At National Review, Dan Foster argues that the Paul Ryan plan, not Cut, Cap, and Balance, should have been the rallying point for Republicans in the debt ceiling negotations:
You hear a lot of talk about how passing CCB is important because it shows what Republicans are for. But the Republicans have already done this by passing the Ryan budget. To do it again is redundant and a waste of precious time (which is not on the GOP’s side here). Not least because (1) the “Cut” part of “Cut, Cap, and Balance” is based on the Ryan budget, and (2) the “Cap” and “Balance” parts rely on the passage of a constitutional amendment at a time when it is not clear there are majorities for anyplan in either house of Congress, let alone two-thirds majorities. I’m not convinced that capping spending at 18 percent of GDP (2001 levels, roughly) would do anything but spawn new, ingenious accounting tricks while ensuring that spending never gets down below 18 percent. But let’s leave that aside for the moment. If it’s in fact a policy worth fighting for in Congress, the eve of a potential crisis that the GOP looks sure to be resoundingly blamed for is not the time to do it. Worse yet, it looks increasingly likely from where I’m sitting that CCB votes will be used to provide political cover in advance of an attempt to pass the McConnell plan – which just about nobody likes. None of this would have been necessary if the GOP had built their negotiations around the Ryan budget.
Could the Ryan budget have been passed wholesale as part of a debt-limit deal? Of course not. The GOP probably would have had to decouple the longer-term entitlement stuff and do a lot of horse-trading with Democrats on the composition of the cuts. But considering that we’re now looking atno entitlement reforms and $1.5 trillion in discretionary cuts whose composition is to be determined largely by Joe Biden and congressional Democrats, I can’t help but think that would have been a better outcome.
It’s worth noting that the newly-released, and surely-doomed, Coburn deficit-reduction plan also deviates from the Ryan blueprint on reforming entitlements.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.