Skip to content

Paul Ryan “mislead” House Republicans in order to pass his budget compromise

December 14, 2013

    (A quick note before I get to this post: I posted a new article on Harry Reid’s corruption earlier today but because it was in my queue for a couple of days it posted below yesterday’s articles. Please scroll down to check it out.) 

  According to this article Paul Ryan was not entirely honest about his budget compromise when he sold it to House Republicans last week.

Misrepresentations include serious budget details ranging from how much deficit reduction is actually in the plan to how spending in this plan compares to spending if the current law, the Budget Control Act (BCA), remains the law of the land.

  Here are a few of his misrepresentations:

Ryan’s claim, for instance, that this plan ends up resulting in $23 billion in total deficit reduction is not true. Ryan and Murray did not ask the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to estimate interest payments on the $63 billion in increased spending that will need to be borrowed for the first couple of years of the budget. As such, the CBO score does not represent the full financial picture of the plan.

Another issue arises on a question and answer page about the bill on Ryan’s committee’s website. There he argues that the “agreement will cut spending and reduce the deficit even more than doing nothing will.”

 Technically, according to the CBO, the claim that the deal “will cut spending” more so “than doing nothing will” is not accurate. CBO makes clear that by subtracting out fees and revenues and only comparing spending cuts to spending increases, the Ryan-Murray plan would spend roughly $11 billion more than under current law as established by the BCA.

Another untruth that Ryan used to sell the deal came on a fact sheet bearing his name published by the House Budget Committee.

 “The bipartisan budget agreement includes specific, concrete spending cuts, which come to a total of $85 billion in savings,” Ryan’s committee wrote in the first point of that document.

 That claim is false. While the deal does have a net $85 billion in savings to replace the sequester, only $51 billion of that total comes from what Ryan describes as “specific, concrete spending cuts.” The other $34 billion comes from fee and revenue increases.

  Make no mistake about it: Paul Ryan is running for president in 2016 and that is why he suddenly softened his immigration stance, and that is why the one-time deficit hawk has capitulated to the Democrats’s whim on the budget, spending and taxes. (He can call them fees all he wants, but they are still taxes.)

  He has made the political calculation that he personally is better served by supporting amnesty and reversing the sequester cuts. I once thought that Paul Ryan was the only person in the Congress who took the deficit and spending seriously but now I know he is no different than the tax and spend liberals he hopes to defeat in 2016. The end justifies the means and in his case the endgame is becoming president of the United States, principles and honor be damned…..

  It appears as if the one thing that Paul Ryan took out of his failed 2012 attempt at becoming Vice President is that you must promise everything to everybody, he does not have the balls to run for president on the positions we all thought that he held in 2012, if he ever really did hold those positions in the first place.

8 Comments leave one →
  1. December 14, 2013 9:40 pm

    Reblogged this on


  2. MaddMedic permalink
    December 14, 2013 11:56 pm

    Reblogged this on Freedom Is Just Another Word….


  3. LD Jackson permalink
    December 15, 2013 9:09 am

    I can’t help but wonder how far down this rabbit hole Paul Ryan is willing to go. If he insists on taking positions he used to be against, he may find his campaign for higher office will be very short lived.


    • December 15, 2013 11:37 am

      I cannot for the life of me understand how these people think this is a winning strategy. Can’t they see they will lose more voters from the base than they will gain from the middle? It happens every time and yet they still do not get it.


  4. December 15, 2013 11:34 am

    I’m going to wait and see on this one. If he is giving just enough to get the ball rolling in the right direction, then I’d call that being a realist and that is needed right now. We can not expect to roll back a hundred years of stupidity all at once.


    • December 15, 2013 11:38 am

      That is a good point and I did consider that as well, but giving back what was already gained does not seem like a step in the right direction to me. I guess we will have to wait and see.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: