The Concord Coalition is a longtime nonpartisan budget watchdog group with both Democrats and Republicans as its founding members. It's analysis is always right on, in my opinion, very detailed and backed up with sources they're willing to share.
Here's what that group is saying about new rules adopted by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives in Washington. D.C.
Reading this stuff, I cannot imagine how this will not create, and probably should create, tremendous disagreement between the tea party and the Republican Party.
If we asked voters if this was part of their "message" in congressional elections last fall -- to implement rules like this -- I don't believe they would say "yes."
Here's what the Concord Coalition had to say on Jan. 11, 2011.
"New House Rules Will Clear Path for New Deficits"
Last week the House adopted budget enforcement rules that restrict spending but exempt tax cuts. Included are rules that weaken PAYGO by excluding revenues, allow reconciliation to be used for deficit-financed tax cuts, permit the chairman of the Budget Committee to unilaterally impose budget allocations, and establish spending reduction accounts in appropriations bills.Spending restraint is certainly important. But the House approach of ignoring the budgetary effects of tax cuts is fiscally irresponsible and abandons the Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) principles that were successful in the 1990s. Several fiscal commissions have recommended a wide range of options for reducing budget deficits, saying that everything should be on the table. The House should heed this advice and pay for any proposal that would significantly add to deficits over the long term.
Read more with New House Rules Clear Path for New Deficits
Editor Spear
ReplyDeleteThe new House rules themselves will not lead to further deficits any more than raising the debt ceiling will add more debt. Only if the House acts on these rules or only if the House borrows more after raising the debt ceiling will result in higher deficits. Fiscal responsibility is not part and parcel to the rules. It is a philosophy that no matter what the rules are or what the debt ceiling is, you proactively implement spending reductions rather than rely on the limits of what you are allowed to do be the boundary of your conduct. I have a credit card with a credit limit of $10000, but I rarely go over $1000 a month. Just becuase the rules say I can borrow $10000 on credit does not mean that I will borrow $10000 on my credit. So, the Concord Coalition has is partially right about the new House rules, but the House is not bound to act in such a manner that will produce more deficits.
But, beyond that, I mean - really - when are these type of projections ever accurate? Go back in time and see when a think tank or the CBO or a policy group made a fiscal projection that ever turned out exactly the way they said it would at the end of the term they were talking about. It has never happened. In fact, the reality is that the projections always turn out to be underestimates and the costs or the deficits always turn out to be more than the projections. Which brings me back to my point - the rules don't set the standard of fiscal restraint, the actions of Congress are what result in fiscal restraint. So far, the House has not shown me yet that they plan on continuing the exploding budgets and exploding debts accumulated under Pelosi.