, was shot down? It presumed full funding for Obamacare.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/294728/budget-alert-rich-lowry

onlineanalyst on March 29, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Mr. Ryan is thinking ahead of his critics by focusing on the two most important priorities: growth and reform.

Do not discount the power of these two cornerstones. Reform begets cuts which allows growth. Growth will do more than cuts alone. Tax revenue vs welfare payments is a clear path towards fiscal sanity.

DanMan on March 29, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Without a Budget, Harry Reid intends not to spend any more money? That’s what it means to me. Harry wants to Shut down the government in October before an election.

Fleuries on March 29, 2012 at 4:14 PM

You can blame Harry Reid if you want.

Fact is establishment Republicans like Romney spend and tax nearly as much as Obama and Harry Reid.

Nominating Romney is saying we do not care in the least about balancing the budget. I do not believe that Romney would ever sign anything near to what even Ryan wants. Not after he uses his Etch-A-Sketch.

There is a Reason we lost the House and Senate twice. It is Establishment Republicans huge spending habits.

Steveangell on March 29, 2012 at 4:24 PM

this is definitely one of those occasions when we need to rally around the plan that exists instead of waiting for a perfect plan that nobody has presented.

No it is not perfect but a journey of a 1000 miles starts with the first step. My concern is how to we keep moving forward since his budget takes at 38 years to get into balance.

chemman on March 29, 2012 at 4:24 PM

It’s a step in the right direction either way, any Senate Republican that doesn’t vote should be ousted in November.

Blacksoda on March 29, 2012 at 4:27 PM

It doesn’t matter if the budget is unbalanced, spending needs to be reduced, and Ryan’s plan doesn’t do that. I’d rather have an unbalanced budget of 10 billion than a balanced budget of 1 trillion.

Dante on March 29, 2012 at 4:27 PM

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 3:55 PM
————————————–

Did you see that the Maine twins, Collins and Snowe, voted with the Dems to cut that oil subsidy?

onlineanalyst on March 29, 2012 at 4:09 PM

onlineanalyst:Crap,Judas’s once again,dug this up,oh thanks for the
heads up,and read down below on Obama’s thoughts!!:)
==================================================================

Senate Votes to Keep Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies
March 29, 2012, 1:06 p.m.
*************************
After almost a week of political jockeying, the Senate today rejected legislation that would repeal tax breaks for the biggest five oil companies and would extend 19 renewable energy tax subsidies that expired at the end of 2011 or are near expiring.

The Senate voted 51-47, failing to reach the 60 votes needed to cut off debate.

The 47 votes against the bill included Democratic Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Mary Landrieu (La.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Jim Webb (Va.), who voted with Republicans against cutting off debate on the bill.

Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Olympia Snowe (Maine) joined with most other Democrats in supporting the measure.

Minutes before the Senate vote, President Barack Obama exhorted the chamber to finally eliminate oil company subsidies after a century.

“American oil is booming,” he said. “The oil industry is doing fine. With record profits and rising production, I’m not worried about the big oil companies. With high oil prices around the world, they’ve got more than enough incentive to produce even more oil.”

Obama also poured cold water on the argument that increased production would lower prices.

“The fact that we’re doing more here in the United States doesn’t necessarily help us, because even U.S. oil companies, they’re selling that oil on a worldwide market. They’re not keeping it just for us,” he said.(More…)
=============================

http://www.rollcall.com/news/senate_votes_to_keep_oil_and_gas_tax_subsidies-213534-1.html?zkMobileView=true

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Speaking of Budgets…Socialist Liberals across da planet
will have there heads explodey reading this!
——————————————–

Canada Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s budget proposes $5.2 billion in cuts, slashes public service – @CTVNationalNewsStory

Submitted 55 secs ago from http://www.ctv.ca
http://www.breakingnews.com/
============================

canopfor on March 29, 2012 at 4:32 PM

There is a Reason we lost the House and Senate twice. It is Establishment Republicans huge spending habits.

Steveangell on March 29, 2012 at 4:24 PM

If only Obama would redistribute some of his own wealth…

Video: One last point on deficit blame-shifting

Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 4:33 PM

and the 10 year old Chinese Oil Government has not overtaken as the largest Oil Production Company in the world.

CoffeeLover on March 29, 2012 at 4:36 PM

oops that should read…Chinese Oil Company!!!!

But it is their government that has been buying up every energy company and rare earth find over these past 10 years. They also open 3 coal fired plants every week.

CoffeeLover on March 29, 2012 at 4:38 PM

“The fact that we’re doing more here in the United States doesn’t necessarily help us, because even U.S. oil companies, they’re selling that oil on a worldwide market. They’re not keeping it just for us,” he said.(More…)

Wow, most economically ignorant president ever?

joey24007 on March 29, 2012 at 4:43 PM

So much for that bipartisanship used to whitewash Obama’s effort.
Thought we had something going there for a minute.

Jabberwock on March 29, 2012 at 4:49 PM

For balanced budget diehards, the purest reason to support his budget is that Ryan says the budget will definitely balance by 2040 and could could balance within 10.

Tina, I’m sorry, but this is ridiculous. The purest reason to support it is that it will definitely balance in 28 years??? The liberals would be quite right to laugh in our faces and say that our talk about getting serious about the budget is smoke and mirrors.

First off, any budget making predictions out 28 years — or even 10 years, for that matter — is just fantasy. Future Congresses are not bound to what a previous Congress does. And each Congress will pass its own budget that may or may not stick to what this year’s budget counted on. You can’t count on anything except what’s signed into law as this year’s budget.

