Does Anyone Have An Explanation For This?

[Guest]

The following editorial from the New Jersey Star-Ledger pretty much captures my feelings. First, read the editorial here...

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2010/02/paygo_democrats_approve_pay-as.html.

What the editorial criticizes is the totally politically-driven conduct by our political parties. In this case, the legislation that was in question was the renewal of the PAYGO bill that requires that every new bill approved by Congress be "deficit neutral". What better "automatic" discipline could there be? This was exactly the same law passed by the Bush 41 administration which helped keep our budgets balanced and our debt on the decline for the entire decade it was on the books.

But then in 2001 the PAYGO law was permitted to "sunset" (expire) by the GOP-controlled Congress at the time. In the years following, federal spending became so profligate that even some Republican leaders described Congress as like "pigs at the trough" and "spending like drunken sailors".

So now the same GOP voted unanimously NOT to re-enact PAYGO. Their stated reason: that requiring all legislation to be deficit neutral might encourage the Congress to increase taxes to balance spending bills that would produce a deficit.

I might suggest another couple of reasons for their resistance...

-- Renewed PAYGO would definitely put a damper on new spending bills that have no source of revenue to pay for them. Remember who it was that were the "drunken sailors" during the last decade or so.

-- The other reason is that the GOP will vote unanimously against ANY legislation introduced by the Democrats.

If either or both of these reasons are true--I'd bet there's truth in both--it shows how badly broken our government really is. Remember, it's the GOP that's been the party so critical of spending.

So someone explain to me: why would the party of stated fiscal conservatism be against a bill that would require a balanced budget?

[Guest]

The following editorial from the New Jersey Star-Ledger pretty much captures my feelings. First, read the editorial here...

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2010/02/paygo_democrats_approve_pay-as.html.

What the editorial criticizes is the totally politically-driven conduct by our political parties. In this case, the legislation that was in question was the renewal of the PAYGO bill that requires that every new bill approved by Congress be "deficit neutral". What better "automatic" discipline could there be? This was exactly the same law passed by the Bush 41 administration which helped keep our budgets balanced and our debt on the decline for the entire decade it was on the books.

But then in 2001 the PAYGO law was permitted to "sunset" (expire) by the GOP-controlled Congress at the time. In the years following, federal spending became so profligate that even some Republican leaders described Congress as like "pigs at the trough" and "spending like drunken sailors".

So now the same GOP voted unanimously NOT to re-enact PAYGO. Their stated reason: that requiring all legislation to be deficit neutral might encourage the Congress to increase taxes to balance spending bills that would produce a deficit.

I might suggest another couple of reasons for their resistance...

-- Renewed PAYGO would definitely put a damper on new spending bills that have no source of revenue to pay for them. Remember who it was that were the "drunken sailors" during the last decade or so.

-- The other reason is that the GOP will vote unanimously against ANY legislation introduced by the Democrats.

If either or both of these reasons are true--I'd bet there's truth in both--it shows how badly broken our government really is. Remember, it's the GOP that's been the party so critical of spending.

So someone explain to me: why would the party of stated fiscal conservatism be against a bill that would require a balanced budget?

The PAYGO bill that you are touting and crticizing Republicans on is HR2920.

In that bill, section 11 exempts SIXTY PERCENT of the budget and there are 150 items named by name as exemptions.

That and the congress already ignores it.....what is the point someone might ask !!!!

[Guest]

I have not read the bill, Bucco. If it doesn't apply to sixty percent of the budget, that might be explained by the fact that's just about the proportion of the budget that is currently classified as "mandatory" spending--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits and interest on government debt.

As far as Congress simply ignoring the law, if and when it passes the House and is signed into law, they don't have much of a choice, do they?

My point--and the point of the editorial--is that politics and self-interest appears to trump even the most critical issues that could be addressed with legislation. No one party escapes this criticism. In this instance it's the Republicans who appear to be saying one thing, but doing another.