Ryan budget plan passes House; only 4 GOP reps vote no (Ron's one of them, of course)

[sailingaway]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/15/6478024-ryan-budget-plan-passes-house-only-4-gop-reps-vote-no

[Austin]

Amash voted for it? Hmm..

[tangent4ronpaul]

Republicans voting against the Ryan plan were Reps. Ron Paul of Texas, Walter Jones of North Carolina, David McKinley of West Virginia, and Denny Rehberg of Montana.

McKinley is the only freshman

[Brett85]

Amash voted for it? Hmm..

So voting for spending cuts is now a bad thing? Ryan's budget doesn't cut NEARLY enough, but isn't it still better than the huge spending that we've had previously?

[Austin]

So voting for spending cuts is now a bad thing? Ryan's budget doesn't cut NEARLY enough, but isn't it still better than the huge spending that we've had previously?

I haven't been following it too closely, so I don't know all of the details of the bill. Spending cuts are not a bad thing, but budget deficits are. And I have a feeling Rand would/will also vote against it.

Mind you, I'm not going to drop all support of Amash over this. It's just a disappointment (assuming I understand the bill correctly).

[ItsTime]

So voting for spending cuts is now a bad thing? Ryan's budget doesn't cut NEARLY enough, but isn't it still better than the huge spending that we've had previously?

I thought it added 9 trillion to the debt? How would that be 'cutting'?

[sailingaway]

I thought it added 9 trillion to the debt? How would that be 'cutting'?

And to vote for it than NOT vote for raising the debt ceiling would be kind of odd since you can't pay the budget amounts WITHOUT raising the debt ceiling.

[ClayTrainor]

So voting for spending cuts is now a bad thing? Ryan's budget doesn't cut NEARLY enough, but isn't it still better than the huge spending that we've had previously?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbKt8HS8mU

[eduardo89]

This vote is pointless. It's not an actual budget, just a "blueprint" to follow

[tangent4ronpaul]

So voting for spending cuts is now a bad thing? Ryan's budget doesn't cut NEARLY enough, but isn't it still better than the huge spending that we've had previously?

Budget "cuts"? - try, we're going to spend money we don't have, but we are going to spend slightly less than Obama's plan - so that's a "good thing"... :rolleyes:

What's funny about this whole dog and pony show is that everyone knows it's DOA as soon as it hits the Senate. But hay, the House DID SOMETHING before taking off for 2 weeks of vacation.

[aGameOfThrones]

" what did you get for opposing the motion? It was carried with or without you. All you did was make enemies, and make yourself feel better, of course."~ HBO Benjamin Franklin



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-PtozBKSBE

[Mini-Me]

" what did you get for opposing the motion? It was carried with or without you. All you did was make enemies, and make yourself feel better, of course."~ HBO Benjamin Franklin



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-PtozBKSBE

...and maintain your credibility for later, when everyone else is stuttering out all their excuses. ;)

[Cowlesy]

I wish Amash would have voted NO, but I am not going to join in the 'Two Minutes Hate' he's getting from the liberals on his facebook page where he explained his vote. Apparently he wants to kill Grandma, children, everyone by his Yes vote instead of making the rich "pay their fair share."

[K466]

I surprised Amash voted yes, hopefully he will explain it further soon...

[Lucille]

“It is always possible to stick to your principles, if you have any.”
–Isabel Paterson

So we have four principled conservatives in the House. Great.

Saving the Warfare-Welfare State (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/saving-warfare-welfare-state/)


Why does everyone think Washington is plagued by excessive partisanship? The contest over how to address the fiscal debacle says otherwise: Both divisions of the uniparty (Democrat and Republican) agree that the warfare-welfare state must be saved. It’s the means not the end that divides them.

