Ace of Spades HQ

March 29, 2012

Ryan Budget Passes House; 10 Republicans Defect To Vote Against It
— Ace

The ten Republicans voting Nay: Amash, Barton, Duncan (TN), Gibson, Huelskamp, Jones, McKinley, Platts, Rehberg, Whitfield. (via @bdomenech)

This story from a couple of hours ago, before the vote.

"We have one of the most predictable economic crises in this country coming. It's a debt-driven crisis. And so we have an obligation -- not just a legal obligation but a moral obligation -- to do something about it," Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, said Thursday morning. GOP leaders "think the key components are to get spending under control, reform our entitlement programs" and help stimulate economic growth.

He's making the appeal he made before in his video (second video posted below) -- What if Congress knew about the coming financial meltdown of 2008 for ten or fifteen or twenty or thirty years, and took no action to stop it?

Well, that's what the entitlement crisis is. They've known, conclusively, about this approaching problem since at least the mid-80s. They pegged the crisis to the year. We know exactly what happens when the massive cohort of Baby Boomers begins drawing on monies that don't exist.

Ryan demolished Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's typical airhead demagoguery (first video below).

(via @melissatweets)

Posted by: Ace at 11:29 AM | Comments (131)
Post contains 217 words, total size 2 kb.

1 That video is awesome.

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2012 11:30 AM (P6QsQ)

2 OT early but I'm taking a quick break, but, umm.... WTF

V bad if true --

tiny.cc/gu5xbw

Carry on.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at March 29, 2012 11:31 AM (pLTLS)

3 I was referring to the House Budget Trailer video - haven't seen the first clip regarding Debbie. I'll watch that one now - thanks for posting these Ace.

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2012 11:32 AM (P6QsQ)

4 Posted by: laceyunderalls

WTF?

Posted by: Dr Spank at March 29, 2012 11:33 AM (Sh42X)

5 Ryan should start every session with "Debbie, you ignorant slut...."

Posted by: EC at March 29, 2012 11:33 AM (GQ8sn)

6 "What would you think of that person?"

I would think he is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Thanks for fighting the fight, Congressman.

Posted by: hungry buzzards at March 29, 2012 11:33 AM (z9HTb)

7 Kinda looking forward to Jay Carney spinning this, in a morbid, schadenfreudtastic way.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 29, 2012 11:34 AM (ZKzrr)

8 Fuckin buzzards ate my keyboard.

Posted by: fluffy at March 29, 2012 11:34 AM (z9HTb)

9 Ryan's trying to do the right thing

poor bastard- he doesn't have a chance- his own party will find a way to fuck him over

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 29, 2012 11:35 AM (8sCoq)

10 Wow - he tore her a new one. He doesn't generally do that.

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2012 11:35 AM (P6QsQ)

11 Two legal experts have independently told Myass News Service they expect the U.S. Department of Justice to issue an indictment against President Barack Hussein Obama on charges of treason as early as this week.

Posted by: Newswire at March 29, 2012 11:35 AM (ggRof)

12 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 29, 2012 11:36 AM (8y9MW)

Just once I'd LOVE to hear:

Debbie you ignorant slut!

Dan Ackroyd SNL (Back when it was funny)

Posted by: i'm the Honey Badger, BITCH! at March 29, 2012 11:37 AM (nyxv/)

14 Keep fighting, Rep. Ryan. Hopefully you'll get some (more) reinforcements soon.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 29, 2012 11:37 AM (8y9MW)

15 Here's more info on the possibly Haley indictment -
tiny.cc/n45xbw

Posted by: laceyunderalls at March 29, 2012 11:37 AM (pLTLS)

16 Have the ten who voted against it said why? Ryan said he had some "tax reform" in it which I interpret to mean tax increases and I am wondering if that was why they held out.

Posted by: Vic at March 29, 2012 11:38 AM (YdQQY)

17 Dammit E.C. too quick for me :-) Great minds... all that..

Posted by: i'm the Honey Badger, BITCH! at March 29, 2012 11:38 AM (nyxv/)

18 betcha wish your congressman was hot like mine

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2012 11:38 AM (P6QsQ)

19 Why would you ever vote for it? Its a very spend-y budget. It wouldn't balance for many years.

Posted by: Texan Economist at March 29, 2012 11:38 AM (4DFcx)

20 Any Dems vote for it?

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 29, 2012 11:38 AM (jUytm)

21 All of that Haley shit is coming from one left leaning blog. Even asshole Folks people are saying that.

Posted by: Vic at March 29, 2012 11:39 AM (YdQQY)

22 Does Debbie Wannabeer Schlitz have scars in her cheeks from all the fish hooks?

Posted by: fluffy at March 29, 2012 11:39 AM (z9HTb)

23 30 years you say? Isn't that about how long it's been since a fiscal con was nominated for President?

