Rep. Paul Ryan: A Very Scary Dude

[lakhota]

Proposed House GOP Rules Give Rep. Ryan ‘Stunning And Unprecedented’ Power To Shape Budget

The incoming Republican majority in the House of Representatives has laid out a series of changes it would like to make to the House rules, including replacing the current “pay-go” rules — which require all spending increases to be offset with spending cuts or tax increases — with a rule called “cut-go,” which requires that new spending programs — but not new tax cuts — be offset with spending cuts. The GOP has also proposed a new rule requiring that each piece of new legislation include a statement justifying the legislation’s constitutionality.

That’s not all, however. As National Journal reported today, “a little-noticed detail in the new rules proposed by House GOP leaders would greatly increase the power of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee.” Indeed, under the proposed rules, if the House and Senate do not agree on a budget resolution (a distinct possibility with a divided Congress), Ryan will be able to unilaterally set spending levels that are binding on the House, and any attempt to lessen the impact of these cuts can be ruled out of order.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities called the proposed change “stunning and unprecedented“:

This rule change has immediate, far-reaching implications. It means that by voting to adopt the proposed new rules on January 5, a vote on which party discipline will be strictly enforced, the House could effectively be adopting a budget resolution and limits for appropriations bills that it has never even seen, much less debated and had an opportunity to amend. (There is no requirement for Representative Ryan to make his proposed spending and revenue limits available to Members or the public before the vote on the new rules.)…Once Rep. Ryan places in the Congressional Record discretionary funding limits set at the [2008] level, they will become binding on the House, and any attempt to provide funding levels that allow for less severe cuts will be out of order.

Ryan, of course, has gained notoriety for his radical “Roadmap for America’s Future,” which purports to balance the budget by essentially privatizing both Social Security and Medicare, while the House GOP’s much-ballyhooed “Pledge to America” includes a promise to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to the 2008 level. If adopted, an across-the-board cut to 2008 levels would entail severe reductions in important and popular programs like Pell Grants and federal highway funding.

The proposed change also seems to fly in the face of the GOP’s promise to end backroom deals and increase transparency, as with one vote, the GOP House may yoke itself to a budget that has never been made public.

thinkprogress.org/2010/12/30/ryan-rules/

[deziloooooo]

There still is the Senate and the Ecexutive, unless rhe GOP is ready to stop any movement on reforms working with the other House and the President..If needed there is the executive provolidge and decree ..a lot can be done if needed.
President do have lots and lots of power and if the American public sees that one side is blocking and causing unnecessary mischief and not working together well..there is 2012 and it may not go the way they hope.
American electorate..when they get p off..watch out..it's just a case of who suffers their wrath.

[pappyjohn99]

Very frightening. Finally someone that wants to get the countries financial house in order will have the power to do it.

[lakhota]

Yeah, right. How much do YOU know about him?

[reformeddaytrader]

Topic: Rep. Paul Ryan: A Very Scary Dude (Read 36 times)

I like him and think he will do some good things next year but his biggest challenge will be Tax Reform and I know something about reform

[warsaw (banned)]

Not gonna happen....unbelievable really what liars and hypocrites bought off Pubs in congress are...all they want to do is make the house the executive LOL!

[reformeddaytrader]

The Paul Ryan's Roadmap to Recovery is now available if you want to google and read it ....he has his critics like Paul Krugman and liberals in congres but whether he can even bring any up for a vote is a big unknown.. some think his deas are too drastic or too draconian

[ugonow]

Paul Ryan tells it like it is. He is speaking up on the government run healthcare that calls itself Obamacare. No longer will you have the decision on what care you recieve,Obama will----www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/51054302.html

[Deleted]

I like Rand Paul. He is not the same old, same old... is he?

[ugonow]

Paul Ryan is getting some awsome new powers-----nationaljournal.com/n2k-top-10-haley-s-comment-line-of-fire-20101230 9.RYAN RISING. A little-noticed detail in the new rules proposed by House GOP leaders would greatly increase the power of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee. As National Journal’s Katy O’Donnell reports, the new rules say that, for fiscal 2011, the chairman will set spending limits without needing a vote. Because Republicans have vowed to slash discretionary spending as much as 20 percent this year, Ryan will be a very important person to know.


[pappyjohn99]

Mr. Lakota, I live in his district. I have been around to hear the man speak many times. I have a lot more faith in his judgment then the liberal fools at your Soros sponsored think tank.

[pappyjohn99]

Hello Krickitt. Nice to see you again.

[mudflap81]

I read the entire article and read both articles linked from the original that "prove" the point. None of them mentioned the exact section that gives him this power. I then read the entire 32 page resolution, twice, and I couldn't find anywhere that says this either (link to resolution below).

The only thing that I saw close to this line of thought was this:

5 (4) A general appropriation bill may not be con-
6 sidered in the Committee of the Whole House on the
7 state of the Union unless it includes a spending re-
8 duction account as the last section of the bill. An
9 order to report a general appropriation bill to the
10 House shall constitute authority for the chair of the
11 Committee on Appropriations to add such a section
12 to the bill or modify the figure contained therein.

But that just reads that if the full houses requires a bill be brought in front of them that does not comply with the "cut-go" rules, the committee chair can add that section on his or her own.

Also, cut-go sounds awesome. Even better than pay-go.

Link to resolution: rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/112-Hres5-CP_xml.pdf

[ugonow]

Also, cut-go sounds awesome. Even better than pay-go.