Rep. Paul Ryan, who leads the Republican side, declares that his goal in seeking a balanced budget (someday) is to save the three pillars of the welfare state—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—for “our children’s generation.” “I support these missions,” he says. He would “voucherize” Medicare and give states discretionary Medicaid block grants because, he says, the alternative is insolvency. He would maintain Social Security, while permitting people under 55 to put one-third of their Social Security taxes into government-guaranteed accounts. (They would still have to pay current retirees’ Social Security benefits.) His substitute for Obamacare would give a cash subsidy—he uses the Washington gobbledygook “refundable tax credit”—to “[ensure] universal access to affordable health insurance.”
[...]
Thus we see Obama’s basic agreement with Ryan’s wing of the uniparty, though the latter would rely on the tax-funded “private” sector more than the former would. Of course each side highlights the differences to make them appear to be matters of kind rather than degree or method. This way each can keep its base rhetorically satisfied (or try).

[anaconda]

So voting for spending cuts is now a bad thing? Ryan's budget doesn't cut NEARLY enough, but isn't it still better than the huge spending that we've had previously?

Voting for a horrifically unbalanced budget is a bad thing. Did I waste my $20 bucks on my Amash donation?

[Eric21ND]

Amash is really disappointing me.

[angelatc]

I haven't been following it too closely, so I don't know all of the details of the bill. Spending cuts are not a bad thing, but budget deficits are. And I have a feeling Rand would/will also vote against it.

Mind you, I'm not going to drop all support of Amash over this. It's just a disappointment (assuming I understand the bill correctly).

He announced yesterday that he was going to vote for it. Today he posted this, which is about the same thing that he posted yesterday:
just voted yes on H Con Res 34. It's far from ideal but fundamentally better than recent budgets. It cuts $5.8 trillion over 10 years, reducing spending to below 20% of GDP vs. 23%+ in the President's budget. It reforms Medicare/Medicaid and defunds last year's health care legislation. It also lowers corporate and individual top tax rates to 25%, which will help manufacturing and small business. It passed 235-193.

[tpreitzel]

From his comments on Facebook, it's clear that Justin wanted a better deal by voting for amendments which ultimately failed. It's pretty obvious that practicality gained the upper hand. In my opinion, Justin is doing alright so far. Although I would have voted "no" without further amendment, I can fully understand his vote given the political circumstances.

[Brett85]

Voting for a horrifically unbalanced budget is a bad thing. Did I waste my $20 bucks on my Amash donation?

I understand your point, but a "no" vote is still a vote against reforming/privatizing Medicare and Medicaid, and it's a vote against lowering taxes. It's a tough vote, and I've been thinking about how I would've voted for it had I been in the house. I think I would've voted for it and attached a written explanation stating that I voted that way to express support for lower taxes and entitlement reform. But I don't blame either Ron or Justin for the way they voted. It was a tough call.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I understand your point, but a "no" vote is still a vote against reforming/privatizing Medicare and Medicaid, and it's a vote against lowering taxes. It's a tough vote, and I've been thinking about how I would've voted for it had I been in the house. I think I would've voted for it and attached a written explanation stating that I voted that way to express support for lower taxes and entitlement reform. But I don't blame either Ron or Justin for the way they voted. It was a tough call.

Considering Ron has staked a position by saying he'll never vote for an unbalanced budget, it's a pretty easy call by him.

[Brett85]

From his comments on Facebook, it's clear that Justin wanted a better deal by voting for amendments which ultimately failed. It's previous obvious that practicality gained the upper hand. In my opinion, Justin is doing alright so far. Although I would have voted "no" without further amendment, I can fully understand his vote given the political circumstances.

Yep. I don't think that Ryan's budget goes nearly far enough either, but it's still a step in the right direction. Congress will never vote to cut 1.6 trillion in a single year. Sometimes the federal government has to be dismantled brick by brick.

[Brett85]

Considering Ron has staked a position by saying he'll never vote for an unbalanced budget, it's a pretty easy call by him.

Yeah you're right, but it was probably a tough vote for Justin to take. It's a "lose-lose" situation no matter how you vote on something like that.

[Legend1104]

I don't know how Dr. Paul could ever vote yes on anything. They always have at least one unconstitutional thing attached to it.

[Justinjj1]

Amash continues to disappoint.

[jclay2]

Ron Paul continues to defy conventional wisdom. I love it!

[Brett85]

Amash continues to disappoint.

