- The Washington Times - Thursday, April 17, 2014

Soon after the tea party era began in Congress in 2011, President Obama and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan each released their budgets, proposing how much the government should tax and spend over the rest of the decade.

Three years into that budget showdown, Mr. Ryan and his Republican colleagues are winning. Government spending has slowed, and Mr. Obama’s plans for higher taxes and higher spending have fallen by the wayside.


SPECIAL COVERAGE: Tea Party Voices


“The discretionary spending has in fact been driven by Republicans post-2010 clamping down,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office who is now president of the conservative-leaning American Action Forum. “It shows up in the sequester caps and all those things, and it tracks Republicans a lot more closely.”

Mr. Ryan’s first budget, released soon after he took control of the Budget Committee in 2011, called for the federal government to spend slightly less than $3.59 trillion this year and take in just under $3.09 trillion in taxes. In reality, the CBO says the government is poised to spend $3.52 trillion and collect $3.03 trillion in 2014, meaning the Wisconsin Republican was off by about $50 billion or $60 billion.

In his own budget that year, Mr. Obama said that by 2014 the government should be spending nearly $4 trillion and taking in $3.33 trillion in taxes. Both projections are off by hundreds of billions of dollars.

The better track record doesn’t mean the Ryan budgets were adopted in full. Indeed, not a single one of his budgets has become law, with the Senate twice refusing to write a companion budget and another time writing a tax and spending plan that was so different from the House Republicans’ version that the two sides couldn’t reach a reconciliation.

Daniel J. Mitchell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said it’s tough to say Mr. Ryan’s budgets deserve credit for the slower spending. But he said negotiations did produce a “vague proxy for the Ryan budget” in the form of the sequestration cuts, which have helped push overall spending far lower than Mr. Obama wanted.

“Ever since 2010, spending has been on a much slower growth trajectory. It’s not because of the Ryan budget per se, but some of the ideas reflected in the Ryan budget — i.e., don’t spend as much — have happened,” Mr. Mitchell said.

The White House budget office didn’t return a message seeking comment.

Although Republicans have driven the lower spending, Mr. Obama can claim credit for having pushed taxes higher than they otherwise would have been. He held out for an increase in the tax rate for the nation’s top earners last year, though the hike was smaller than the one he pushed.

Even on revenue, Mr. Ryan’s projections have turned out to be far closer to the actual figure than Mr. Obama’s.

Mr. Ryan took his final crack at a budget last week when the House cleared his 2015 plan, which again calls for holding revenue steady while making deep cuts to annual discretionary spending and to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Those cuts would bring the budget into balance in 2024.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin said it’s remarkable that Mr. Ryan was able to write and pass a budget that reaches balance this year, given the headwinds the Treasury faces.

An analysis by the CBO has concluded that the economy is fundamentally weaker than thought, and that sapped about $1 trillion in revenue from the agency’s projections over the next decade. Mr. Ryan had to make up the difference.

Each of Mr. Ryan’s four budgets from 2011 through 2014 have passed relatively easily in the Republican-dominated House. His plans never won over any Democrat but managed to get the support of nearly every Republican.

Story Continues →