ConservativeHome's The Republican

So what comes next?

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

As America moves forward after a dramatic conclusion to Washington's latest budget battle many are trying to wrap their head around what comes next

With deficit reduction measures taking root alongside a three step debt limit increase, the Washington Post (using the latest analysis from the CBO) offers a great visual of what's to come over the next few months (full graphic available to view here.)

What they're saying: Republicans weigh in on why they voted against the debt deal

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

The Budget Control Act may have cleared Congress, but despite bipartisan support (although somewhat grudgingly) for the legislation's passage, in total 85 Republicans voted against the bill (19 Senators and 66 Representatives). 

Unimpressed with the proposal's key provisions, here's a look at what a number of congressional Republicans had to say about why they voted 'no':

Senator Jim DeMint:

This debt deal doesn't solve anything, it puts America at risk. At the end of his four-year term, Obama will be responsible for nearly $6 trillion in new debt. More than any other president. Washington's debt deal doesn't change our course, it taps the brakes as we speed toward a fiscal cliff.

Senator David Vitter:

We can -- we must -- do better. #tcot #latcot #debtceiling #deficit

Senator Dan Coats: 

I opposed the final vote because it falls significantly short of what is needed to address the severity of this fiscal crisis.  For months I have been saying a credible must include at least $4 trillion over a decade and a commitment to restructure entitlements and our tax code. This bill only cuts as little as $2.1 trillion over 10 years and most of these reductions don't occur til years down the road.

Congresswoman Martha Roby:

I am pleased that a default has been avoided as a result of the vote tonight. However, I was unable to support this legislation because, after a careful reading of the bill, I fear it could ultimately result in devastating and unjustified cuts to our national security. This bill, unlike previous proposals I supported, has a weak firewall against potentially destructive defense cuts. To be sure, there are savings to be found in the Pentagon’s budget, and I have already voted this year to trim wasteful and unnecessary defense spending. But this bill goes much too far. The legislation would use our defense budget as an insurance policy to guarantee savings in the event that the special joint committee, which this legislation creates, fails to achieve cuts in other areas of the government bureaucracy.

Congressman Tim Scott:

[T]his compromise did not take enough steps towards ensuring a stable economic future in order to earn my vote. The short-term spending reductions in the bill were insufficient, I believe the Balanced Budget Amendment should be mandated, and I have concerns with lingering questions regarding defense cuts. 

Despite my decision on this particular vote, I am pleased with the direction we are moving the debate, and want to thank the American people for supporting the principles of Cut, Cap, and Balance. I will continue the fight to reign in spending, reform our tax code, and get the government out of the way of our job creators.

Congressman Tim Huelskamp:

Despite having pledged to the American people an open and transparent process and despite having months to fix this problem, we were asked to vote in the 11th hour for a bill that the public had less than 16 hours to read and understand. The culture of fiscal irresponsibility may not have been created by this Congress, but we were sent here to put an end to it; I'm afraid this bill does not rise to that occasion.

Senator Marco Rubio:

I cannot support this plan because it fails to actually solve our debt problem, fails to diminish the risk of a credit rating downgrade and is not a long-term solution to avert a debt crisis.

Congressman Connie Mack:

The Congress voted again to continue funding the President’s reckless spending and financial irresponsibility. The President and Congressional Democrats have played games, used scare tactics, and offered ‘schemes’ not solutions to Washington’s spending problem. While I did not support the plan put forth today, the House has put forth three plans and the President has failed to put any plan on the table. America needs a permanent fix to Washington’s spending problem and today the co-sponsorship of the Mack Penny Plan has reached a new high of fifty-six Members of Congress, and I expect many others to join the effort during the August recess.

Senator Jeff Sessions:

[M]y great reservation that compels me to oppose this bill is that we are undermining the one thing most vital to ending the debt crisis looming over us: accountability. 

The new normal in Washington has become panic-driven 11th hour votes in which Members are told to fall into line before pandemonium ensues. This is no way to run the Congress or to run the government.

I fear we are relinquishing our responsibility as Senators.

Senator Chuck Grassley:

I voted against the plan because it delays meaningful spending reductions, fails to address entitlement spending in a way that will save the programs for future generations of retirees, and leaves open the possibility of tax increases.

In fact, the White House said yesterday it will seek to increase taxes in the second part of the deal.  Tax increases are the wrong answer for a struggling economy, and recent history proves that higher taxes don’t go to the bottom line.  Instead, they’re a license for Washington to spend even more.  Since World War II, for every dollar in new taxes, the government has spent $1.17.

Senator Pat Toomey:

Unfortunately, the debt ceiling deal...does nothing to deal with the path of our government's unsustainable deficit spending. For fiscal year 2012, this legislation will only cut two-tenths of 1 percent of total spending. Not only will our debt grow each year under this plan, it will continue to grow even as a percentage of our economy. Finally, I am concerned that the long-term cuts over the next decade will not materialize. All Congress has to do to override this bill's spending restraints in the future is pass another law that overrides them. If Congress is truly serious about cutting spending, it would mandate serious spending cuts in next year's budget - the only year in which cuts are actually guaranteed.

Senator Dean Heller:

I respect the effort by all involved to reach a compromise, but this agreement simply does not make the long-term, structural changes necessary to rebuild our economy. Congress has again shied away from making the tough decisions necessary to seriously address our nation’s need for fiscal health and economic growth. Twice I have voted in favor of forward-looking plans that would prevent tax increases, protect Social Security and Medicare and require Congress to send a Balance Budget Amendment to the States. 

Want to know what $15 trillion looks like?