Continues? Because he voted for a budget that cuts over 4 trillion over 10 years? Amash has consistently voted with Ron since he's been in the house. It's no wonder the Libertarian Party can never win an election. Sheesh.

[AuH20]

This is insane to attack Amash on one vote where the outcome was already decided. It's not like he's freaking Paul "the Wisconsin Progressive" Ryan who has about 6 votes that are abominable.

[low preference guy]

Justin Amash is pretty good. Some people just love to complain.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Justin Amash is pretty good. Some people just love to complain.

I think moreso than disappointment in any individual vote is the concern that he may be bowing to internal party pressure so quickly. When a guy calls himself the most libertarian member in Congress and missteps in a big way over a couple of pretty important votes (voting no on removing troops from Afghanistan and Europe, with an apparent lack of knowledge of foreign policy the culprit), it's fair to cast a watching eye on him.

It's kind of early to give him our unwavering support. I'd say he's been better than Senator Lee, slightly less impressive than Rand, though.

[low preference guy]

It's kind of early to give him our unwavering support. I'd say he's been better than Senator Lee, slightly less impressive than Rand, though.

Why is he better than Lee?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Why is he better than Lee?

Lee supported the push to crackdown on federal porn charges (or something along those lines, something Rand sat out), and said some pretty anti-free market stuff about Google. Those are the first things I can think of, I think there was another misstep or two that I can't recall.

[sonofshamwow]

Both Amash AND Ron Paul voted in favor of the Republican Study Committee budget, which is a slightly more aggressive version of the Ryan budget but identical in nearly every respect to the Ryan budget.

Like the Ryan budget, it also produces a deficit in 2012 and for several years thereafter. It's a hyper-Ryan budget. Same basic structure, more aggressive phase in.

Of course it didn't pass. I don't hear anyone complaining about Ron Paul voting for that, or praising them both for voting for it.

Most of the people on here are so ridiculous they deserve the shoddy representation they get.

[Austin]

Both Amash AND Ron Paul voted in favor of the Republican Study Committee budget, which is a slightly more aggressive version of the Ryan budget but identical in nearly every respect to the Ryan budget.

Like the Ryan budget, it also produces a deficit in 2012 and for several years thereafter. It's a hyper-Ryan budget. Same basic structure, more aggressive phase in.

Of course it didn't pass. I don't hear anyone complaining about Ron Paul voting for that, or praising them both for voting for it.

Most of the people on here are so ridiculous they deserve the shoddy representation they get.

Interesting, got a source for that vote? Ron Paul has said multiple times that he has never voted for an unbalanced budget. Why would he start now?

[low preference guy]

Interesting, got a source for that vote? Ron Paul has said multiple times that he has never voted for an unbalanced budget. Why would he start now?

He voted for an amendment that improved the bill. He has done that for years.

[Austin]

He voted for an amendment that improved the bill. He has done that for years.

Makes sense, thanks for the clarification.

[malkusm]

Amash votes to repeal provisions of the Patriot Act, remove troops from Afghanistan, becomes one of the first co-sponsors of Ron's bill to audit the Fed, and authors legislation to declare Obama's use of force in Libya unconstitutional.

You guys continue to throw people under buses over one (seemingly innocuous) vote, and there are gonna be a lot of good dead people under buses.

[anaconda]

Yep. I don't think that Ryan's budget goes nearly far enough either, but it's still a step in the right direction. Congress will never vote to cut 1.6 trillion in a single year. Sometimes the federal government has to be dismantled brick by brick.

The problem of course is that we are adding trillions to the debt each year. Brick by brick doesn't cut it. Taking away 3 bricks and adding a trillion to the debt does in no way forestall the dollar crises and the "emergency" back door entrance into the new world order. Don't be sucked into this deceitful vernacular that the Congress is "cutting" anything.

[anaconda]

Lee supported the push to crackdown on federal porn charges (or something along those lines, something Rand sat out), and said some pretty anti-free market stuff about Google. Those are the first things I can think of, I think there was another misstep or two that I can't recall.

Rand's office did all of the $500 billion budget proposal work. Plus all of the other items Rand has stepped up on: Libya, government shutdown act, ranting in the EPA hearings, scolding the entire senate for doing nothing with the budget of any consequence, etc. You don't hear Mike Lee saying "you busy bodies offend me and my toilets don't even work!"

