Paul Ryan and Congress reached a decision tonight that will postpone the inevitable government shutdown. This work of fiscal policy has two components: An $11 trillion package of expenditures and a $629 billion package of tax breaks. The packages are comprised of 12 different bills that should (hopefully) be able to fund the government for 2016. Democrats had the majority of votes in passing the bill so they had quite a bit of leverage on what is actually in it and what they were able to combat. Paul Ryan was reluctant but quite cooperative in his dealings and there were many compromises made for the bill to be passed. The primary objective was to try and reduce this deficit, but with all the spending provisions in place that will probably not be even close to happening. The United States Budget Deficit is currently 441 billion dollars, and with the amount of spending on this bill it seems like that will grow next fiscal year. On both parties, there were attempts to package the bill with agenda, and some attempts were successful. Most were not. Here are some of those provisions.
Both parties agreed that there should be increased security in screening for Syrian refugees and passed a visa waiver program making the process more secure. There was also some bipartisan support for ending the 40-year ban on exports for oil. This is the main focal point of disagreement in the bill, Democratic Representatives from oil producing states absolutely love this provision, while some Republicans caution exporting oil. And lastly, there was full bipartisan support for funding the upcoming Census in 2020.
Democrats primarily won on spending and were able to allow more refugees from Syria, allow more funding for planned parenthood, and continue with aggressive regulations for the environment created by President Obama.
Republicans won on taxes and were able to cut corporate and business taxes and postpone new taxes being passed for devices covered by the Affordable Care Act.
Now these provisions are not set in stone. Voting on the tax portion of the bill will come on Thursday (tomorrow when I post this) and the spending vote will come on Friday. Most people, including me, don't believe this will go smoothly. Right now, especially during campaign season, both parties are less likely to agree with each other than ever. However, if the bill does get passed on those assigned dates, the bill will be sent to President Obama and the new provisions will be put in place to start the new year. Woohoo! Well, there is actually a lot to disagree on. Some of these provisions are for things that may anger or make you very happy. One thing I didn't like is that the bill will freeze Vice President Joe Biden's salary, which in my eyes is pretty pointless and mean to a man that appreciates ice cream so intensely. It also gives a $250 dollar deduction to elementary and middle school teachers, which I like. If you want to see some of the rest of these provisions (and you're going to have to because you're going to be answering which ones you like best,) check out the NPR article, the first source, and scroll to the additional highlights.
So which party won? Which provisions do you like best? Which provisions do you absolutely hate? Do you think the passage of the bill is a sign for better, bi-partisan politics? Or do you think that Thursday and Friday will be complete flukes? Do you like Paul Ryan as the speaker of the house? And finally, should we even bother balancing the budget?
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/16/459987911/no-government-shutdown-but-heres-whats-in-the-spending-bill?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/12/16/oil-exports-ban-congress/77420824/
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
9 comments:
Based on the latest information, I'm pleasantly surprised by some of the bipartisan work being done in Congress regarding fiscal policy. Of course, money goes above all else, so it's nice to see politicians seeming to work together. Obviously, I think it goes without question that avoiding a government shutdown is essential here and I give kudos to the guys who's only jobs are to keep the government running. In terms of which party won, I think it is fairly hard to say. What's more important is looking at whether the country as a whole won. I am a huge fan of the increased funding of ($45 million) for Washington D.C.'s schools and the National institutes of Health. Unfortunately, despite the innate awesomeness of F-35s and Blackhawks, I personally feel as if the military budget was not in need of a $111 boost in inventory and that much of the money used to build death machines could be used to boost education and refurbish increasingly poor infrastructure. As of now, I believe that the signing of any Bi-partisan bill is a win at this point and that the country needs to break free of the strong partisanship that breeds gridlock.
Paul Ryan is ok. The two first-names is what irks me the most about him.
I believe it is absolutely essential that we balance the budget. Money is the lifeblood of our country. In both the late 1920s and late 2000s it was obvious that the country's budget was not balanced. Credit being the culprit in first case and irrationally fought wars being culprit in the latter case. Last I remember, the 1930s and late 2000s aren't thought of as the most economically strong periods in American history.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/16/459987911/no-government-shutdown-but-heres-whats-in-the-spending-bill?
