Rand Paul: This “backwards,” “status quo” budget plan stinks, and stinks badly.

posted at 7:41 pm on December 11, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

A quick addendum to what Allahpundit already predicted this afternoon; I think we can safely conclude which side Rand Paul is picking in this latest iteration of a budget battle, courtesy of the bipartisan machinations of Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Paul Ryan, and here’s the video to prove it. If Congress’s conservatives do decide to stage a major outcry against the plan, I’d expect Paul to be front-and-center, via RCP:

Paul: This budget deal is worse than a continuing resolution because it actually increases spending by $60 billion in the first two years and we know the history of Congress is that they lie. They don’t keep their word. So after two years, no budget deal is worth the paper it’s written on, it’s only worth something in the first year or two and, mark my words, they’ll go back on this deal also after a year or two and they don’t like it. So we should increase the spending cuts.

Cavuto: I think it is an example of the type of deal — maybe I’m wrong, I don’t want to put deals in his mouth or head — that a Chris Christie would come up with where they get deal done, it might not be perfect to either side but it keeps moving the ball forward. What do you think of that?

Paul: But here’s the problem, it doesn’t. It moves it backwards. It is worse than the status quo. The status quo will spend $60 billion less than the budget deal over the next two years. They do some ledger domain and do some shell games and they want to say that there’s less addition to the deficit, but over ten years, this deal will add $7 trillion to the deficit. It does not significantly alter our course. We’re still on a course for disaster.


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

I dunno… seems too “Mitchy”…

Jeddite on December 11, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Anything that Patty Blank Stare Murray is involved in will stink.

RovesChins on December 11, 2013 at 7:43 PM

Like I said in the other thread: I can see that the dem’s wanted to get rid of the sequester as their part of the “bargain,” and they got it.

What did the GOP want? Did they get it?

“Kick the can down the road” is not an objective, btw.

Wino on December 11, 2013 at 7:43 PM

GOP didn’t want the clean CR because they wanted to increase spending and taxes.

besser tot als rot on December 11, 2013 at 7:44 PM

I do believe we have our first voice for a filibuster.

Wonder if Reid will nuke it for legislation this time around?

ajacksonian on December 11, 2013 at 7:45 PM

What ever they pass that is not a continuing resolution becomes the PERMANENT new baseline for adding a few percentage a year to. Year after year after year, not counting all the new spending they will be adding, year after year, or rather, vote after vote after vote.

astonerii on December 11, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Well, there was that article about the ruling class.
Same side, different day.
The tea party puts a damper on that by actually be
Irving they represent we the people.

RovesChins on December 11, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Yes – thank you for blogging this. Dr./Senator Paul nails it.

22044 on December 11, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Good for you Senator Paul. Just don’t call GOP boytoy Paul Ryan a “Sellout” or Nicholle Wallace will raise her screechy, nasally scream three octaves and destroy you.

portlandon on December 11, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Can we just rename the ‘Grand Old Party’ to “The Bendover Party’ now?

ghostwalker1 on December 11, 2013 at 7:50 PM

What ever they pass that is not a continuing resolution becomes the PERMANENT new baseline for adding a few percentage a year to. Year after year after year, not counting all the new spending they will be adding, year after year, or rather, vote after vote after vote.

astonerii on December 11, 2013 at 7:45 PM

That is true, but even considering that the CR uses an increasing baseline – the CR using the old increasing baseline is still better than this crap sandwich offered by the GOP.

besser tot als rot on December 11, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Cavuto: “I think it is an example of the type of deal — maybe I’m wrong, I don’t want to put deals in his mouth or head — that a Chris Christie would come up with where they get deal done, it might not be perfect to either side but it keeps moving the ball forward.”

.
Hey NEIL ! . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . your definition of “moving the ball forward” conflicts with ours.

listens2glenn on December 11, 2013 at 7:52 PM

“Those Teabaggers will never leave the GOP. They know their place.”

-McConnell/Boehner/Ryan/Cornyn/Rove/Bush

portlandon on December 11, 2013 at 7:53 PM

“It’s the best we can do when we only hold one part of Congress” Translation, bite us.

Cindy Munford on December 11, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Tell the rino’s didn’t coordinate the sebillus testimony today with this agreement. They figured we stupid morons in flyover country wouldn’t have noticed. WRONG!!!

This is about the rino’s scared about closing the government. If that is true, ALL THE SH*T YOU LIARS SAY DURING THE CAMPAIGN IS TOTAL BULL. But then again I already knew it.

Cruz, Palin, Mike lee, Paul and about 50 house republicans are all we got with principle.

By the way, mr amnesty Rubio, a bush guy, notice I didn’t mention you.

Danielvito on December 11, 2013 at 8:01 PM

There’s a headline running on “Yahoo News” right now: “What happens when President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and George W. Bush ride in Air Force One together”

A photo op of how the political class works together…to serve their own interests.