Posted by: fozzy at March 29, 2012 11:39 AM (Bdr7Q)

24 poor bastard- he doesn't have a chance- his own party will find a way to fuck him over

You mean his own party that passed it in the House? Or his own party that holds a Senate majority and the White House veto pen?

Idiot.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 29, 2012 11:40 AM (SY2Kh)

25 Hmm, that second links appears to be junk. Try this one --

tiny.cc/x95xbw

Posted by: laceyunderalls at March 29, 2012 11:41 AM (pLTLS)

26 So Folks has nothing to do with this?

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 29, 2012 11:41 AM (jUytm)

27 We're still boned.

Posted by: toby928© at March 29, 2012 11:41 AM (GTbGH)

28 Fitsnews.com is a Will Folks operation.

Posted by: nickless at March 29, 2012 11:42 AM (X7aC8)

29 Hmm, that second links appears to be my junk.

Don't share it. Trust me.

Posted by: Tony W. at March 29, 2012 11:42 AM (z9HTb)

30 Have the ten who voted against it said why? Ryan said he had some "tax reform" in it which I interpret to mean tax increases and I am wondering if that was why they held out.
Posted by: Vic at March 29, 2012 03:38 PM

I'm not sure if this is the same group, Vic, but there was a small group of Republican congressman who put out their own plan that supposedly would cut the deficit at a faster pace, taking about 3-5 years or so off of Ryan's projections. It may be that was the group - pushing their own plan instead of his, which in my opinion is not great strategy at this point. I mean, we can hardly get Ryan's plan on the table, much less a more aggressive one right now.

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2012 11:42 AM (P6QsQ)

31 Bipartisan opposition!

Posted by: MSM at March 29, 2012 11:43 AM (32mdF)

32 So this is another Folksian sham?

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 29, 2012 11:43 AM (jUytm)

33 Damn Paul Ryan is sexy when he talks like that.

Posted by: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain at March 29, 2012 11:43 AM (bj+Nc)

34 Are any of these R's voting against it doing so because the budget doesn't cut enough?

Posted by: fozzy at March 29, 2012 11:44 AM (Bdr7Q)

35 Will Folks needs a f*cking beat-down. What a douche.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 29, 2012 11:44 AM (PJ+vx)

36 Damn Paul Ryan is sexy when he talks like that YES yes! yyyyyyyes

Posted by: BlackOrchid at March 29, 2012 11:44 AM (SB0V2)

37 33 Damn Paul Ryan is sexy when he talks like that.

Yes.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 29, 2012 11:45 AM (PJ+vx)

38 1. Isn't Rehberg running for Senate in Montana? 2. Latourrette, or whatever, who proposed the "compromise) (i.e. sellout to Democrats) budget that failed yesterday with only three dozen votes voted yes on the Ryan budget?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at March 29, 2012 11:45 AM (gPDxp)

39 16 Have the ten who voted against it said why? Ryan said he had some "tax reform" in it which I interpret to mean tax increases and I am wondering if that was why they held out. No, there are no tax increases. The tax plan (from Ways and Means) contains two individual tax rates, 25% and 10%. Most deductions and such would be eliminated, but those details are not specified because Ways and Means has not yet determined which ones. With regards to corporate taxes, it lowers the rate to 25% and shifts to a territorial tax system. With regards to the defectors, they all have different reasons. One of the troubles was determining the discretionary top-line (especially in light of the sequester), because the appropriators demanded one number and conservatives another. Some members also did not (and do not) wish to tackle entitlements this year.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at March 29, 2012 11:46 AM (d6QMz)

40 >>With regards to corporate taxes, it lowers the rate to 25% and shifts to a territorial tax system.

What's a "territorial tax system"?