It's definitely vital that we balance the budget. In accordance with King Pash's sentiments, a balanced budget is indicative of strong economy, something we certainly have not enjoyed over the last decade. Also, I'm very encouraged in the bi-partisan work achieved in the passage of this bill. Basically everyone involved in Congress was unhappy that they had to make concessions - but hey, that's so, so much better than shouting across the aisle while the nation suffers an ineffectual national legislature. I'm also pleased with new Speaker Paul Ryan's efforts. He was touted as the heir-apparent to the position, the man who would finally bridge the chasmic gap between parties in Congress. I made a post about this several months ago - virtually everyone in American politics saw him as the man for the job. Thus far, with clear bi-partisan bridges being built, it certainly seems like Ryan has delivered on his potential.
I think that as it stands, the compromise between the two parties worked surprisingly well, granted that all of their work is not undone when the tax code is reevaluated. Many times hyperpluralist interest groups overload the legislature with various interests and lead to a muddled compromise that does little, but the amount of change since last year is surprising.
I think we should continue the long-standing limits on oil exports. We have had them in place for years in order to save up our own oil reserves and making other countries drill for oil. There is no reason to do it now, when our economy is improving and oil is still relatively abundant and cheap.
I also agree with the decision to admit more refugees, and to regulate the environment more, especially considering the Paris climate talks.
Lastly, I am going to have to disagree with King Pash and Ruby Thursday about balancing the budget. That is an unrealistic goal that will severely hurt the government, and while great is not compatible with the large government we have had since FDR. However, I definitely think that we should limit excessive spending because the more the government borrows, the more interest rates rise and private investment gets crowded out.
As said by Hannah and Omar, this bill is surprisingly balanced. Although "2CHAINZ" in his post did point out that this bill may be hard to pass because of the parties tendencies to disagree during campaign season, I hope and do believe that people will see over this and recognize the importance of accepting this well-done compromise. Some of the provisions that stood out to me were, firstly, the money allotted for military equipment. This, though I am not too surprised to see, I wish was less extensive because I hope the government handle terrorism with as few troops on the ground as possible. The fear Americans have of terrorism and foreign threats is clear, and understandable, in this act. We see the desire to increase security again in the $1.9 billion (a $268 million increase from last year) that was given to the U.S. Secret Service and the $175 million added to the U.S. embassy security to give them $5.6 billion total. Given the crisis of the time, I think these expenditures are important to American's safety and see little disagreement over them when the act is voted on. Like "2CHAINZ" I do not see the need to freeze the Vice President's salary and was surprised to see this on the act. I thought it was interesting that the Democrats were in support of ending the ban on selling oil overseas given the dangers this may attract. I liked to see the $250 deduction for elementary and secondary school teacher who pay out of pocket for school supplies as well as the $45 million for school improvements in D.C. and $15 million for scholarships to send low-income students in the District to private schools. I think education is important and has been undervalued and under-supported in the Unites States. Overall, the act looks like a good compromise between Democrats wants and Republicans wants and therefore I hope to see it passed for 2016.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/16/459987911/no-government-shutdown-but-heres-whats-in-the-spending-bill?
I agree with Hannah and Omar as well; Congress has made a lot of progress in narrowing down their differences for this bill. However as of Tuesday the deal was stalled because of GOP insistence on lifting the ban on oil exports. This bill, as King Pash said, is a key for the United States to break free from gridlock. Thus in this case I think that both parties won because this bill is allowing them to get things done and to even act at all. I agree with 2CHAINZ that the freezing of Vice President Joe Biden’s salary is horrible because the man is just doing his job and has done nothing to deserve this. I think the parties need to expand their views and look for other sources of income besides an individual's salary. However I disagree with 2CHAINZ on the topic of the $250 deduction in elementary and secondary school teachers salaries. Teachers are already paid little as it is and most cannot afford to lose even $250. Plus, these are the people who are educating the next generation and if they have a smaller salary that the best people won’t want the job. Don’t we want the best to be educating the future? While I understand that the military is underpaid as well, I don’t understand why the bill includes a one percent pay raise for military personnel (however I do think thee money going towards housing shortfalls is very well spent). Overall I like Paul Ryan as the speaker of the house and respect his attempts to prevent a government shutdown. I also agree with him on the fact that balancing the budget is super important. Money is essential to our nation and by balancing the budget we can continue to strengthen our economy.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/15/politics/paul-ryan-government-shutdown/index.html
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/16/459987911/no-government-shutdown-but-heres-whats-in-the-spending-bill?