Why are we paying for the ex-Secretary of State, and all of her security personnel and staffers, to travel to Mandela’s funeral? Why are we paying for George W. Bush and all of his security personnel and staffers to travel to Mandela’s funeral? Why are we paying for Laura Bush and Bill Clinton to fly to Mandela’s funeral? Why are we paying for 24 members of congress to fly to Mandela’s funeral,and all of their attendant security personnel and staffers, particularly when the President and two former President’s and their wives were already attending?

Because they could get away with sticking the American taxpayers with the tab for their photo ops. Why? They’re members of that elitist private club known as the political class…and they deign to reign.

So now we’re discussing a budget deal wherein the GOP gets… nothing… except another round of photo ops. Those conservatives who dare object are vilified as ‘ridiculous’ by the Speaker of the House. Why?

The establishment political class deign to reign.

thatsafactjack on December 11, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Rand opposes primarying corrupt GOP elites? Isn’t that how he was elected with tea party support? Yet now he opposes the only strategy we have to take back the party from the corrupt elites? Rand Paul has been very disappointing to me, count me as unimpressed.

FloatingRock on December 11, 2013 at 8:13 PM

What ever they pass that is not a continuing resolution becomes the PERMANENT new baseline for adding a few percentage a year to. Year after year after year, not counting all the new spending they will be adding, year after year, or rather, vote after vote after vote.

[astonerii on December 11, 2013 at 7:45 PM]

You bring up a good point, Astonerii. If I understand you, what you are saying is that because Ryan struck a deal allowing an increase of $63B now, that $63B will also be added in every future budget for a ten year increase of $630B in spending?

I wonder just how right you are about this?

Dusty on December 11, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Cavuto: “I think it is an example of the type of deal — maybe I’m wrong, I don’t want to put deals in his mouth or head — that a Chris Christie would come up with where they get deal done, it might not be perfect to either side but it keeps moving the ball forward.”

Might not be perfect to either side? What are the Dems bitching about tonight? That the GOP didn’t cave enough? That the parasites might actually have to put in some hours at a job?

Sorry a compromise is when both sides are unhappy and the Dems couldn’t be happier with Benedict Ryan.

Happy Nomad on December 11, 2013 at 8:14 PM

I wonder just how right you are about this?

Dusty on December 11, 2013 at 8:14 PM

The next budget will be baseline.
The baseline is +40 billion next year. Figure a run up at 5% a year… Comes out to $503 billion over ten years.
It is how they work. In fact the only cuts we ever got was sequester, and the only reason it still exists is because of divided government. Somewhere along the lines Republicans in this congress decided they love Obama and Reid now.

astonerii on December 11, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Of course its status quo, Democrats run everything and Republicans are happy to go along to get along.

You voted for this.

Let it burn.

Neo on December 11, 2013 at 8:19 PM

It used to be that Democrats passed crap they didn’t know how to pay for and expected Republicans to do their dirty work and figure out how to do it.

That is still going on.

And the Republicans are paying for it the same way Democrats would, which is a win-win for Democrats… except everyone is pissed at them for passing this crap in the first place.

This Progressive party system cannot die fast enough for my liking.

ajacksonian on December 11, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Oh, by the way, here’s a budget chart for the next ten years showing spending with and without the sequester. Ace has it up in a post and I just found it again while looking for what each years sequestration cut might be, and I come to find out the sequestration is just a little less of a joke than this new Ryan-Murray deal.

Dusty on December 11, 2013 at 8:28 PM

This is the democrats budget deal – they have a large majority in the Senate and the President is a Democrat. The Republicans should put their own budget forward and let the democrats vote it down.

Why do we continue to pretend that we have any power to affect the outcome because we have a small majority in the House? We need to start operating like the minority parties do in a parliamentary system.

kcewa on December 11, 2013 at 8:36 PM

“legerdemain” not “ledger domain.”

Maybe it is in Kentucky.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on December 11, 2013 at 8:40 PM

FloatingRock on December 11, 2013 at 8:13 PM

Rand is your man if you are looking for a candidate who will advocate strongly for pot, amnesty and a drone ban.

Wigglesworth on December 11, 2013 at 8:46 PM

I’m tired of seeing Rand Paul’s carping every other day. He’s as tiresome as John McCain. He’s a freshman Senator, after all. He has no experience in government, but he seems to think this is his path to power. He’s a right wing version of Barack Obama.

flataffect on December 11, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Actually saying what I think we should do with congress to get them to balance the budget would get me banned.

I might involve a large wood-chipper, though.

trigon on December 11, 2013 at 8:54 PM

thatsafactjack on December 11, 2013 at 8:08 PM

Well said. These free loaders need to stop bilking us for their perks.

They are pimping our ride. Why don’t they pay for there own trip to the commie rats dirt nap ceremony.

SparkPlug on December 11, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Here we go shutdown, here we go!

libfreeordie on December 11, 2013 at 9:10 PM

Paul Ryan is also helping Harry Reid further gut the filibuster.

From NRO tonight:

Senate Republicans scrubbing the Ryan-Murray budget deal have come across a little-noticed provision that will limit the GOP’s ability to block tax increases in future years.

The bill includes language from the Senate Democrats’ budget to void a budget “point of order” against replacing the sequester cuts with tax increases.

The process is quite complicated, but in practice it grants Harry Reid the authority to send tax increases to the House with a bare majority, rather than the 60 vote threshold that would be required under the point of order.

The provision has angered key Republican Senators. Reeling from Harry Reid’s unprecedented use of the “nuclear option” to end the filibuster on presidential nominations, they are incredulous that Paul Ryan would have backed another limit to their power.

“This is an appalling power grab that should never have been allowed to be in a final agreement. It’s essentially the ‘nuclear option’ part two, eroding minority rights in the Senate even further. Harry Reid must be very happy,” a Senate GOP aide says.

A House aide says Reid can send tax bills to the House all he wants, since they will never fly in the lower chamber. “House Republicans would never approve a tax increase,” he says.

While the point is true, the change will likely give Reid a potent political cudgel with which to hit Republicans over, since passage of a bill can put pressure on the other chamber to follow suit.

In the Ryan-Murray bill, the change is found on 17-18 in the legislative text, where the bill sets up a “deficit neutral reserve fund” and incorporates 57 individual sections of the Senate Democrats’ budget as having “force and effect.”

These provisions are a big loophole for Paygo rules that give senators the authority to raise a point of order on spending and tax bills, setting a 60 vote threshold. There is a detailed explanation for the process in this 2009 document from then-Senator Judd Gregg’s staff when he was Budget Committee ranking member.

Although the (current) Senate rules generally require 60 votes for passage of a bill, a bill can be amended after cloture has been achieved. In the case of the fall shutdown fight, Republicans helped provide the 60 votes to obtain cloture on the CR, after which Reid took out the defunding Obamacare provision and passed the bill with a bare majority.

Under normal rules, even after cloture had been achieved, any amendment would still be subject to a point of order and 60 vote threshold if it “pays for” spending increases by raising taxes. The Ryan-Murray deal waives that point of order in many cases, prompting the fear that Reid will use it to put political pressure on the House to replace the sequester with new taxes.

Unbelievable.

Wethal on December 11, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Unbelievable.

Wethal on December 11, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Paul Ryan… The guy who came up with a 50 year budget that balances around the time the last baby boomers die, saddling younger generations with tens upon tens of trillions more debt.
You are surprised that he is allowing the government an easy button on increasing taxes?

astonerii on December 11, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Unbelievable.

Wethal on December 11, 2013 at 9:12 PM

You keep using that word. I don’t not think it means what you think it means.

Wino on December 11, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Actually saying what I think we should do with congress to get them to balance the budget would get me banned.

I might involve a large wood-chipper, though.

trigon on December 11, 2013 at 8:54 PM

.
Been taking lessons from Uday and Qusay Hussein?

listens2glenn on December 11, 2013 at 9:58 PM

A wise person once said watch what they do not what they say. Is this proof enough that the leadership in both parties are joined at the hip? Why did Boehner remove all conservative committee chairman and replace with his own people? I think we see why now! Unless we remove all this scum from office through the primary system we are in for worse down the road, and we will deserve it.

jainphx on December 11, 2013 at 9:59 PM

Boehner will push through amnesty, he’s just waiting for the proper (for him) moment, usually just before the recess, he’s done it on every thing he has caved on.

jainphx on December 11, 2013 at 10:02 PM

…good for Rand!

KOOLAID2 on December 11, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Here we go shutdown, here we go!

libfreeorgan on December 11, 2013 at 9:10 PM

…playing with your pecker again?

KOOLAID2 on December 11, 2013 at 10:09 PM

Damn this guy makes sense.

Murphy9 on December 11, 2013 at 10:11 PM

The shutdown/ sequester wasn’t that bad – may have saved a bit of cash.

Let’s have another one.

virgo on December 11, 2013 at 11:32 PM

I sure hope that Rand Paul tries to filibuster this and finds others to help him. I’m furious with the RINOs for trying to screw military retiree families yet again by taking away what very pitiful little cost of living increase my husband has been getting (that comes nowhere near keeping up with the real inflation rate).

sherrimae on December 11, 2013 at 11:44 PM

Hey Paul, what in the hell is your plan that will PASS both houses and get Obama to sign, this guy is a moron.

KBird on December 12, 2013 at 5:04 AM

Oh, by the way, here’s a budget chart for the next ten years showing spending with and without the sequester. Ace has it up in a post and I just found it again while looking for what each years sequestration cut might be, and I come to find out the sequestration is just a little less of a joke than this new Ryan-Murray deal.

Dusty on December 11, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Looking at the second chart here indicates that the deal is better for increasing defense spending versus the sequester.

SunSword on December 12, 2013 at 7:50 AM