Let's not pretend here. The budget deal Paul Ryan has negotiated with Patty Murray is terrible. Here are the lowlights:
- It gets rid of the sequester cuts negotiated during the 2011 debt ceiling showdown.
- It adds $8 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.
- The total on-paper "deficit reduction" it achieves over a decade is $23 billion. That's about one-fifth of 1 percent of the projected deficit.
- It actually increases spending over previous projections by $63 billion, and relies on increased "fees" to pay for it.
Ryan did get a few mildly positive things in the deal, particularly a reform of the pension benefits for federal employees. The status quo gives them both a generous pension and a generous 401(k) benefit, and this deal changes that.
But when that's the best you've done, then the best you can say about the whole thing is what I've always said about these ridiculous "10-year budget deals." They're meaningless. A deal reached by the Congress of 2013 will not be binding on the Congress of 2018, let alone 2022. There is nothing about this deal that prevents a future Republican Congress and president from completely throwing it out and passing a responsible budget.
If the deal Ryan agreed to here actually turns out to be the policy the federal government implements over the next 10 years, it is a river of crap beyond all imagination, and it locks in the legacy of this Republican House majority as completely useless in every way. But by agreeing to this deal now, I think Ryan was making a calculation that it puts Republicans in a better position to win control of Congress in 2014, and keep it in 2016 while winning the White House.
The conventional political wisdom is that this avoids a political narrative damaging to Republicans (another shutdown) while keeping alive a political narrative that's absolutely killing Democrats (ObamaCare). In other words, it's a calculated decision not to solve any of the nation's problems right now so as to put Republicans in a better position to do it in the course of the next two-to-four years.
Now I will say this: Given a scenario in which this actually leads to a Red Wave in 2014, followed by a serious Republican nominee taking down Hillary in 2016, followed by real action to restructure the tax code, reduce the size of government, balance the budget, pay down debt, restructure entitlements . . . sure, I accept that scenario. In a New York minute I accept that scenario.
But what usually happens, assuming Republicans do all that winning, is that once they have the power they do little or nothing with it because their political consultants keep telling them they'll lose their majorities if they go too far, which is usually defined as going just about anywhere to the right of the status quo. The next time a GOP Congress shows the courage to to really address the nation's fiscal problems will be the first time, so forgive me if I don't get too excited about the near-term political advantage this might be giving Republicans.
Anyway, that's the political calculation we're supposed to accept as the rationale for this.
Polling is dreadful for Democrats right now, and Republicans smell a big win 11 months from now. They're making a calculation that anything that takes the focus off ObamaCare threatens that opportunity.
It sucks, but then it's been clear since 2011 that the GOP House under Boehner wasn't going to really fight Obama and Reid on budgets, spending and deficits, so I don't know why anyone would be surprised that they didn't fight here either.