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 29, 2012 11:49 AM (ZKzrr)

41 Not to get Woopie Goldbergian, but are these "defection-defections" or are these "You live in a moderate-to-liberal district, and we've got enough votes" defections?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 29, 2012 11:50 AM (8y9MW)

42 Ace's twitter feed is like little nuggets of comedy silver. WTF? Zub Zub? How did I miss that backstory.

Posted by: joeindc44 would also like to thank Dr. Pepper for his tasty contribution to mankind at March 29, 2012 11:50 AM (QxSug)

43 DWS...a loathsome scrunt of a creature. BIRM.

Posted by: dananjcon at March 29, 2012 11:50 AM (8ieXv)

44 27 We're still boned.

Well, ya. That's a given.

Posted by: Mayan Calendars (with all the wig days) at March 29, 2012 11:50 AM (udEUT)

45 Whereupon it shall go to the Senate to die.

Posted by: garrett at March 29, 2012 11:51 AM (TTlQC)

46 Are any of these R's voting against it doing so because the budget doesn't cut enough?

Doesn't much matter. Passing the Ryan budget was a symbolic political gesture. The Senate Dems haven't passed a budget since 2009, and they're not about to break their budget-less streak with a GOP budget proposal, no matter how good it is.

Passing it enables the GOP to say "OK, we did our part and passed a budget. Where's the Dem plan?"

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 29, 2012 11:51 AM (SY2Kh)

47 Whereupon it shall go to the Senate to die.

How hard would it be to turn "Do nothing Congress" into "Do nothing Senate?"

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 29, 2012 11:52 AM (8y9MW)

48 The RNC needs to run that ad every day , every night, twice a day, three times a night. Best ad ever.

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2012 11:52 AM (P6QsQ)

49 What's a "territorial tax system"?

Glad you asked!

Posted by: the Lord Humungous, ayatollah of rock n rollah at March 29, 2012 11:52 AM (QTHTd)

50 this idiot budget cuts bear spending by 20%

hal gore would roll over in his grave if he was still alive

#JusticeForTradon

Posted by: Jose Canseco's Gristle Encased Head at March 29, 2012 11:52 AM (+lsX1)

51 Math is Hard!

Posted by: Malibu Barry at March 29, 2012 11:54 AM (zlvkY)

52 Have the ten who voted against it said why? ------------- Justin Amash is positioning himself to be the Next Ron Paul. When you consider Amash is an Arab-American representing Grand Rapids, MI... well, what a country, right?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at March 29, 2012 11:54 AM (gPDxp)

53 Amash - MI-3: ACU = 91.67; Barton TX-6 ACU = 87; Duncan TN-2 ACU = 96, Gibson NY-20 ACU = 52; Huelskamp KS-1 ACU = 92; Jones NC-2 ACU= 60; McKinley WV-1 ACU = 64; Platts PA-19 ACU = 48; Rehberg MT-AL ACU = 80; Whitfield KY-1 ACU - 72

So there we have it some are unexplained but most are RINOs and DIABLOs.

Posted by: Vic at March 29, 2012 11:54 AM (YdQQY)

54 >>Whereupon it shall go to the Senate to die.

Tell me about it.

Posted by: Gaius Julius Caesar at March 29, 2012 11:54 AM (ZKzrr)

55 You know what's awesome? It won't even get a vote in the Senate.

Posted by: blaster at March 29, 2012 11:54 AM (7vSU0)

56 The Senate is to Beneficial Legislation as Ace is to Sunday Bloggage.

Posted by: SAT Questions at March 29, 2012 11:55 AM (TTlQC)

57 So there we have it some are unexplained but most are RINOs and DIABLOs.

Wait. Joe Barton voted against it?

Has he said why?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 29, 2012 11:55 AM (8y9MW)

58 damn, last part of my sock fell off...

Posted by: garrett at March 29, 2012 11:56 AM (TTlQC)

59 The NYTimes report only 4 repubs voted against the Ryan Budget bill.

Posted by: RWGinger at March 29, 2012 11:56 AM (kFOgf)

60 You know what's even more awesome? The Senate won't vote on a budget at all. Did they bother unanimously voting down Obama's budget?

Posted by: blaster at March 29, 2012 11:57 AM (7vSU0)

61 It won't even get a vote in the Senate.

And every Republican can run against Harry Reid, regardless of state.