Secondly, I still don’t thik people, even on our side, get it. This country will not survive with 28 more years of deficit spending. It may not even survive with 10. I’m tired of hearing about “the most reasonable option currently on the table” or “the lack of political will”. If the country collapses, none of it matters.

The only thing that will right this ship is to balance the budget, and now. Ten or twenty years from now, we shouldn’t just be getting to the point of balance, we should be getting to the point of surplus so that we can pay down the national debt. Any other approach is folly.

Shump on March 29, 2012 at 4:55 PM

If it does not cut spending back to 18 or 19% of GDP within 4 years, then it does matter. Remember that the next year means a new budget. The only year that the budget matters is the one it is spending money on. All the rest are just simply projections with no power to make happen.
Essentially, he wants to spend more in the year he starts his 10 year projection and then claim they will make the harder choices later. All lies. DO IT NOW.

astonerii on March 29, 2012 at 5:04 PM

according to the CBO, it doesn’t balance.

Hahahahaha!!! WHO? The CBO? Hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!

GarandFan on March 29, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Ryan says the budget will definitely balance by 2040 and could could balance within 10.

Clinton did it faster than that.

HOORAY! ESTABLISHMENT GOP!!

More promises … promises … we’ll do it tomorrow … keep electing us … just one more term and we’ll cut government … you can trust us be we gotta have the senate … you can trust us but we gotta have a veto proof majority.

YOU HAD EVERYTHING FROM 2001 TO 2006 AND DESTROYED THE ECONOMY!! YOU KNEW FRED AND FAN WERE A PROBLEM AND SAT ON YOUR FARKING HANDS WHEN YOU OWNED THE WHOLE GOVERNMENT.

LIARS.

HondaV65 on March 29, 2012 at 5:30 PM

thirtyandseven on March 29, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Well put. A pol who offers you a balanced budget in less time is lying. It’s that simple. There is no way that the political realities of this nation would allow such a thing to ever make it out of committee, let alone see the light of day.

MJBrutus on March 29, 2012 at 5:35 PM

The only thing that makes the Ryan plan better than the Democrat plan is there is a plan. If there’s anything one should take away from the failure of the USSR is these centralized plans and societies just don’t work.

drfredc on March 29, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Paul Ryan’s proposal is just a fig leaf allowing the R Party and the complicit media, which also doesn’t want to cut spending, to pretend to support so-called strong spending cuts when in reality it’s just a dog and pony show or band-aid approach that allows the spending binge to continue essentially unchanged.

If Republicans were serious about spending cuts they would be hyping and building on Rand Paul’s budget which balances in five years, which sounds like more than enough time to me. I think one or two years sounds more like it, but five years is better than entire generations.

FloatingRock on March 29, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Only A Dr. Ron Paul budget or a Justin Amash Budget makes any reall progress in getting the debt down.

Zaz on March 29, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Current budget driving USA off the cliff.

Paul Ryan’s plan is gently tapping on the breaks.

Will this starting point be enough to stop catastrophe?

Maybe, maybe not.

V-rod on March 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM

I love Ryan but this budget is going nowhere. It will not pass both houses and is not even handed in its pragmatism.

Spending needs to be drastically reduced, but you’ll have to raise revenues as well. It’s just a fact of life.

(A), nothing will make it through without that compromise from both sides.

(B), it’s the most rational and pragmatic way to deal with debt.

This seems, to me, as if it should be obvious.

Boomer_Sooner on March 29, 2012 at 6:32 PM

If you accept the argument that deficits below some magical percent of GDP far into the future are OK then you are basically saying “I want what I want now and I will let some future generation pay the price”.

Nomas on March 29, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Remind me why Paul Ryan, who voted for the unfunded monstrosity that is Medicare Part D, is taken at all seriously as any sort of deficit hawk?

Or perhaps Tina gives away the game in acknowledging that it doesn’t really matter much whether the Ryan plan balances the budget, as long as it doesn’t raise taxes…

El Txangurro on March 29, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Budget balancing doesn’t matter? This is one of many reasons why many conservatives view the Republican Party as really being equal with the Democratic Party in terms of credibiltiy. I’ll remember this comment the next time I go shopping and marvel at how much prices are rising. Pffft!

love2rumba on March 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

The Ryan budget may be ahead of the rest by an order of magnitude but it’s still a pile of used dog food. Until I see the exact names of the departments and federal program getting the chainsaw treatment, it’s all about arranging chairs on the Titanic.

Archivarix on March 29, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I like the Titanic analogy, but I’d say Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Krugman are like the Captain and the designer who insist that the US can never sink so they’re sailing full speed ahead straight for the iceburg.

Paul Ryan is the poor guy steering the ship trying to change course enough avoid crashing into the iceburg.

Ron Paul would hijack the ship and turn it around, but he’s stuck in the brig and can’t get to the bridge.

Right now, Ryan looks like our best chance to avoid total disaster.

The best chance of getting a Ryan budget or better is for the Republican nominee-whoever it is- to win in the fall. ABO 2012.

talkingpoints on March 29, 2012 at 10:13 PM

Did you see that the Maine twins, Collins and Snowe, voted with the Dems to cut that oil subsidy?

onlineanalyst on March 29, 2012 at 4:09 PM

….those two don’t understand what a tax credit is…as usual.

KOOLAID2 on March 29, 2012 at 11:14 PM

Even the Conservative budget in Ottawa is better than this one.

AshleyTKing on March 30, 2012 at 12:30 AM

I want to see a balanced budget.

Karmashock on March 30, 2012 at 1:33 AM