Can Paul Ryan Put Down a Revolt From the Right?

None

National Journal
Billy House Tim Alberta Sarah Mimms
Dec. 10, 2013, 5:15 p.m.

After weeks of closed-door talks, House and Sen­ate ne­go­ti­at­ors fi­nally un­veiled a two-year budget deal Tues­day that at­tempts to calm the long-fought feud over spend­ing on Cap­it­ol Hill. But the ques­tion re­mains wheth­er they can sell it to rank-and-file law­makers.

The deal is far from a grand bar­gain. But if ap­proved by the House and Sen­ate, the com­prom­ise would not only keep gov­ern­ment fun­ded and open bey­ond Jan. 15, but also would provide $63 bil­lion in se­quester re­lief over two years — all without new tax rev­en­ue.

“This is the first di­vided-gov­ern­ment budget agree­ment since 1986,” said House Budget Chair­man Paul Ry­an, the chief Re­pub­lic­an ne­go­ti­at­or.

Wheth­er the deal holds up could play out quickly. The House is ex­pec­ted to ad­journ for the year on Fri­day, and lead­ers there are mov­ing for floor ac­tion on the meas­ure as early as Thursday. Ry­an may face the most im­me­di­ate chal­lenge, meet­ing be­hind closed doors Wed­nes­day morn­ing to ex­plain the agree­ment to skep­tic­al House con­ser­vat­ives, many of whom have voiced op­pos­i­tion to any deal that raises spend­ing levels.

Some Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans were also balk­ing at the agree­ment Tues­day night.

“I’m con­cerned about it,” said Minor­ity Whip John Cornyn of Texas, be­fore the deal was even an­nounced. “What I’ve heard is that it ba­sic­ally raises rev­en­ue through fee in­creases — doesn’t do any­thing to deal with the un­sus­tain­able en­ti­tle­ment is­sues and bust the budget caps.”

After the plan was re­leased, Cornyn, who faces reelec­tion in 2014, called it “con­cern­ing” and char­ac­ter­ized it as “a more-spend­ing plan.”

The deal sets top-line spend­ing at $1.012 tril­lion for fisc­al 2014, which ex­actly splits the num­bers in the House and Sen­ate budget pro­pos­als passed earli­er this year. In fisc­al 2015, the over­all spend­ing level would rise to $1.014 tril­lion.

The $63 bil­lion in se­quester re­lief is split evenly between de­fense and nondefense pro­grams. In fisc­al 2014, de­fense dis­cre­tion­ary spend­ing would be set at $520.5 bil­lion, and nondefense dis­cre­tion­ary spend­ing would be set at $491.8 bil­lion.

The se­quester re­lief is de­scribed as be­ing fully off­set by sav­ings else­where in the budget. In fact, the agree­ment in­cludes dozens of spe­cif­ic de­fi­cit-re­duc­tion pro­vi­sions, with man­dat­ory sav­ings and nontax rev­en­ue total­ing roughly $85 bil­lion. In all, the pro­pos­al would save $28 bil­lion over 10 years by re­quir­ing the pres­id­ent to se­quester the same per­cent­age of man­dat­ory budget­ary re­sources in 2022 and 2023 as will be se­questered in 2021 un­der cur­rent law.

The plan does not deal with the debt ceil­ing, which is an­ti­cip­ated to be reached some­time after Feb. 7.

“This doesn’t solve all of our prob­lems,” said Sen­ate Budget Chair­wo­man Patty Mur­ray, the prin­cip­al Demo­crat­ic ne­go­ti­at­or. “But I think it’s an im­port­ant step in help­ing to heal some of the wounds here in Con­gress, to re­build some trust and show that we can do something without a crisis right around the corner.”

She ac­know­ledged dis­ap­point­ment “that we wer­en’t even able to close a single cor­por­ate tax loop­hole as part of the plan.”

Ry­an, whom con­ser­vat­ives de­scribe as the most highly re­spec­ted mem­ber of the House GOP when it comes to fisc­al mat­ters, seems up to the task of selling the deal. He re­peatedly framed the agree­ment as “con­ser­vat­ive” on Tues­day, em­phas­iz­ing at the out­set: “It re­duces the de­fi­cit without rais­ing taxes.”