Posted by: fluffy, observer of silver linings at March 29, 2012 11:57 AM (z9HTb)

62 So Folks has nothing to do with this?

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 29, 2012 03:41 PM (jUytm)

--------------------------

He simply passed it on referencing the same left wing group that initiated it. He did reference some work done on the "temple" that was being investigated that her father runs, but said he was not up on the tax fraud.

Posted by: Vic at March 29, 2012 11:57 AM (YdQQY)

Somebody needs to primary Barton in Texas 6

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at March 29, 2012 11:57 AM (mFxQX)

64 10 Wow - he tore her a new one. He doesn't generally do that.
--- The old one is kinda worn out

Posted by: Debbie WS at March 29, 2012 11:57 AM (3Zo6I)

65 Paul Ryan 2012

Posted by: Dustin at March 29, 2012 11:58 AM (z36s0)

66 Nobody gets out alive, unless your an Astronaut and WTF, dieing is just part of the Human Condition.. health Care is Relative, like anything else when your born the damage is already done... drink up!!!!!!

Posted by: Funny Like That Sometimes at March 29, 2012 11:58 AM (BhxjG)

67 Okay, so in exchange for the debt increase last August, we got a now defunct Super Committee. And for the last debt increase, we got...nothing? At least we're consistent.

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 29, 2012 11:58 AM (jUytm)

68 40 What's a "territorial tax system"? > You only tax corporate income from inside your own borders, is my understanding.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at March 29, 2012 11:59 AM (d6QMz)

69 Amash is my guy, no idea why he voted no, he's in a pretty safe R area.

Posted by: Red Shirt at March 29, 2012 11:59 AM (FIDMq)

70 Somebody needs to primary Barton in Texas 6

Well, on the up side, he won't be my congressman any more next year. I live in one of our new districts, now.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 29, 2012 11:59 AM (8y9MW)

71 The problem with the Ryan budget is that it doesn't balance the budget quick enough. We need drastic cuts now (at least in the 50% range) in order to fuel the economy. I know this would lead to massive layoffs in the public sector, but guess what, I don't care. And, NO, we shouldn't agree to extend unemployment for those affected. They can go live with their uncles or brothers or sisters. I don't effing care.

Also, on healthcare, why is it an accepted idea now that we MUST take care of everyone that shows up at an Emergency Room? Why? I don't understand it and I don't agree with it. Would I let those people just die on the curb? Why yes, yes I would.

The rule should be - everyone works and everyone takes care of themselves. Done.

Posted by: Not an Artist at March 29, 2012 12:00 PM (Lo/3Q)

72 That guy behind Ryan was looking like he was thinking "Dude! I know she's a stupid scrunt, but that's a little too much bitchslappin!"

Posted by: model_1066 at March 29, 2012 12:00 PM (YbQJm)

73 36 Damn Paul Ryan is sexy when he talks like that

YES

yes!

yyyyyyyes ---- I'll have what she's having

Posted by: old lady at March 29, 2012 12:00 PM (3Zo6I)

74 What no ette's tossing panties at Ryan yet?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose finally remembers why he's here at March 29, 2012 12:00 PM (0q2P7)

75 Ryan is going to have to keep his garbage cans inside if this keeps up.

Posted by: garrett at March 29, 2012 12:02 PM (TTlQC)

76 54 >>Whereupon it shall go to the Senate to die.

Tell me about it.

Posted by: Gaius Julius Caesar at March 29, 2012 03:54 PM (ZKzrr)

----

(golf claps)

Posted by: old lady at March 29, 2012 12:02 PM (3Zo6I)

77 38 1. Isn't Rehberg running for Senate in Montana? 2. Latourrette, or whatever, who proposed the "compromise) (i.e. sellout to Democrats) budget that failed yesterday with only three dozen votes voted yes on the Ryan budget? Last year, Rehburg voted against the budget because he dislike the fact it discussed Medicare reform. As for LaTourette, he and many of his colleagues on Appropriations think the budget is too extreme but they know that spending will likely be set at $1.043T (by way of CR) and they can just ignore Medicare reform. Leadership also did some arm-twisting.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at March 29, 2012 12:03 PM (d6QMz)

78 More bad news for Obama- the Senate GOP blocked his beloved oil producer tax hike 51-47 (needed 60).

Posted by: Hollowpoint at March 29, 2012 12:03 PM (SY2Kh)

79 Last year, Rehburg voted against the budget because he dislike the fact it discussed Medicare reform. As for LaTourette, he and many of his colleagues on Appropriations think the budget is too extreme but they know that spending will likely be set at $1.043T (by way of CR) and they can just ignore Medicare reform. Leadership also did some arm-twisting. Posted by: Miss80sBaby at March 29, 2012 04:03 PM

These guys really don't want to fix this, do they?

