Conservatives demand spending reforms for hiking debt ceiling

[Brian4Liberty]

Conservatives demand spending reforms for hiking debt ceiling (http://thehill.com/policy/finance/257380-conservatives-press-for-reforms-on-debt-ceiling)
By Alexander Bolton - 10/19/15


Conservative leaders in the Senate and House on Monday said they would not support raising the nation’s debt limit without significant spending reforms, increasing pressure on GOP leaders ahead of a Nov. 3 deadline.

Substantive talks between President Obama and Republican leaders have yet to get off the ground because of uncertainty over who will succeed Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and what can pass the lower chamber.

It became more clear Monday, however, that any proposal to raise the debt ceiling without major fiscal reforms will not pass the House without Democratic votes.

That means Boehner or his successor will either have to give in to Democratic demands for a clean debt-limit increase or face the wrath of conservatives who have roiled leadership races in the House.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who is running for president, and members of the House Freedom Caucus, which played a central role in pressing Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to resign, want to attach to debt legislation a plan to balance the budget in five years.

“I think it’s important that we use this leverage,” Paul told reporters during a telephone press conference Monday afternoon, noting that the House passed a similar proposal attached to the debt limit in 2011 and it resulted in Obama agreeing to historic cuts to discretionary spending.

Paul said Republicans he has met across the country while campaigning have pressed him not to let a clean extension of borrowing authority sail through the Congress.

He says members of the House Freedom Caucus will back his demand.

“Those in the Freedom Caucus are hearing the same message that people want us to exert leverage to use the power of the purse,” he said.

“The whole purpose to have a debt ceiling is to sit back and use it as an opportunity to figure out why you’re borrowing so much money,” Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), a co-founder of the House Freedom Caucus, told reporters on the call.

Paul and Mulvaney say the debt-limit increase should be paired with a plan to cut the deficit, cap future spending and pass a balanced budget amendment to the debt-limit increase.

The proposal they discussed would cut $207 billion from the budget this year but protect Social Security, Medicare, military pay and veterans’ benefits.
...
The effort by Paul and Mulvaney to weld some kind of fiscal reforms to a bill raising the debt limit has broad support among conservatives.
...
More: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/257380-conservatives-press-for-reforms-on-debt-ceiling

[Ronin Truth]

Do they have the votes?

[Zippyjuan]

Conservatives have the power in the House which is where spending bills are to originate. Why not put together an actual budget which includes the spending reforms they say they want? What sort of spending reforms do they want?

[ZENemy]

Conservatives have the power in the House which is where spending bills are to originate. Why not put together an actual budget which includes the spending reforms they say they want? What sort of spending reforms do they want?

Because there is no such thing as a "conservative" there are just men, men with jobs and they don't do that very well either.

[r3volution 3.0]

Conservatives have the power in the House which is where spending bills are to originate. Why not put together an actual budget which includes the spending reforms they say they want? What sort of spending reforms do they want?

From the article:


The proposal they discussed would cut $207 billion from the budget this year but protect Social Security, Medicare, military pay and veterans’ benefits.

My thoughts?

.
.
.
.
.
.
https://31.media.tumblr.com/17ec976e56e41705c3cf417c24c41c5b/tumblr_nnndvj7WBp1rt5pgzo1_400.gif

[r3volution 3.0]

Front page material, IMO.

This debt ceiling fight and the CNBC debate (focusing on economic issues) are coming together as a major play to reinvigorate the campaign over the next few weeks, on the basis of Rand's unrivaled fiscal conservatism. We need to do everything possible to promote that narrative. It'll also help with the Nov. 5th moneybomb.

[Ronin Truth]

How about lower overall spending than 10 years ago, just for a start?

[Badger Paul]

"protect Social Security, Medicare, military pay and veterans’ benefits."

Which is a nice way of saying it protects Republican constituencies. Surely President Obama will sign something like that.:rolleyes:

[Zippyjuan]

How about lower overall spending than 10 years ago, just for a start?

2005 spending was $2.5 trillion. Cut $1.3 trillion from this and you can:

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted.png

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

What is not included in that?


Mandatory Spending
Mandatory spending is spending that Congress legislates outside of the annual appropriations process, usually less than once a year. It is dominated by the well-known earned-benefit programs Social Security and Medicare. It also includes widely used safety net programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), and a significant amount of federal spending on transportation, among other things.

Many mandatory programs' spending levels are determined by eligibility rules. For example, Congress decides to create a program like Social Security. It then sets criteria for determining who is eligible to receive benefits from the program, and benefit levels for people who are eligible. The amount of money spent on Social Security each year is then determined by how many people are eligible and apply for benefits.

Congress therefore does not decide each year to increase or decrease the budget for Social Security or other earned benefit programs. Instead, it periodically reviews the eligibility rules and may change them in order to exclude or include more people, or offer more or less generous benefits to those who are eligible, and therefore change the amount spent on the program.

Mandatory spending makes up nearly two-thirds of the total federal budget. Social Security alone comprises more than a third of mandatory spending and around 23 percent of the total federal budget. Medicare makes up an additional 23 percent of mandatory spending and 15 percent of the total federal budget.

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/mandatory_spending_pie,__2015_enacted.png

The charts don't include interest on the debt- that adds $229 billion. Total budget $3.8 trillion.

[Chester Copperpot]

this is more bullshit.. there will be no real spending reforms but there will be hike in the debt limit - the end.


unless theres real change

[timosman]

From OP:


It became more clear Monday, however, that any proposal to raise the debt ceiling without major fiscal reforms will not pass the House without Democratic votes.

Am I reading this right ?

[euphemia]

They should be putting together a priority list of departments that will close immediately when the debt ceiling expires.

[morfeeis]

. mistake

[morfeeis]

2005 spending was $2.5 trillion. Cut $1.3 trillion from this and you can:

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted.png

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

What is not included in that?



https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/mandatory_spending_pie,__2015_enacted.png

The charts don't include interest on the debt- that adds $229 billion. Total budget $3.8 trillion.

cut education, cut international affairs, cut housing and community, and i don't mean cut back, just completely kill those departments altogether and save 174.1 billion just to start.

[georgiaboy]

Those pie charts are so embarrassing.

To think that all that money could be spent or saved for so many better purposes, but instead comprise the lodestones they resemble.

Each category in dollars represents economic potential on the scale of today's largest corporations.

Slash away!

[nobody's_hero]

I think Social Security is going to sort itself out when the fund collapses.

I'm 29 and I certainly don't count on it being there for me when I'm old. I've pretty much written it off in my mind. Of course, it would be nice if there was an actual plan to phase it out as Ron Paul suggested and get future generations off the hook, rather than wait for all hell to break loose when it implodes.

[Zippyjuan]

Ron's play to "let young people opt out" would implode it sooner by reducing money coming in to fund it. On the other hand, he also promised to "honor the country's commitment" to people by continuing to pay out benefits everybody has earned. To do that, they would have to get the money from some other place (raise other taxes) they would lose by letting people "opt out". Or add significantly to the deficit/ debt.

[ZENemy]

Ron's play to "let young people opt out" would implode it sooner by reducing money coming in to fund it. On the other hand, he also promised to "honor the country's commitment" to people by continuing to pay out benefits everybody has earned. To do that, they would have to get the money from some other place (other taxes) they would lose by letting people "opt out".


A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator. Operators of Ponzi schemes usually entice new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent.

Ponzi schemes occasionally begin as legitimate businesses, until the business fails to achieve the returns expected. The business becomes a Ponzi scheme if it then continues under fraudulent terms. Whatever the initial situation, the perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme.[1]

[Pericles]

Haven't we been here 117 times before?