Posted on | December 10, 2013 | 30 Comments
Former GOP VP candidate and all-around Centrist got out the Kazoo of Compromise in attempting to sell his budget deal with Senator Patty Murray:
“In divided government, you don’t always get what you want,” he said. “We eliminate waste. We stop sending checks to criminals. We cut corporate welfare. We start making real changes to these autopilot programs that are the real drivers of our debt.” Twice, he was asked how he would defend the plan to Republicans in the House and to conservative groups.
Answer one: “As a conservative, I think this is a step in the right direction. The deficit will go down more if we pass this than if we did nothing.”
Answer two: “As a conservative, I deal with the situation as it exists. I deal with the way things are, not the way I may want them to be. I’m not going to go a mile in the direction I want to go, but I’ll take a few steps.”
The condemnations would roll in from the various good-government groups that had been demanding entitlement cuts, and from the conservatives who had attacked the idea of a budget that broke the spending caps. But first, Murray and Ryan shook hands.
For example, Senator Rubio:
“We need a government with less debt and an economy with more good paying jobs, and this budget fails to accomplish both goals, making it harder for more Americans to achieve the American Dream. Instead, this budget continues Washington’s irresponsible budgeting decisions by spending more money than the government takes in and placing additional financial burdens on everyday Americans.
“In the short run, this budget also cancels earlier spending reductions, instead of making some tough decisions about how to tackle our long-term fiscal challenges caused by runaway Washington spending. I voted against sequestration because of its effect on key programs, including the defense budget, but higher spending and more revenue are not the appropriate ways to address that problem.
“The American people should not be asked to choose between a strong military and responsible budgets that encourage job creation and reduce debt. They deserve better than this.”
Maybe Ryan just needs to study some Zappa, and get some of that tenor saxophone in his system, for better justice:
Here is the link to a summary of the deal:
FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND MILITARY RETIREMENT
These sections increase federal-employee contributions to their retirement programs by 1.3
percentage points. The proposal affects new employees hired after December 31, 2013 with
less than five years of service.
Annual adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay amounts for retired members of the
Armed Forces under age 62
This provision modifies the annual cost-of-living adjustment for working-age military retirees by
making the adjustments equal to inflation minus one percent. This change would be gradually 3
phased in, with no change for the current year, a 0.25 percent decrease in December 2014, and
a 0.5 percent decrease in December 2015. This would not affect service members who retired
because of disability or injury. Service members would never see a reduction in benefits from
one year to the next.
Awesome. The military reserve retirement I haven’t got yet will gradually evaporate, even as I sneak up on it. Glad I’m not actually including that pension in my retirement planning.
Update: Ryan has an actual interview with Mark Levin on the topic.