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2012 12:04 PM (P6QsQ)

80 ZH predicts that the current Budget Ceiling will max out around mid September at the current burn rate

Shit's gonna get real then, folks

Posted by: kbdabear at March 29, 2012 12:06 PM (Y+DPZ)

81 Platts of PA voted no? I don't think he's even running for re-election.

Posted by: CJ at March 29, 2012 12:07 PM (9KqcB)

82 Entitlements aren't the problem.

It's you people bucking the actuary tables that's the problem.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at March 29, 2012 12:07 PM (zlvkY)

83 Paul Ryan has forgotten more facts than Debbie Wasserman Schultz will ever learn. I'm surprised he hasn't taken this sharp a tone more often when dealing with these leftist idealogues. Can you imagine having to sit and listen to Debbie or Barbara Lee or Pete Stark or Jan Schakowski? bleh!

Posted by: the Butcher at March 29, 2012 12:07 PM (8g9qq)

84 cruelty to cocker spaniels is what it is...

Posted by: model_1066 at March 29, 2012 12:07 PM (YbQJm)

85 75 Ryan is going to have to keep his garbage cans inside if this keeps up. Posted by: garrett at March 29, 2012 04:02 PM

Especially if that 5 gallon bucket doesn't hold up after me and Merete had veggie lasagna

Posted by: Christopher Smith at March 29, 2012 12:08 PM (Y+DPZ)

86 Platts of PA voted no? I don't think he's even running for re-election.

Posted by: CJ at March 29, 2012 04:07 PM (9KqcB)

-----------------------

Will not lose anything. It appears he is a Democrat with an R after his name.

Posted by: Vic at March 29, 2012 12:09 PM (YdQQY)

87 whoa, Rehberg voted against? that's my guy...wonder what's up..

Posted by: jeannie the dancing bug at March 29, 2012 12:09 PM (GdalM)

88 74 What no ette's tossing panties at Ryan yet?

When did they stop?

Posted by: Blanco Basura at March 29, 2012 12:11 PM (xKC/c)

89 69 Amash is my guy, no idea why he voted no, he's in a pretty safe R area. > He was initially undecided during markup last week but ultimately voted no because he wanted more and because he believed a firewall should not be placed around military spending.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at March 29, 2012 12:11 PM (d6QMz)

..wonder what's up..

He's pandering. Lots of Seniors up here...

He's going to lose Butte to the Unions. Bozeman and Missoula are filled with Californicators. He's got to suck up to someone and he chose the Retirees.

Posted by: garrett at March 29, 2012 12:14 PM (TTlQC)

91 He lost me at "my friend voted for". Did not watch second video, see above.

Posted by: nip at March 29, 2012 12:14 PM (h7GB8)

92 I wrote on Rehberg's Facebook, but it's one of those stupid timelines and I don't know where my comment went..

Posted by: jeannie the dancing bug at March 29, 2012 12:14 PM (GdalM)

93 because he believed a firewall should not be placed around military spending.
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at March 29, 2012 04:11 PM

Can you explain this a little more? I'm unsure what you mean. Thanks!

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2012 12:15 PM (P6QsQ)

94 Damn Paul Ryan is sexy when he talks like that.

I'll say. His fiscal wonkishness with those big eyes and great suit makes me hot.

Posted by: Cheri at March 29, 2012 12:16 PM (G+Wff)

95 Paul Ryan is totally hot. I'd toss panties at him any day. He could whisper sweet-nothings about fiscal policy in my ear, and I'd give it up in no time.

My husband would understand. He's got the hots for Condi Rice.

Posted by: Feynmangroupie at March 29, 2012 12:16 PM (oI744)

96 Did not watch second video, see above.

Then you're missing something good.

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2012 12:16 PM (P6QsQ)

97 Living in Virginia Foxx' district means I can rest easy when these "defector lists" come out. She's a crusty ol' conservative disguised as a sweet little Grandma.

