Jim Himes dreams of better days...
by John Dankosky – A midnight deadline is approaching for Congress to reach a budget agreement or face a government shutdown. Democrats and Republicans are locked in a short-term political battle over the scope of government cuts, but congressman Jim Himes says its a long-term conversation that needs to happen.
Himes said that Republican congressman Paul Ryan is proposing a “glidepath” for the federal government to reduce its deficit over the next ten years, similar to the “Simpson-Bowles” recommendations that came out of President Obama’s deficit commission.
Speaking on WNPR’s Where We Live, Himes says he doesn’t like a much about Ryan’s plan – a plan that he says would shift healthcare costs and cut deeply into transportation funding.
“But look, it’s an opening statement for a negotiation that we need to have. I’ve been on record for a couple of months saying that I support the Simpson-Bowles proposal. I’m not happy about much that’s in there – but we do need to have that broad-based conversation. And frankly, Ryan’s proposal, though problematic in a lot of ways, has now shifted the spotlight to the Democrats for them to sort of say, ‘Here’s our version of the next ten years, and what government should be doing.’”
The Simpson-Bowles plan proposes some caps on spending that are similar to Ryan’s plan, but also proposes cuts to defense spending, something the Republican plan does not.
Himes says he hopes that now that Ryan’s plan is out, that President Obama will get behind Simpson-Bowles and push it through the Senate.
“The Simpson-Bowles plan proposes some caps on spending that are similar to Ryan’s plan, but also proposes cuts to defense spending, something the Republican plan does not.”
That’s incorrect. Ryan’s proposal cuts $78 billion from the Pentagon. That may not be enough, but he doesn’t spare defense spending.
Saul -
Point well taken. My post should clearly read, “something the Republican plan largely does not.” I think it’s fair to say, that’s a modest cut to a large defense budget. But, you’re right. My language should have been precise. jd
Mr. Himes does say it accurately and Simpson was on NPR and said the exact same thing about their budget and Ryan’s. Paraphrasing Simpson: “If you don’t like it, come up with an alternative. Don’t just sit there and say ‘no’ to every little thing you don’t like.”
I definitely applaud Mr. Ryan’s attempt and conversation starter. However his cuts to Foreign Aid (Diplomacy) are very shocking and certainly reshape our nation’s take of relations and diplomacy in a way we cannot be considering in this current climate.
From Foreign Affairs Magazine Author David Rothkopf: ” Ryan is proposing spending $27 billion less than the administration’s figure of $63 billion on international affairs — the portion of the budget covering diplomacy and U.S. foreign assistance programs. That 43 percent whack is by far the most draconian of all Ryan’s cuts when measured in terms of the contrast between the White House’s and Ryan’s 2012 proposals…Meanwhile, on defense, Ryan is proposing spending $26 billion less than Obama … but out of a much, much larger base so the Republican proposal is just 3.5 percent less than that of the administration.”
As someone who highly regards Foreign Affairs and has an interest in working for our nation under this banner, this deeply concerns me. Meanwhile Social Security is also left out of the conversation in his proposal. I believe all options should be on the table, and I would accept cuts from international affairs, but 26-27 billion is irresponsible to our nation and the world.