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

$15 trillion is a staggering amount money, and if the US continues on it's current fiscal path US national debt will topple that figure by Christmas 2011.

As elected leaders attempt to forge a budget deal with just days to go before a US default (and credit downgrade), Los Angeles based engineer Oto Godfrey offers an interesting look at the current debt dilemma. Employing the Statue of Liberty and increments of $100 bills as a means of comparison, Godfrey's infographics provide an extremely worrying visual of the country's fiscal future.

Godfrey's full visual comparison (including a NYC skyline look at unfunded liabilities) is available to view here.

Medicare, media coverage and maintaining momentum: Herman Cain weighs in on his 2012 campaign

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

In an interview post today on NRO's The Corner, 2012 contender and former Godfather's Pizza CEO, Herman Cain offered his views on his presidential chances, how he feels about the Ryan budget proposal and the media's coverage of his candidacy thus far.

With Cain currently boasting the highest Positive Intensity Score among the prospective GOP field, and having topped the latest ConservativeHome/Daily Caller 2012 survey, here's a look at what the newly announced presidential candidate had to say:

On Paul Ryan's budget plan:

I absolutely support Paul Ryan’s plan...It is exactly the kind of bold restructuring that we need in order to get our hands around the entitlements issue. We need to restructure programs, not just reshuffle, which is what we did for decades, and now look where we are...Liberals are trying to make it seem like we are going to throw old people off of the bridge...That is a lie. That is all they can say, because they don’t want to fix the status quo.

On the major networks lack of attention to his candidacy:

Occasionally, they ask me to come do an interview; then, right before it happens, they cancel it. There are a couple of theories out there about why this is the case. One is that I am the last person they’d like to see run against Barack Obama.

On winning the GOP nomination:

I can’t say who else might get in...But if you look at the announced candidates — Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and me — I think my chances of getting the nomination are just as great as their chances, and probably better than some of them.

On the early states:

I do not believe that the South, nor Georgia, is necessarily Newt Gingrich’s territory, simply because of the experience that he has there...We are going to do well in all of these early states. People are connecting with my message, with my commonsense solutions and my passion.

Jane Corwin granted court order barring certification of winner in NY special election

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

With less than five hours to go before the polls close in Western New York, the Buffalo News reports that GOP candidate Jane Corwin this afternoon obtained a court order barring a certification of a winner in the special 26th District election pending a hearing later this week.

According to the Buffalo News:

Under the judge's 11-page order, attorneys for Corwin have until Wednesday to serve copies of the court order on the election boards of Erie, Niagara, Genesee, Orleans, Wyoming, Livingston and Monroe counties, their sheriff's departments, the state Board of Elections and her three opponents...

...Chris Grant, a spokesman for the Corwin campaign, said the court action "is very typical" in such close elections.

"We recognize the closeness of the race and we want to make sure that every legal vote is counted fairly and accurately," Grant said...

...[State Supreme Court Justice Russell P. Buscaglia] has scheduled a hearing on the election case for 10:30 a.m. Thursday in his second-floor courtroom at 25 Delaware Ave. But the entire matter could be "moot" if the winning margin is sufficient to eliminate any need for court action, Wojtaszek said

A new Senate bill on Medicaid is another good contribution to today's biggest fight between right and left: capping what government spends on health care versus making open-ended promises and figuring out how to pay later

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Though it virtually went uncovered yesterday, Senators Coburn, Burr and Chambliss introduced a Medicaid reform bill yesterday.

Like Paul Ryan’s budget, the Senate bill would (1) repeal ObamaCare and (2) give states a defined amount of Medicaid funding with fewer restrictions so they could flexibly design their own plans.

Obama and congressional Democrats will demagogue this type of reform as evidence that Republicans don’t care about poor people, want to grow the ranks of the uninsured, and so on.

The Senate bill is certainly an effort to make the program cost less. As Jeffrey Anderson at the Weekly Standard has written, Paul Ryan’s version of this reform would save $201 million every day compared to Obama’s budget. In a program that racked up $22.5 billion in improper payments in 2010, bringing spending levels down is certainly not inconsistent with providing better coverage for low-income people.

State flexibility is the key to better coverage. A fixed amount each year with fewer strings attached allows states to stretch every dollar farther. This is essentially why Republican governors have supported the idea of Medicaid block grants. Governors, even Republicans, don’t usually advocate too loudly for things they think will restrict the flow of federal dollars into their states. In the case of Medicaid, governors prefer dollar-stretching flexibility to promises of more dollars under the status quo.

And this brings us to what we are really debating right now: the difference between fixing federal payments for programs each year, and promises of open-ended funding.

Obama’s budget and health care law do virtually nothing to restrict Medicaid. They do the reverse. ObamaCare uses Medicaid, for instance, as a way to take 16 million uninsured people off the “uninsured list.”

Defined contributions (the Republican idea) versus defined benefits (the Democratic idea) is the fight we’re having, and hardly any fight has greater long-term fiscal implications.

Reform-minded Republicans favor limiting contributions in three key ways at the moment:

1. Medicare: vouchers, or “premium support” as in the Ryan budget, rather than having the federal government tweak benefits each year
2. Medicaid: block grants to states, rather than open-ended promises to keep funds flowing
3. Health care reform: though it’s not as firmly fixed in bills as the previous two, the idea is to fix contributions through a universal tax credit each year, rather than continue with the employer-based health tax benefit we currently have, which distorts the market and drives up costs

These are the bright dividing lines. They sound rather boring, but they are what will drive the public debate about government reform in the near term, and maybe even long term. Hardly ever in our history have such boring-sounding reforms had such dramatic implications.