Ryan Budget Heads to House Floor

The Hill reports:

The House Republican 2012 budget resolution cutting $5.8 trillion over 10 years was reported out of the Budget Committee on Wednesday night after a day-long markup. It now heads to the House floor for a vote set for next week.

As expected, the budget was approved along party lines, with 22 Republicans voting yes and 16 Democrats voting no. The ambitious legislation, which has virtually no chance of being approved in the Senate, reduces 10 years of deficits by $1.649 trillion compared to the status quo and balances the budget shortly before 2040.

The 11-hour markup featured fierce arguments combined with some friendly exchanges.

Committee ranking member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who considers himself a friend of Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) despite detesting his budget, agreed to shave nine of the expected 30 amendments proposed by Democrats after 19 were defeated along party lines.

Two non-controversial Democratic amendments were accepted.

One would allow states to keep certain types of welfare funds rather than returning them to Washington.

The other, offered by Van Hollen, split the Republicans on the panel but got Ryan's vote. That amendment stated that to solve the budget deficit, security spending must be fully on the table. Ryan argued that his budget, in finding $78 billion in Defense spending to cut, does put it on the table so the amendment is not objectionable.

Five Republicans disagreed and said they do not want to see Defense spending cut further.

Republicans Ken Calvert (Calif.), Todd Akin (Mo.), Tom Cole (Okla.), James Lankford (Okla.) and Todd Young (Ind.) voted no on the Van Hollen amendment.

Blue Dog Democrat Rep. Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) put both sides on the spot by offering as an amendment a fiscal plan based on the bipartisan recommendations of the president's fiscal commission.

Shuler argued that the day's partisan attacks and counterattacks were pointless. Given divided government, he said, both sides should just work on a compromise that, like the fiscal commission, reduces the debt with a combination of two-thirds spending cuts and one-third tax increases.

Chairman Ryan very carefully argued against the tax increases in Shuler's plan and said they would hinder economic growth, but praised Shuler's attempt at bipartisanship.

Van Hollen initially said he would have to vote against the Schuler plan, since he could not support the “time frame” for some of the cuts. He has been adamant that deep cuts in the next few years could jeopardize the economic recovery.

But, in the end, Van Hollen decided to vote “present” along with most Democrats. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) voted with Shuler for the Blue Dog's plan.

Shuler had earlier broken with his party and voted with the Republicans in favor extending Bush-era tax cuts for those making more than $1 million per year.

In the end, the markup, which in many ways served as a preview of the debate in the 2012 election, had both sides pretty satisfied that they had done the other party some damage.