Can Paul Ryan Put Down a Revolt From the Right?

National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Sarah Mimms, Tim Alberta and Billy House
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.”

Contributions by Michael Catalini

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.