I agree with King Pash statement in that neither of the two parties really won in regards to the work being done in Congress. It constantly bothers me that the bipartisan split seems to solely define the way our country functions and that we no longer act as one nation but rather two; the democrats and republicans. So as far as whether which party won I don't think either did, I think they both cohesively worked together (for the first time in a while) and views from both parties are shared in this bipartisan bill. I feel that the provision of increased security in screening for Syrian refugees and a visa program were most certainly needed to ensure our country’s safety in a time like this. Following the Paris attacks the whole world was shaken and I applaud Congress for taking action in even further protecting the U.S. in all ways they possibly are able to. However I am not a fan of the raising military budget. Yes our national security is a priority and with the terrorist threat that exists today we must take drastic military measures, however $111 million is a rather large amount of money being spent solely for military purposes. Despite this I feel that the decisions made in congress were logical and with reason for the issues that the U.S. currently faces. I think that this bill is certainly a sign that bipartisan politics are improving. If both the democrats and republicans were able to find a mutual common ground in congress that is certainly a feat for our country. I agree with Claire in that Paul Ryan is worthy of respect and has done a fair job as speaker of the house. His achievements in preventing a government shutdown should not go unrecognized because our country should not have to suffer a fall like that. Finally, I think we most definitely should bother balancing our budget. Money is essential to our country, whether you like it, or not. Without a balanced budget the way our country functions can potentially be completely thrown off and therefore a balanced budget is most certainly necessary for the well being and sustainability of the United States.
I agree with King Pash. Previous to hearing this, I did not believe that some of these portions of the package could make it through the heavily divided congress. Not only does the bill provide for a lot of positives, such as in my opinion the increased amount of refugees being administered to the United States, but it also hopefully shows the country that Republicans and Democrats can work together. Congress for the past while has been seen as very inneficiant due to this stigma that neither group is able to work with each other, and nobody really expected this package to get very far, especially during a campaign of this magnitude and controversy. Of course, it wasn't all just flowers and roses as there are many unfavorable provisions, such as the already mentioned freezing of Joe Biden's ice cream funds. (Let the man have his ice cream money). Overall, this is a very positive step in the right direction for a hopefully more functioning congress where compromise is a common theme for bills and legislation instead of flat out refusal to budge as seen previously.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/did-ted-cruz-reveal-classified-information-gop-debate-n481076
I agree with Mia and Will that the provisions of the bill were surprising in their ability to compromise. Generally speaking the Republican and Democratic parties struggle to reach any sort of agreement. No party seems to have completely won the bill as a whole but instead there is a balance of ideas and opinions from both sides. I like the provisions allowing for great spending on the environment and Planned Parenthood as these are issues that I consider highly relevant and important for the well being of our nation. I do not agree with the move to cut corporate taxes even further as this will only enlarge the gap between the vastly wealthy and the poor. Although I would like to say that this bill shows a sign of bi partisan compromise I worry that it is a fluke and not necessarily indicative of the future. I believe that neither party wanted to appear as the one that was preventing a bill from being passed and shutting down the government in the middle of a presidential race. Once the race is the issues of not being able to compromise or reach an agreement will likely reappear full force and the government will once again be in gridlock. Paul Ryan thus far has proved to be a solid speaker of the house. He appears to be facilitating communication between the two parties and working on having both parties work out a fair compromise on this bill. Hopefully, this trend and attitude will continue with his term. The budget needs to be balanced eventually and it should certainly be a topic of concern in these discussions; however, it is not of the highest concern for the government currently.
Post a Comment