Posted by: lincolntf at March 29, 2012 12:18 PM (hiMsy)

98 Holy crap, the operative word for this thread seems to be MOIST.

Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at March 29, 2012 12:19 PM (NS2Mo)

99 Why isn't he running for President? He seems to be the only one in DC that knows what the hell is going on and is trying to fix it before it's too damn late?

Posted by: Satan's Barbed WeeWee at March 29, 2012 12:20 PM (Jls4P)

100 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at March 29, 2012 12:20 PM (7W3wI)

101 Paul Ryan is totally hot. I'd toss panties at him any day. He could whisper sweet-nothings about fiscal policy in my ear, and I'd give it up in no time.

He's got that Mr. Schuester from Glee thing goin' on.

Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2012 12:20 PM (P6QsQ)

102 This is just practice folks

Remember the budget ceiling deal last August that was supposed to hold up until 2013?

It'll likely be breached this September

Forgotten will be the SCOAMF's assurances that the ceiling would not have to be dealt with in an election year. They'll demagogue it as Republicans both starving the children to benefit their rich buddies and being fiscally irresponsible with the budget

Posted by: Christopher Smith at March 29, 2012 12:21 PM (Y+DPZ)

103 Mama Winger,

You have completely ruined it for me now.

Eeeuw.

Posted by: Feynmangroupie at March 29, 2012 12:22 PM (oI744)

104 93 Can you explain this a little more? I'm unsure what you mean. Thanks! The Conference budget protects defense from sequester cuts by swapping cuts. It also would replace some of the cuts Obama already made. http://tinyurl.com/7od2udh http://tinyurl.com/6wf5efj

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at March 29, 2012 12:23 PM (d6QMz)

105 Platts, PA-19, one of the defectors isn't running for re-election. He's gone no matter what.

Posted by: kraki at March 29, 2012 12:24 PM (ylLDT)

106 Heulscamp is my rep and in his newsletter he explains that it does not cut the deficit fast enough, and was concerned about the new tax structure.

Posted by: bman at March 29, 2012 12:25 PM (sYrf2)

107 Did not watch second video, see above.

Then you're missing something good.

Damn straight that was good; he's pretty much accusing the donks and RINOs of being complicit in fucking everybody. The Repuke eunuchs must be hiding under their beds.

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 29, 2012 12:29 PM (Quagh)

108 >>Why isn't he running for President?

He has young children, and he saw what happened to Sarah Palin's young children.

And his talents are probably better utilized as a math-wonk working House budget stuff, really.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 29, 2012 12:31 PM (ZKzrr)

109 Huelskamp is my guy. Here's his statement about the budget from Monday:

" ; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">As a member of the House Budget Committee I had the opportunity to take part in writing and debating the 2013 House Republican budget. While I ultimately did not vote for the budget in committee, I do applaud Chairman Ryan and his staff for their willingness to tackle the looming entitlement crisis. AmericaÂ’s fiscal future is bleak, with debt anticipated to explode even more because far too few politicians really want to tackle the overspending problems in Washington.

While the Budget did propose bold reforms in saving and securing Medicare and Medicaid, it did not follow through on the spending promises made in the Pledge to America or the August 2011 debt deal.As you might recall, the August agreement to increase the debt by $2.1 TRILLION was accompanied with promises of real spending cuts this coming year across hundreds of programs. Instead, this budget offers a path to undo these promised cuts and, once again, putting the cuts off into the far future. I opposed the debt deal back then because the massive debt increase provided only marginal spending cuts - and now I fear even these will be abandoned in Washington.

In addition to falling short on actually cutting the budget, this plan also does not provide any clear strategy for dealing with looming, massive tax increases. In a matter of days Â– April 1 to be exact Â– the United States will have the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. We will fall behind nations like Japan, Mexico, and Sweden. And in a matter of months Â– on January 1, 2013 Â– individual income tax rates will jump, capital gains tax will skyrocket, and the death tax will soar to 55%! Can you imagine what these would do to our economy?!"

Posted by: irright at March 29, 2012 12:31 PM (RzLbD)

110 Left off this bit from Huelskamp:

" ; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">In this upcoming week the House will debate this budget on the floor. I believe it will pass the House - however, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that he will not consider a budget - for the fourth straight year. What remains and happens next specifically is anyone's guess, but I am pretty confident it won't be a balanced budget. "

Posted by: irright at March 29, 2012 12:33 PM (RzLbD)

111 What are Ryan's GDP growth projections? Anybody know?

Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at March 29, 2012 12:33 PM (NVu2l)

112 Remember: veto is an anagram of vote!

Posted by: #OccupyResoluteDesk at March 29, 2012 12:35 PM (Orvm4)

113 You know what's awesome? It won't even get a vote in the Senate.

Posted by: blaster at March 29, 2012 03:54 PM (7vSU0)

-------------------------------------

You're right. It will sit on the table of the senate appropriations committee and collect dust for the rest of the year.

