Obama budget 'compromise?' No way, says the GOP

In the Republican radio address Saturday, Rep. Jackie Walorski (R) of Indiana called President Obama's proposed budget for 2014 'a blank check for more spending and more debt.'

J. Scott Applewhite/AP
House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., holds a copy of President Obama's 2014 budget proposal as he questions Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Friday.

The budget President Obama delivered to Congress this week was presented as a compromise package, a path to some sort of “grand bargain” involving taxes and spending.

“I don't believe that all these ideas are optimal,” the president acknowledged. “But I'm willing to accept them as part of a compromise if and only if they contain protections for the most vulnerable Americans.”

Indeed, his budget did draw immediate sniping from Obama’s liberal base as well as from Republican lawmakers. A particular affront to the left is the tweaking envisioned for Medicare, revealed Friday in congressional testimony by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

The Obama budget also would change the way inflation is figured for Social Security recipients, and it raises taxes on higher-income households.

But “compromise?” No way, the GOP charged in its Saturday radio/Internet address.

Speaking on behalf of her party, freshman Rep. Jackie Walorski (R) of Indiana called it “a blank check for more spending and more debt.”
 
 “Even when the president’s budget offers signs of common ground – like modest entitlement reforms – he says he won’t follow through unless he can impose more tax increases,” Rep. Walorski said. “Worst of all, the White House says the president’s budget never balances – ever, failing to meet the most basic principle of budgeting for every family and small business.”

“The president’s budget isn’t a compromise; it’s a blank check for more spending and more debt,” she said. “If that were the answer, millions of Americans wouldn’t be leaving the workforce and asking ‘where are the jobs?’”

Walorski, who’s a member of the House Budget Committee, hammered Obama’s plan for its alleged tax impact: more than $1 trillion in new taxes, in addition to $1 trillion in new taxes from ObamaCare and more than $600 billion in tax hikes the president secured in January.

And she touted the House budget plan, including the claim that it would produce a balanced budget in ten years.

“First, our balanced budget seizes opportunities to support our nation of builders and get Americans back to work, through popular energy projects like the Keystone XL pipeline,” she said. “Second, our balanced budget repeals ObamaCare so we can address the problems it is causing – like making it harder to hire and driving up health care costs – and work towards patient-centered reforms. Finally, our balanced budget lays the groundwork for a fairer, simpler tax code. Closing loopholes and lowering tax rates for everyone would mean more jobs and higher wages.”

In releasing his budget, Obama claimed that he’d “already met Republicans more than halfway.”

“So in the coming days and weeks, I hope that Republicans will come forward and demonstrate that they’re really as serious about the deficits and debt as they claim to be,” he said.

To which Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sniffed that Obama’s budget amounted to a “left-wing wish list.”  House Speaker John Boehner warns that Obama’s entitlement adjustments are being “held hostage” to more taxes.

With that kind rhetoric, any budget “compromise” could be a long way off.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.