The budget battle: What the heck is going on in D.C.?
The 2013 budget dance in Washington has begun: Both House Republicans and Senate Democrats unveil their budgets this week, and President Obama is sitting down with the major players in the debate. Unless you're a serious budget nerd, however, it's virtually impossible to make sense of exactly what's going on - and what it means for the country. Below, we do our best to sort it all out.
Start with the basics, ok?
Sure. Yesterday, House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., unveiled the House Republicans' budget blueprint for the 2014 fiscal year, which starts in October. It would cut spending by $4.6 trillion through 2023, repeal Obamacare and the Wall Street reform bill, turn Medicare into a voucher-type program for Americans under 55, reduce Medicaid spending, scale back food stamp and education spending, reform the tax code so that there are only two individual tax rates (25 percent and 10 percent), reduce corporate taxes, and limit future spending growth to 3.4 percent.
Details of the Democrats' budget blueprint also began emerging yesterday. The plan from Senate Budget Committee chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., would achieve $1.85 trillion in savings over 10 years, according to her office, in part by raising tax revenues by nearly $1 trillion dollars through closing tax loopholes. We will know more about the specifics later today when Murray's plan is formally unveiled, though White House sources say Senate Democrats are not including the reforms to entitlements Mr. Obama has put forth in an effort to reach a "grand bargain" with Republicans.
Normally, the president releases a budget before Congress releases its plan. But the White House has yet to do so, despite a legal requirement that it be submitted to Congress by the first Monday in February. The White House suggested Tuesday that its plan will come during the week of April 8.
- WH: Despite outreach to GOP, difficult path to "grand bargain"
- What's in the Republican budget plan?
Wait, why are we talking about October? Isn't the government going to run out of money before that?
It is! Right now, the government is only funded through March 27. If Congress doesn't act before then, we could see a government shutdown. The House passed a $982 billion "continuing resolution" to fund the government through October last week, and the Senate is taking up its version this week.
The two chambers would fund the government very differently, but there is some relatively good news: Leaders in Washington do not want to put the public through another nasty budget fight so soon after the "fiscal cliff" battle, and they are indicating that they will come to an agreement without too much of a struggle. That's not a sure thing - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., indicated yesterday he may have to employ newly agreed upon Senate filibuster rules to move past a GOP filibuster - but it appears the major fight is going to be over the budget blueprints, not the stopgap measure.
OK, so then these budget blueprints fund the government for fiscal year 2014, right?
Nope. These proposals are more "blueprint" than "budget" - essentially, they are guidelines to how the government should spend its money over the next decade. They will not become law -- the president doesn't sign them -- and are thus non-binding. When it comes to actually funding much of the government, Congress still has to pass separate appropriations bills for the president to sign. (It's also worth pointing out that much of the federal government's spending is mandatory - if you qualify for Social Security benefits, for example, you don't have to depend on an appropriator to get them.)
Here's how it will work in a best-case scenario: The House and Senate both pass their budget blueprints, hopefully by Easter. (This is made easier in the Senate by the fact that a budget cannot be filibustered, and can thus be passed with a simple majority.) The bills then go to the conference committee, where the two sides try to work out their differences. If we get a deal, Congress can use the blueprint as a guide to write appropriations bills to fund the government for the next fiscal year.
- no previous page
- next
1/2
Popular in Politics
- Obama to view Oklahoma tornado damage Sunday
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 670 Comments
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- WH says criticism of its handling of IRS story is "legitimate"
- Former Miss America might challenge McConnell
- House passes GOP bill to speed Keystone XL pipeline approval
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 121 Comments
The President's budget proposal does not cut spending. The Democrats know the Republicans will not agree to any budget that does not include cutting spending.
Both parties are just playing games and we will not see a federal budget in the foreseeable future. We will continue with this until there is just one political party remaining and then the idea of checks and balances will be a thing of the past. These radicals in both major parties are determined to destroy our political system and replace it with what they believe will be a belevolent despot. There is no such thing as a benevolent despot.
GREAT question Nottblu--- I'd like to see how someone on the left answers--
"If subsidies are removed the cost is passed on to the consumer, that is fact. It would also further damage an economy that is a result of Obama's failed policies."