Posted by: Soona at March 29, 2012 12:35 PM (i3MF7)

114

polar bear polar bear polar bear

see those 3

their the last 3

because we got greedy

and turned our furnaces up

now we're melting it all

while al gore turns in his grave

Posted by: NO LIMIT CANSECO at March 29, 2012 12:36 PM (/Mla1)

115 Wow. I know I'm late to the party, but how do I go about gettin' me some PAUL RYAN FOR PRESIDENT!

Even if he only knows the one thing, budget and/or entitlement reform, sothehellwhat? That is the biggest, most urgent problem facing us. Let him come in and fix this big ol' mess while his staff keeps the ship afloat elsewhere.

It's sick that Romney is on the cusp of the nomination and Paul Ryan is sitting on the sidelines.

Posted by: FUBAR at March 29, 2012 12:39 PM (mdhVr)

116 Regarding the sequester: "The budget reverses the $97 billion in automatic cuts triggered by the failure of the supercommittee and instructs six committees to find $261 billion in savings over 10 years to offset the impact on federal spending. The Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Judiciary, Oversight and Ways and Means committees are asked to find $18 billion in savings in the fiscal 2013 budget." Huelskamp wants the amount upfront. As for his argument regarding taxes, tax law falls under the jurisdiction of Ways and Means.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at March 29, 2012 12:46 PM (d6QMz)

117 What's a "territorial tax system"?

Posted by: HeatherRadishÂ™ at March 29, 2012 03:49 PM (ZKzrr)

Right now, corporations that do business abroad pay taxes in that country, and ours. This is contrary to almost every other country's practices.

Instead, you do business somewhere, you get taxed there only.

Posted by: GergS(Dirty Scandi Dog Whistle) at March 29, 2012 12:54 PM (xAtAj)

118 What are Ryan's GDP growth projections? Anybody know?

Posted by: Hydrocarbon Liberation Front at March 29, 2012 04:33 PM (NVu2l)

Hear, hear! I've been waiting for some serious analysis from this smart military blog...

Posted by: GergS(Dirty Scandi Dog Whistle) at March 29, 2012 12:55 PM (xAtAj)

119 Amash is my guy, no idea why he voted no, he's in a pretty safe R area.

Posted by: Red Shirt at March 29, 2012 03:59 PM (FIDMq)

Amash voted against it because it "balances" the budget decades down the line, relying on many of the same budget shenanigans (i.e., relying on fiscally conservative future Congresses that it has no control over) that the other Progressive party pulls.

Posted by: MlR at March 29, 2012 01:03 PM (vj9lA)

120 Vic at March 29, 2012 04:09 PM (YdQQY) Platts is my Congressman. I wouldn't be surprised if he voted "no" because it doesn't balance the budget fast enough. I think most of the damage to Platts' ACU rating comes from his stance on Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold, which he supported and continues to support. Otherwise perfectly serviceable Republican.

Posted by: DrSteve at March 29, 2012 01:28 PM (pP9TD)

121 Luap Nor voted yes??? I knew he was a spendthrift RINO!!!! I thought his whole purpose was to vote No on every bill. I'm still mad that Ryan didn't run for President. Seeing him demolish SCOAMF in a debate would be almost as delicious as watching Newt tear him limb from limb. Ryan still holds the title for the best political smackdown of SCOAMF by a politician: "He's like a pyromaniac in a field of strawmen."

Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at March 29, 2012 01:30 PM (UU0OF)

122 What I got from Debbie Wassermanshitz' video: she apparently has a bald spot on top of her frizzy head.

Congressman Ryan is awesome. Be afraid Democrats, the tide is turning.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky: ABO 2012 at March 29, 2012 01:34 PM (baL2B)

123 He's got that Mr. Schuester from Glee thing goin' on. Posted by: mama winger at March 29, 2012 04:20 PM (P6QsQ) Well, I hope you're proud. You've just destroyed a promising political career.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at March 29, 2012 01:57 PM (bxiXv)

124 63 Somebody needs to primary Barton in Texas 6 Someone is, Frank Kuchar is the best chance to get rid of Barton: http://kuchar4ushouse.com

Posted by: Sean at March 29, 2012 02:04 PM (Se6u/)

125 "He's got that Mr. Schuester from Glee thing goin' on."