[Feeding the Abscess]

Rand's office did all of the $500 billion budget proposal work. Plus all of the other items Rand has stepped up on: Libya, government shutdown act, ranting in the EPA hearings, scolding the entire senate for doing nothing with the budget of any consequence, etc. You don't hear Mike Lee saying "you busy bodies offend me and my toilets don't even work!"

I agree. Rand > Lee. I'm still not pleased with his Republican-lite talking points, but he's been about as good as one can hope so far. I'm waiting for an issue like Gitmo or the WTC mosque to come up while he's in the Senate, those types of issues will show whether he's Ron 2.0 or merely super awesome.


Amash votes to repeal provisions of the Patriot Act, remove troops from Afghanistan, becomes one of the first co-sponsors of Ron's bill to audit the Fed, and authors legislation to declare Obama's use of force in Libya unconstitutional.

You guys continue to throw people under buses over one (seemingly innocuous) vote, and there are gonna be a lot of good dead people under buses.

It's fair to not give a representative our unwavering support after he's been on the job for three months and has made a couple of missteps. He voted against an amendment that removed troops from Europe, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and his justification was that he didn't have input from military commanders on what its effect would be. That shows a lack of foreign policy understanding; which is fine, he's new to the federal game. His actions since have shown that he has acquired a more solid sense of what he thinks our foreign policy should be, which is outstanding.

The vote for the Ryan budget is more serious, in my view.

When a guy calls himself the most libertarian member in Congress, it's fair to hold him to an extremely high standard.

[austin944]

Both Amash AND Ron Paul voted in favor of the Republican Study Committee budget, which is a slightly more aggressive version of the Ryan budget but identical in nearly every respect to the Ryan budget.

It doesn't look like the RSC budget has come up for a vote yet in the House:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hc112-37
http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/Solutions/rscfy2012budget.htm

[Anti Federalist]

Yep. I don't think that Ryan's budget goes nearly far enough either, but it's still a step in the right direction. Congress will never vote to cut 1.6 trillion in a single year. Sometimes the federal government has to be dismantled brick by brick.

A nice idea, if there was time.

There isn't.

The "bricks" of the fedgov are going to come down in an earthshattering crash, due to the fire that is raging inside the structure, regardless of what we say or do anymore. All of this nonsense and posturing over a bill that will go nowhere in the Senate is nothing but re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

http://detroitiscrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/xavier.jpg

[cheapseats]

“It is always possible to stick to your principles, if you have any.”
–Isabel Paterson


That's it, in a nutshell.

Playing the game as STRATEGERY perpetuates The Game.

Like working for Bad Guys and investing in Bad Guys and trading with Bad Guys keeps Bad Guys in business.

[Matt Collins]

I thought it added 9 trillion to the debt?

And to vote for it than NOT vote for raising the debt ceiling would be kind of odd since you can't pay the budget amounts WITHOUT raising the debt ceiling.Please cite sources and explain!

[Matt Collins]

This is my understanding of Paul Ryan's plan:


- It allows for 10 more years of deficit spending
- It adds between $5-11 TRILLION dollars to the national debt
- It spends a total of $40 TRILLION over the next 10 years
- It will REQUIRE the debt ceiling to be raised
- It's obviously an unbalanced budget (in fact it doesn't fully balance until the year 2040)
- It actually continues to increase spending over the next few years (it merely slows the rate of spending, not actually cutting spending anytime soon)
- It is still bigger than the budget we had under Bill Clinton

Am I right correct???

[sonofshamwow]

It doesn't look like the RSC budget has come up for a vote yet in the House:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hc112-37
http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/Solutions/rscfy2012budget.htm

It came up in the form of an amendment. The amendment called for adoption of the RSC budget instead of Ryan's budget. Amash and Paul BOTH voted YES to adopt the RSC budget instead of Ryan's budget, even though both operate at a deficit. Amash explained it well, as always, on his facebook page:

http://i.imgur.com/JHhjD.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/FPgEm.jpg