Senate passes budget plan. So what?

The Senate passed a budget road map Tuesday, but it's partisan and there's much work still to be done. Some lawmakers are pointing to a bipartisan budget deal hammered out in 2013 as a model for going forward.

Evan Vucci/AP
Sen. Mitch McConnell helped the Senate adopt a GOP budget on Tuesday that paves the way for a partisan showdown over spending bills this fall.

The Senate passed a budget plan on Tuesday, making this the first time Congress has approved a budget outline in six years. The House passed the plan last week.

So Congress is doing its job, right?

Not exactly. What Congress produced was a GOP budget road map, passed by Republicans – a statement of GOP values. Once it hits the legislative road as spending bills, Senate Democrats will probably throw up barricades (and conservatives in both chambers might, too). Another budget crisis could ensue, even a government shutdown.

But it doesn’t have to be this way, say members of both parties. They point to a two-year bipartisan budget deal hammered out in 2013 by Rep. Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin and Sen. Patty Murray (D) of Washington, chairs at the time of their respective budget committees. It passed both chambers and restored relative budget calm.

The Murray-Ryan deal found a way past automatic, across-the-board spending cuts, known as sequestration, which was agreed to in 2011 to solve the debt-ceiling crisis. The deal identified about $85 billion in other mandatory spending cuts and used that to raise defense and military spending affected by sequestration – and to reduce the deficit.

“There’s absolutely a way to replicate it,” said Representative Ryan at a Monitor breakfast last week. He has since moved on to chair the House Ways and Means Committee, and in the GOP-controlled Senate, Sen. Michael Enzi (R) of Wyoming now holds the budget gavel.

But Ryan’s not the only one looking to the past. Some Democrats, including White House budget director Shaun Donovan, are also invoking the deal. They are calling for a budget summit that would replace sequestration with other long-term cuts as well as generate revenue from closing tax loopholes, according to the Associated Press.

On the Senate floor Tuesday, Senator Murray urged Republicans to come to the table to work out a deal similar to the 2013 agreement.

“That deal wasn’t the budget I would have written on my own, and it wasn’t the one Republicans would have written on their own, but it ended the lurching from crisis to crisis, helped workers and the economy, and made it clear that there is bipartisan support for rolling back sequestration,” she said in prepared remarks.

She’s right that it’s up to Republicans to make a move. But they are unlikely to do so now. Senior Republicans say it’s too early, according to CQ Roll Call. They’re divided in their own ranks over spending details, with defense hawks wanting more defense spending and fiscal hawks wanting to keep the sequestration caps. The budget process probably needs to play out more to see where deals can be done.

But even the plan Republicans passed – which balances the budget in 10 years, doesn’t raise taxes, drastically cuts domestic spending, and repeals the Affordable Care Act – holds a hint at a compromise that could come. It contains reserve funds that could serve as the basis for a deal à la Murray and Ryan. And it increases defense spending, which the White House also supports.

“Would it be plagiarism if I [agreed with Ryan] and said ‘absolutely’ ” it’s possible to repeat a deal like 2013?, said Sen. Rob Portman (R) of Ohio, a member of the Senate Budget Committee.

“Our options are limited. We all want to do more in terms of ensuring our national defense is adequate to the challenges we face. And under sequester, it’s a deep concern, not just on our side of the aisle,” he said.

Still, it’s likely to be a rocky ride up to Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, after which a new budget would kick in.

“We applaud the fact that Congress has done a budget,” says William Hoagland, senior vice president of the Bipartisan Policy Center. However, “we’re realistic that this is not a budget that can be implemented. And therefore, this is just the beginning of the kabuki dance.”

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.