ACTORNAUGHT replies:
"This is an poorly thought out position. When do you stop tossing sheep to the wolves to thinking it keeps them away from the flock? Where do you draw the line at how much to subsidize these huge, highly profitable businesses?
The only defensible line for a smaller government philosophy is to draw a line at zero subsidies."
Yes ACTORNAUGHT, I'd think much more of these republicans as "free trade fiscal conservatives," if they could include ending fossil fuel subsidies, tax breaks, and tax loopholes for such a well-entrenched and highly profitable industry, instead of PICKING FAVORITES and just ending those to the RENEWABLE ENERGY competitors!
Enough is enough, but the GOP's political rhetoric is inflammatory!
The No. 1 U.S. oil company posted full-year earnings of $44.9 billion. While that was up 9% from 2011, it was about $300 million below the all-time annual earnings record for any company, the $45.2 billion Exxon Mobil earned in 2008.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/01/news/companies/exxon-mobil-profit/index.html
-------------------
CCB5508 replies: "he's too busy watching FOX news".
-------------------
Absolutely, both YOU and RED_GURL are entirely too hung-up on the faux nooz propaganda, and then have nothing of interest or intelligence to post here, so it just meanders back down to personal attacks and fox republican talking points! LOL!
"If subsidies are removed the cost is passed on to the consumer"
So says all you fossil fuel worshiping conservatives, but if the well-entrenched fossil fuel industry, making RECORD PROFITS for years now, cannot subsist on their just profits ($1+ Trillion in profits during the last decade for just BIG OIL), then they need to find a new business.
If they raise their prices a few pennies to makeup for lost subsidies, then so be it, and those that drive the most with the biggest gas-guzzlers will pay for the lion's share of their need to rape the consumers!
I guess NUTT_BLU doesn't 'think' that Exxon-Mobil's RECORD PROFITS is enough, and we should keep subsidizing BIG OIL! LOL!
Exxon Mobil just missed setting a company -- and world -- record for annual profit in 2012.
The No. 1 U.S. oil company posted full-year earnings of $44.9 billion. While that was up 9% from 2011, it was about $300 million below the all-time annual earnings record for any company, the $45.2 billion Exxon Mobil earned in 2008.
http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/01/news/companies/exxon-mobil-profit/index.html
OBWAN222 says:
"You have to forgive them. Conservatives have trouble managing TWO ideas in their head at the same time, they can't even cope with one.
Multifaceted plans and strategies to deal with complex problems is beyond their capability".
While you're absolutely correct that these tea potty types cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, multifaceted plans and strategies that would help us in the future like RENEWABLE ENERGY is just demagogued by them!
POT meet KETTLE, with your name-calling and insults! LOL!
Obviously, you have nothing.....just like all the other tea potty extremists from the far-right!
Time to evolve past fossil fuels.
I wonder if Ryan's budget includes government subsidies for green energy development.
LOL! The ayn rand puppet, lyin' ryan, cuts ALL subsidies and tax breaks for clean and green RENEWABLE ENERGY -- our future -- while forcing the president to build the XL Pipeline for exporting refined fuels, and of course keeps all the fossil fuel tax breaks and subsidies in place!
"Lyndon Johnson spent and spent to create the Great Society. It left the country in recession and vulnerable to outside forces"
LOL! Guess you're too young to have heard about the Vietnam WAR!
The SPENDING on the Vietnam WAR was not part of any economic philosophy -- just chickenhawks and warhawks paying off their military-industrial complex cronies, just like today!
Kinda early to be drunk ain't it?
Come on ranger even you aren't that stupid.
"Senator Patty Murray, the Democratic chair of the Senate Budget Committee, finally released a budget. Year over year, in this proposed budget, spending jumps dramatically.
For instance, from this year's budget to next year's proposed budget, spending would increase by $162 billion. This year, the federal government will spend $3.599 trillion; under Murray's budget, the federal government would be on track to spend even more.
Over the next decade, spending under Murray's budget would increase by 62 percent."
How ya doing?