Ewww. No he doesn't.

Posted by: qrstuv at March 29, 2012 02:07 PM (r8o76)

126 Amash is a solid libertarian-leaning conservative. His "no" vote was consistent with his committee vote on the same budget last week. From his FB page regarding last week's committee vote:

I have a lot of respect for Chairman Paul Ryan and his outstanding staff ... Today's committee vote was one of the most difficult of my life. Ultimately, I voted 'no' for a few basic reasons: (1) The time to balance is too long. According to CBO, the budget won't reach balance until nearly 2040 ... (2) The budget exempts military spending from reductions, which makes it more difficult to achieve bipartisan support to reform the primary components of our annual deficit: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. (3) The FY 2013 cuts do not appear to match the magnitude of the cuts required under the post-sequester Budget Control Act, which most Republicans and Democrats agreed to in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.

I can't imagine his rationale has changed at all. His basic position on military spending is here if that particular component of his answer raises concerns.

Posted by: Jazz at March 29, 2012 02:13 PM (NzrVU)

127 Here= http://amash.house.gov/issue/defense

Posted by: Jazz at March 29, 2012 02:14 PM (NzrVU)

128 It's quite fortunate the House simply can enact a budget bill with its own vote and thereby bypass the Senate. Were that not the case it would mean ipso facto that the rejects who've saddled the GOP over the decades with the likes of Angle, O'Donnell, Buck, etc., should be smacked upside their empty heads so hard that it actually would knock some sense into them.

Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at March 29, 2012 03:03 PM (f8XyF)

129

Joe Barton's statement today: http://tinyurl.com/7b6yytj

Â“The GOP budget or Path to Prosperity is much better than President ObamaÂ’s proposal, which saddles the American people with massive tax increases and more debt. However, the Ryan plan still wonÂ’t get us to a balanced budget for 26 years and that breaks the promise we made to voters to immediately cut spending. ....

Â“I voted for the Republican Study Committee budget. It makes some tough choices, but also contains real results. It balances the budget in 5 years and makes $100 billion in cuts, this year alone. Those are true reforms that will build over time and ultimately have a significant impact on our ballooning debt.Â”

Posted by: Dex at March 29, 2012 06:57 PM (qPJBi)

130 There are some who bash the Ryan budget from the right, feeling it doesn't go far enough. That may be correct, in a limited way, but I think it misses the mark. Many of us morons, if given the chance, would probably take a chainsaw to the federal budget, however none of us will have that chance. Regardless of which Republican were to be in the White House (Christie, Palin, Perry, Romney, Ryan, Santorum, Trump, et.c, etc.), it is not as if they will cut the budget in half - and it is unlikely that the next years budget would be less than the current year's budget, no matter how great you think your guy or gal is. It doesn't matter how fiscally hawkish they are or how conservative or not you feel they are, the collective political will makes it unbelievably difficult to cut anything - every budget item has a constituency or ten attached to it. That is what I think ryan is after, and think he is correct. No matter how much I want the budget to be slashed, I know the political reality is not going to allow that to happen, no matter how many Rs are in congress or who is in the White House (ask Ronald Reagan about that). I believe that the best that we can realistically hope for is to simply restrain the growth of government. If we could just restrain the growth of government to, say, 1 or 2 percent less that pop. growth plus inflation we would probably be within striking distance of balancing the budget, paying down our debt, and the effect on wealth creation in this country would be enormous. Again, I want slashing, but I know I'm not going to get it no matter what - even the tepid strategy I outlined above may be impossible.

Posted by: RomneyBot Since 2007 at March 30, 2012 12:33 PM (cYMja)

131 "If we could just restrain the growth of government to, say, 1 or 2 percent less that pop. growth plus inflation" Meant to say if we could simply do this for several years...

Posted by: RomneyBot Since 2007 at March 30, 2012 12:51 PM (cYMja)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

136kb generated in CPU 0.029, elapsed 0.2449 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2242 seconds, 259 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.