Which mandatory savings?
by digby
So, it looks as though the Murray Ryan budget talks might come up with something that isn't completely terrible, at least by our current standard of terrible budget deals. But the devil is in the details, as usual. They're seriously considering a "smaller deal" that includes a slight lifting of the budget caps. But from what I can tell, the additional spending will only apply to defense. Or something.
The Senate GOP leadership has been holding out for keeping the budget caps as is, but they'll come along:
“What [McConnell] wanted to tell us was the vast majority, all but one of his senators, support keeping the budget caps; and so I wanted to say we can’t do that if we keep doing what we’re doing to the military,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) told POLITICO. “He can’t put pressure on us; we can’t put pressure on him. … It would be so nice to get this place back to where it functions.”
By "functions" McKeon means giving the military every last thing it wants, no questions asked. Still, the fact that they're even thinking about changing the budget caps is probably a good sign.
It is is worrying, however, that the following is considered something Democrats could, in theory, agree to:
... the Budget committees’ leaders could presumably cut a deal that would resolve the concerns of McConnell, defense hawks and Democrats if they could agree to replace the sequestration cuts with spending reductions from other mandatory programs. That would effectively raise federal discretionary spending above $967 billion and give Democrats the opportunity to spare domestic programs hurt by sequestration. But it would also keep in place the same net level of savings.
A McConnell spokesman said Tuesday that, “While he’s not open to tax hikes, Sen. McConnell has said publicly that he’s open to swapping real mandatory savings for the sequester — as long as the top line stays the same or better.”
But where those cuts would come from has long been the major sticking point. Murray has made clear she won’t agree to any structural changes to Medicare or Social Security, particularly without significant revenue increases. Democratic aides said Murray has not given up the push for higher taxes or a deal in the range of the $1.058 trillion spending target. But Murray has not drawn any lines in the sand, given the high stakes for even a smaller deal.
Senior GOP aides, speaking anonymously to discuss sensitive private negotiations, say that a budget deal with Ryan is the best option for all parties.
Yes, the Democrats continue to say they won't swap future cuts to "mandatory programs" (aka "entitlements" --- aka, vital safety net programs)unless they get some revenue. The question now is which mandatory programs and whether this sort of thing would be adequate to fulfill that pledge:
Ryan has developed several different frameworks that replace the sequester for different lengths of time. While the outlines of the agreement are certainly far from solid, they could include some mandatory savings, along with revenue — but no new taxes. Revenue raisers being discussed include increased Transportation Security Administration fees and money generated from wireless spectrum sales, according to sources in both parties.
That was discussed in the context of a "small deal" so it's possible they've come up with some "mandatory savings" that isn't a benefit cut to vital safety net programs. Let's hope so because:
Senior GOP aides, speaking anonymously to discuss sensitive private negotiations, say that a budget deal with Ryan is the best option for all parties.
While Congress could still shoot down any deal between Murray and Ryan, senior House GOP aides argued that an accord with Ryan’s stamp of approval could sail through the House. The Appropriations Committee is eager for a shot at regular order; hawks would be happy to replace defense cuts; and leadership wants to clear its plate of budget fights for a while.
Keep in mind what sequestration was always designed for according to Gene Sperling:
The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand bargain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)
These current negotiations may not get the deficit reduction numbers of 1.2 trillion they were aiming for with the president's budget. But then they don't need to do they? The deficit numbers are looking much more positive right now anyway. At this point, if sequestration can get the defense hawks to demand the restoration of their gravy train in exchange for some kind of cuts to mandatory spending paired with some Ryan approved temporary "revenue-not-taxes" it will have achieved its purpose --- which is that spending will remain at austerity levels as far as the eye can see, the 1% will still be drowning in money, the defense sector will be as gluttonous and bloated as ever and the people will have lost.
Oh, and if you ask how they can possibly get liberals to sign on to such a thing? Well, it's the usual blackmail:
As an extra bargaining chip, Republicans would consider including an extension of extended unemployment benefits, which expire on Dec. 28
Yep, the Christmas unemployment extension miracle.
.