Senate Democrats finally have a budget plan, and boy it stinks

One should be happy that Senate Democrats have produced a budget plan. After all, it’s been a few years since that responsibility was fulfilled. Earlier this month, one was finally unveiled by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. Simply stated, the plan stinks. It’s an avowed evasion of fiscal responsibility.

The Republicans also have a budget, pushed by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. It’s far from perfect, but it does have a goal that the Democrats completely ignore. It seeks to balance the budget. The Senate Democratic plan has no intention of even trying to eventually attain a balanced budget. It calls for deficits in perpetuity.

Consider this. The Republican plan seeks to balance the budget — something President Clinton achieved often during his term — by 2023. The Senate Democrats have no plans to balance the budget, apparently regarding that task — mandatory in most households — as too difficult. The Senate Democratic plan slashes the percent of the economy that is debt from its current 77 percent to a mere 70 percent. The GOP plan trims the debt percentage to about 55 percent.

Consider the projected deficit in Murray’s Democratic plan for 2023 alone. It would be $566 billion. Given that projections for years ahead by budget-makers tend to be optimistic, it’s disheartening that the Democrats see as $566 billion annual deficit 10 years hence as the most optimistic scenario. In fact, over 10 years, the Senate Democratic plan assumes more than $5 trillion of debt, added to a current national debt that is close to $17 trillion.

The problem with Democrats and their budgeting is that they no longer want to reduce debt, they want to keep it where it is, close to or just above 75 percent of the economy. That might have worked a long time ago, when debt was still comparatively small. But it’s at $17 trillion now. The entitlement obligations of the future will only grow, and destabilize the debt, bloating any Democratic Party’s budget far beyond its 70 to 75 percent share of the economy.

Assuming a majority Democratic Senate passes the Murray plan and a Republican House passes the Ryan plan, there will be a contentious conference to try to reach a compromise. Before that happens, the Murray plan should be trashed and another substituted that achieves a balanced budget. Without that goal, the plan stinks.

Share
This entry was posted in The Political Surf and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Senate Democrats finally have a budget plan, and boy it stinks

  1. Brent Glines says:

    Since the House budget plan and the Senate budget plan will now go through reconciliation, I suspect their thinking is, let’s treat this like were haggling at a flea market. The buyer (the House) has made their offer, so the seller (the Senate) responds with an unrealistic outrageous price, hoping to meet in the middle where they want to end up anyway.

    Unfortunately, the middle still leaves us with excessive debt, so in that, although the Senate has produced a budget, they are still irresponsible.
    (Crossposted to Doug’s Facebook Page)

  2. D. Michael Martindale says:

    Democrats are feeling invulnerable to voter backlash these days. (And why not? We re-elected Obama, the worst president in a century.)

    This is what happens when Democrats feel invulnerable and show their true colors.

  3. Pingback: Senate Democrats finally have a budget plan, and boy it stinks | The … – Current National Debt – Focus On World Finances

  4. rls says:

    doug — i can cut my household budget in half if i just stop buying food, but that’s not really practical, is it — ryan’s budget works along the same lines: cut everything that poor people need to survive, and balance the budget! –

    — here’s a thought — let’s jump-start the economy by rebuilding our infrastructure — right now money is cheap to borrow, spending it on such rebuilding will get the economy growing again, businesses will start investing the trillions of dollars they’re currently sitting on, the economy will grow even more, and tax revenues will grow, even without additional taxes on the rich –

    — there are two ways out of a deficit hole, cutting spending and increasing revenue — we need to do BOTH –

    • Lasvegasrichard says:

      I have heard the statement that for every 1% drop on unemployment , equals $500 billion drop in yearly deficits in the budget . The method to get there is best accomplished by exactly what you have posted . The Republican plan is a farce .

  5. willbike says:

    Republicans have only recently become interested in a balanced budget. Republicans are just as responsible, if not more so, for our deficit than Obama.

  6. MdittokMdittok says:

    Least we forget that it was a Republican controlled House an Senate that worked with Clinton to have a surplus. To say that the Repulicans want to cut everything is far fetched. This problem is equal to both sides but starts with a federal government working outside their bounds. Provide us security and safety but don’t run our every move. We all live in different states with different needs and those states need the authority to make decisions for their people. Not people in New York Nd California making decisions for the rest of us. Now you want to cut deficit and get people working well quit letting people stay on unemployment forever. Heck, right now with sequestration they are the only people guaranteed a paycheck. If they don’t have a job after 6 months but still want an unemployment check they go work the roads and the bridges. But they work or don’t get paid. If I have to hear another person tell me to call them back in 3 months when their unemployment runs out I am going to be sick.

    • rls says:

      – put the unemployed to work rebuilding roads and bridges? — YES!! — that’s exactly what stimulus spending would be doing, creating jobs for people by rebuilding our infrastructure — that way we get both lower unemployment and a rebuilt infrastructure, not to mention the fact that the economy gets a big jump-start –

  7. Dovie says:

    Big changes take time and (often) an influx of money. The ACA, of which I am not a fan, does not pretend to save anything until about 10 years down the road. It costs more money to get out of Afghanistan in the short term than if we maintained status quo.

    There have been bipartisan social program cuts already. Google TANF – benefits for non-workers have been cut. Most Americans want some form of Social Security and Medicare. They do not want the baby thrown out with the bath water.

    I feel the country would be better off today if Congress had passed Clintoncare in 1992, developed a coherent energy policy in 2000 instead of starting 2 wars, and passed the Bush immigration reform package. Who blocked all those big, far-sighted things?

    Yep, as MDM says the democrats are feeling pretty secure. The reason is that they have no competition – the alternative is a bunch of three year olds having a tantrum who want to slash and burn everything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>