Just a bit of the insanity. Click through to read it all.House Republican leaders yesterday unveiled major changes to House procedural rules that are clearly designed to pave the way for more deficit-increasing tax cuts in the next two years. These rules stand in sharp contrast to the strong anti-deficit rhetoric that many Republicans used on the campaign trail this fall. While changes in congressional rules rarely get much public attention, these new rules — which are expected to be adopted by party-line vote when the 112th Congress convenes on January 5 — could have a substantial impact and risk making the nation’s fiscal problems significantly worse.
Current House rules include a pay-as-you-go requirement that any tax cut or spending increase for a mandatory (i.e., entitlement) program must be offset by cuts in other mandatory spending or increases in other taxes, in order to avoid increasing the deficit. [1] Current rules also bar the House from using budget “reconciliation” procedures — special rules that facilitate speedy action on specified budget legislation — to pass bills that would increase the deficit. The new rules would alter and greatly weaken these commonsense measures:
* The new rules announced December 22 would replace pay-as-you-go with a much weaker, one-sided “cut-as-you-go” rule, under which increases in mandatory spending would still have to be paid for but tax cuts would not.
In addition, increases in mandatory spending could be offset only by reductions in other mandatory spending, not by any measure to raise revenues such as by closing unproductive special-interest tax loopholes. For example, the House would be barred from paying for continuation of a provision enacted in 2009 (and extended in the just-enacted tax compromise) that enables many minimum-wage families to receive a full, rather than a partial, Child Tax Credit by closing wasteful tax breaks for multinational corporations that shelter profits overseas. Use of such an offset would violate the new House rules because the provision expanding the Child Tax Credit for working-poor families counts as spending and hence could not be paid for by closing a tax loophole. Yet the same new rules would enable the House to expand tax loopholes for multinational corporations and wealthy investors without paying for those tax breaks at all, because any tax cut, no matter how costly or ill-advised, could now be deficit financed.
* The new rules would stand the reconciliation process on its head , by allowing the House to use reconciliation to push through bills that greatly increase deficits as long as the deficit increases result from tax cuts, while barring the use of reconciliation in the House for legislation that reduces the deficit if that legislation contains a net increase in spending (no matter how small) that is more than offset by revenue-raising provisions.
By itself, this change in the House rules governing reconciliation would have a limited effect. Reconciliation rules are most important in the Senate because they prohibit use of a filibuster to block a vote on reconciliation legislation, enabling such legislation to pass the Senate with a majority vote instead of the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster (filibusters cannot be used in the House on any legislation). This change in House rules would not affect the current Senate rule barring the use of reconciliation to pass deficit-increasing legislation. But, revising the House rules to allow use of reconciliation to push through deficit-financed tax cuts could well be the first step toward elimination of all rules restricting the use of reconciliation for that purpose. After all, the current bar on using the reconciliation process to pass budget-busting tax cuts (and budget-busting spending increases) was made part of House and Senate rules only in 2007, over GOP opposition.
Sadly, we’ve been here before. In the 1990s, when pay-as-you-go rules applied to both spending increases and tax cuts and Congress used reconciliation solely to enact deficit-reduction packages, the country went from large deficits to a balanced budget. (A strong economy obviously helped as well.) But in the early 2000s, with Republicans controlling Congress and President Bush in the White House, Congress set aside pay-as-you-go and turned reconciliation on its head, using it not to reduce deficits but instead to push through costly, unpaid-for tax cuts in both 2001 and 2003. Previously, reconciliation had only been used for deficit reduction.
The results are plain to see. The Bush-era tax cuts were a significant factor in the return to large deficits after 2001, contributing $2.6 trillion (including added interest costs on the national debt) to the budgetary deterioration between 2001 and 2010. House Republicans now plan to restore the very type of permissive budget rules that contributed markedly to that fiscal deterioration.
Moreover, measures to scuttle the current, even-handed pay-as-you-go rule and to allow use of the reconciliation process to increase the deficit are even more indefensible today than such steps were in 2001 — because now we already have deficits that exceed $1 trillion a year.
It should be recognized that the House rules unveiled December 22 go to great lengths to make clear the intent of the new Republican majority to pass an array of tax-cut measures that will significantly enlarge deficits. Not only do the new rules eliminate the pay-as-you-go restriction on tax cuts that are not paid for, but the rules also specifically authorize the Chairman of the House Budget Committee to ignore for purposes of budget enforcement rules all of the costs of:
* Extending or making permanent the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts (including the tax cuts for the highest-income taxpayers) and relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax;
* Extending or making permanent the hollowing out of the estate tax included in the just-enacted tax-cut compromise legislation; and
* Legislation to provide a major, costly new tax cut — a deduction equal to 20 percent of gross income for “small businesses,” which Republican lawmakers typically have defined very expansively so the term covers a vast swath of firms and wealthy individuals that do not resemble what most Americans think of as a “small business.”
Now realize this: Under this, the House GOP will cut into mandatory spending. Any mandatory spending increase must be offset by... A spending cut.
Still, this is no doubt good news for those who hated Obama's reform attempts. They'll simply not be funded, and thus just bits of paper. I'm sure this is exactly what they want, the way they rant on their blogs about how Obama is worse than Bush.
Or they'll blame this on the President too, probably for not using his 'bully pulpit' which is apparently the Progressive reflection of Dick Cheney's 'Will to win'.