Agreed,but I agree with him.Tax cuts are exempt.

[lakhota]

RYAN'S RADICAL RULE?.... House Republicans quietly advanced procedural budget rules last week, which would be funny if they weren't so ridiculous. But there's a second part of this that shouldn't go overlooked.

We talked the other day about Republicans' "Cutgo" rules. The policy allows the GOP to try to keep slashing taxes, without having to pay for them, while requiring spending cuts to pay for new or expanded programs.

As Paul Krugman explained this morning, "Spending increases will have to be offset, but revenue losses from tax cuts won't. Oh, and revenue increases, even if they come from the elimination of tax loopholes, won't count either: any spending increase must be offset by spending cuts elsewhere; it can't be paid for with additional taxes." The Nobel laureate labeled this "the new voodoo."

And then there's the other part of House Republicans' new budget rules.

A little-noticed detail in the new rules proposed by House GOP leaders would greatly increase the power of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee. As National Journal's Katy O'Donnell reports, the new rules say that, for fiscal 2011, the chairman will set spending limits without needing a vote.

If that sounds insane, that's because it is. Under the proposed rules, Ryan would be empowered to single-handedly establish spending levels if the House and Senate struggle to agree on a budget resolution. Just as important, Ryan's levels would be binding on the chamber, without even being subjected to a vote.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained:

This rule change ... means that by voting to adopt the proposed new rules on January 5, a vote on which party discipline will be strictly enforced, the House could effectively be adopting a budget resolution and limits for appropriations bills that it has never even seen, much less debated and had an opportunity to amend. [...]

Once Rep. Ryan places in the Congressional Record discretionary funding limits set at the [2008] level, they will become binding on the House, and any attempt to provide funding levels that allow for less severe cuts will be out of order.

In addition to inviting a crisis and almost-unavoidable government shutdown, Pat Garofalo reminds us, "The proposed change also seems to fly in the face of the GOP's promise to end backroom deals and increase transparency, as with one vote, the GOP House may yoke itself to a budget that has never been made public."

Worse, the chamber would be forced to honor mandatory spending levels, established by one crackpot lawmaker, which the rest of Congress would never have even voted on.

We're starting to see some outrage from House Democrats on this, but the fix may be in.

www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_12/027329.php

[Deleted]

I love making people crazy, huh??
(smiley face)

[Deleted]

Pappy-- that is the coolest avatar I have EVER seen!!!

[ungenteel]

I've seen some suggestions that Ryan will soon replace the crybaby Boener .. it really appears that the righties want to try to force a gummint shutdown and blame the consequences on Obama

[Deleted]

I can't wait to see Marco Rubio break loose on the public!!! Man, oh, man-- 2016 look out-- here comes Marco!!!
Sorry, kids, I am playing, and have not seen in the COC that that is against the rules.
(smiley face)

[mudflap81]

We talked the other day about Republicans' "Cutgo" rules. The policy allows the GOP to try to keep slashing taxes, without having to pay for them, while requiring spending cuts to pay for new or expanded programs.

The problem is that this logic assumes that all money belongs to the government and not the people.

As Paul Krugman explained this morning, "Spending increases will have to be offset, but revenue losses from tax cuts won't. Oh, and revenue increases, even if they come from the elimination of tax loopholes, won't count either: any spending increase must be offset by spending cuts elsewhere; it can't be paid for with additional taxes." The Nobel laureate labeled this "the new voodoo."

So if revenues go up the government won't be allowed to instantly spend the money. I love this rule!

[pappyjohn99]

I wonder about Mr. Krugmans' opinion of the fact that our Democratic led congress was to busy to get a budget bill passed by October. One of the fundamental jobs we send them there to do. To frightened to spend more money we don't have in an election year.

[ugonow]

a gummint shutdown and blame the consequences on Obama

Like anyone else would be to blame? There is a voter mandate. Do you want to blame them?

[pappyjohn99]

Thanks Krickitt.

It's been a while since the government had any fear of the people.

[ugonow]

Paul Ryan has a healthy respect for industry and their lobbyists. He knows just how much relationship is good and how much will be percieved as bad. Industry runs our country.Protect it at all costs.

[Deleted]

Well, Pappy-- the time is coming. OMG!!!! It is HERE, actually!!!

[verrip1]

Dec 31, 2010 22:03:48 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

I wonder about Mr. Krugmans' opinion of the fact that our Democratic led congress was to busy to get a budget bill passed by October. One of the fundamental jobs we send them there to do. To frightened to spend more money we don't have in an election year.

Yeah, Paul Krugman. Creds in the poophouse. He has one and only one mantra: increase government spending.

All he's missing is the red nose and oversized shoes. LOLOLOL.

[ugonow]

Krugman is a joke.When everyone else was saying there was no recession,he was saying doom and gloom.Now he is spouting b.s. about recovery and good times.

[steff]

Isn't this about the time that folks start preaching again about blood running in the streets and how "we are coming for you" and all that jazz (yet again)? Thought all that was supposed to happen 2 years ago. Time delay?

[verrip1]

Dec 31, 2010 22:27:40 GMT -5 steff said:

Isn't this about the time that folks start preaching again about blood running in the streets and how "we are coming for you" and all that jazz (yet again)? Thought all that was supposed to happen 2 years ago. Time delay?

Go right ahead, if that floats your boat. All I hear is kricketts, errr, crickets.

[steff]

LoL...not me, I was just waiting to see if the usual "we'll get you dastardly libs" threats were going to start up.