However, some con­ser­vat­ive law­makers have been openly agit­at­ing for GOP lead­er­ship to pass a “clean” con­tinu­ing res­ol­u­tion at se­quester levels. That ef­fort re­ceived sig­ni­fic­ant out­side sup­port on Tues­day when the Con­ser­vat­ive Ac­tion Pro­ject, an um­brella group rep­res­ent­ing a host of in­flu­en­tial right-wing lead­ers, sent a let­ter to con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­an of­fices ur­ging them to em­brace se­quest­ra­tion and op­pose the Ry­an-Mur­ray deal.

“Though con­ser­vat­ives sup­port more spend­ing re­straint, the dis­cre­tion­ary spend­ing lim­its defined in the Budget Con­trol Act rep­res­ent a prom­ise to the Amer­ic­an people to mar­gin­ally slow the growth of gov­ern­ment,” says the let­ter, which is signed by Her­it­age Ac­tion CEO Mi­chael Need­ham, Fam­ily Re­search Coun­cil pres­id­ent Tony Per­kins, and Amer­ic­an Con­ser­vat­ive Uni­on chair­man Al Carde­n­as, among oth­ers.

The let­ter rep­res­ents a sweep­ing re­buke of Ry­an’s pro­pos­al from a broad co­ali­tion of in­flu­en­tial con­ser­vat­ive act­ors. “Le­gis­la­tion that raises fed­er­al rev­en­ue and spend­ing levels is un­ac­cept­able to con­ser­vat­ives and the ma­jor­ity of Amer­ic­ans and should be re­jec­ted by Con­gress,” the let­ter says.

Ry­an seemed to sense the loom­ing chal­lenge on Tues­day, and took care to frame the de­bate on his own terms.

“As a con­ser­vat­ive, I deal with the situ­ation as it ex­ists. I deal with the way things are, not ne­ces­sar­ily the way I want things to be,” Ry­an said. “I have passed three budgets in a row that re­flect my pri­or­it­ies and my prin­ciples and everything I want to ac­com­plish. We’re in di­vided gov­ern­ment. I real­ize I’m not go­ing to get that.”

At one point, Ry­an seemed to speak dir­ectly to his House GOP col­leagues, per­haps pre­view­ing the pitch he’ll make to them at Wed­nes­day morn­ing’s con­fer­ence meet­ing.

“As a con­ser­vat­ive, I think this is a step in the right dir­ec­tion,” Ry­an said. “What am I get­ting out of this? I’m get­ting more de­fi­cit re­duc­tion. The de­fi­cit will go down more by passing this than if we did noth­ing. That’s point No. 1. Point No. 2 is, there are no tax in­creases here. Point No. 3: We’re fi­nally start­ing to deal with auto­pi­lot spend­ing, that man­dat­ory spend­ing that has not been ad­dressed by Con­gress for years.”

Ry­an ac­know­ledged that some con­ser­vat­ives will vote against the pro­pos­al, but pre­dicted, “I think we will pass this through the House.”

There are po­ten­tial stick­ing points for some law­makers in the meas­ures to help pay for the ad­ded spend­ing, in­clud­ing in­creas­ing fed­er­al em­ploy­ee con­tri­bu­tions to re­tire­ment pro­grams by 1.3 per­cent­age points. The pro­pos­al af­fects new em­ploy­ees hired after Dec. 31 of this year with less than five years of ser­vice.

An­oth­er pro­vi­sion would in­crease the premi­ums that private com­pan­ies pay the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment to guar­an­tee their pen­sion be­ne­fits.

Oth­er rev­en­ues would come through a range of meas­ures, from in­creas­ing Trans­port­a­tion Se­cur­ity Ad­min­is­tra­tion fees to re­peal­ing the re­quire­ment that the Mari­time Ad­min­is­tra­tion must re­im­burse oth­er fed­er­al agen­cies for costs as­so­ci­ated with ship­ping food aid on U.S. ships.

Des­pite ef­forts by Demo­crats, an ex­ten­sion of un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits was not in­cluded in the deal. Those be­ne­fits for 1.3 mil­lion work­ers un­em­ployed for longer than 26 weeks are set to ex­pire on Dec. 28.

While both sides ex­pect tough days ahead as Ry­an and Mur­ray at­tempt to sell the plan, it got a boost from Pres­id­ent Obama, who re­leased a state­ment sup­port­ing the deal late Tues­day.

“This agree­ment doesn’t in­clude everything I’d like — and I know many Re­pub­lic­ans feel the same way,” he said. “That’s the nature of com­prom­ise. But it’s a good sign that Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans in Con­gress were able to come to­geth­er and break the cycle of short-sighted, crisis-driv­en de­cision-mak­ing to get this done.”

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4618) }}

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×