The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 is a United States federal budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2014. The deal was proposed by the Senator Patty Murray and Representatives Paul Ryan. The deal was announced on December 10, 2013, three days prior to a deadline set by the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014.
Background
edit
Legislative history
editThe deal was proposed by negotiators Senator Patty Murray and Representative Paul Ryan on December 10, 2013. The two were required to reach a compromise by December 13, 2013.[1] The United States House Committee on Rules was scheduled to meet on December 11, 2013 in order to write a rule about the bill, one that would allow the House to consider the bill as early as December 12, 2013.[2] The plan was expected to receive a vote on December 12, 2013. Republican Party leaders in the House expected support from House Democrats to pass the bill, and were reportedly unconcerned about any no votes from more conservative Republicans.[3] The Republican-led House was scheduled to adjourn for the holidays on December 13, 2013, adding additional pressure to the need to reach a budget deal before they left.[1]
The House Committee on the Rules meet at 2pm on December 11, 2013 to decide on a rule to govern the debate on H.J.Res. 59, which would be amended to contain the text of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.[4] The rule enabled the House to consider H.J.Res. 59 as it had last been sent to them by the Senate, on October 1, 2013, prior to the 2013 federal government shutdown. The rule also made two amendments in order. The first amendment is the text of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, which would completely replace the existing text of H.J.Res. 59.[4] The second amendment is the addition of the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 to the bill.[4]
The deal must be formally passed by both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate in order to become official.[1]
Provisions
editThe deal caps the federal government's spending for Fiscal Year 2014 at $1.012 trillion and for Fiscal Year 2015 at $1.014.[5]
This deal would eliminate some of the spending cuts required by the sequester by $45 billion of the cuts scheduled to happen in January and $18 billion of the cuts scheduled to happen in 2015.[5] This does not decrease federal spending; instead, by reducing the amount of spending cuts the government was going to be forced to make by the sequester, it actually increases government spending by $45 million and $18 million over what would have been spent had the sequester remained in place. The deal is suppose to make up for this increase in spending by raising airline fees and changing the pension contribution requirements of new federal workers.[3] The eliminated sequester cuts were spread evenly between defense spending and non-defense discretionary spending.[6] The bill did not make any changes to entitlement programs.[3]
Airline fees
editThis agreement would increase the federal fees associated with airline security from $2.50 for a one-way, non-stop flight to $5.60. It would also increase the current maximum $5 fee for a one-way, connecting flights to $5.60.[5][7] The Transportation Security Administration would take in $12.6 billion over ten years as a result of this change.[7] The industry association Airlines 4 America lobbied against the change because it could deter travel as a result of increased ticket prices.[7] Airlines received two concessions in exchange for ending their lobbying against the increase: TSA agents to continue monitoring the exits of "sterile areas" that had passengers who had already been screened by security and the elimination of an Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee charged to airlines.[7] Representative Mick Mulvaney indicated that members were told airlines had quit lobbying because "the airlines got something out of it. That's how it works in this town. If you have a lobbyist you get something."[7] The bill states that any money raised by this tax will be placed in the government's general fund.[8]
New federal workers
editThe deal would require newly hired federal employees to pay a larger share into their pension fund than they would have had to pay prior to this deal.[5][6] This change equals a 1.3% decrease in their pay.[5]
Retired military
editAmerican troops who have retired and are under the age of 62 would have smaller cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) under the new deal.[5] Their COLA will still go up, however.
Contractor pay
editThe maximum salary of a federal contractor would be capped at $487,000.[5]
Death Master File
editThe Department of Commerce keeps a file called the "Death Master File" of everyone who has died and what their social security number was.[5] This budget deal would try to prevent fraud by restricting access to this list and increasing the punishments for misuse.[5]
Government payments to prisoners
editThis portion of the deal would improve reporting requirements and coordination to ensure prisoners did not receive government benefits such as unemployment checks.[5]
Student loan companies
editThe bill would end automatic payments to non-profit student loan servicers and change their payments to a yearly authorization. Paul Ryan's office says that this change will save the government $3 billion.[5]
Debate
editReactions from Republican politicians
editSome Republicans were expected to oppose the deal because they wanted the budget to focus on reducing government spending, not increasing government revenue through increased fees.[2] Some Republicans opposed the increased airline ticket fees as a tax increase.[7]
According to The Hill, Representatives Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) is "spearheading opposition to the new budget bill."[9] Mulvaney did not blame Paul for the budget deal, instead saying that the problem was too few conservatives had been elected to Congress to pass a budget with a greater focus on debt reduction.[9] Mulvaney said that he expected the budget deal to pass because "it was designed to get the support of defense hawks and appropriators and Democrats," not conservatives.[3]
Republican Raul Labrador criticized the "terrible plan," saying that "it makes promises to the American people that are false. Today the Democrats realized they were right all along, that we would never hold the line on the sequester."[3]
Some Republicans wanted Speaker Boehner to pursue a temporary measure that would cover the rest of Fiscal Year 2014 at the level set by the sequester - $967 billion, rather than pass this budget deal, which would have $45 billion in additional spending.[9]
Republicans who planned to vote in favor of the bill or were leaning towards doing so cited the bill as being practical for the divided Congress. Representative Steve Womack (R-AR) said that "it achieves most of the things we would like to see when we have divided government."[3]
2016 proposed Republican presidential candidates
editThe media reported on the opinions of the budget deal of proposed or likely Republican candidates for President in 2016.[9] Paul Ryan was the Vice-Presidential candidate in 2012 and co-authored the proposed budget deal. He said that he was "proud" of the agreement because "it reduces the deficit - without raising taxes."[6] Senators Rand Paul and Marco Rubio are both against the deal and are considered likely Republicans candidates for President in 2016.[9] Rubio said that the proposal "continues Washington's irresponsible budgeting decisions" because it "cancels earlier spending reductions, instead of making some tough decisions about how to tackle our long-term fiscal challenges caused by runaway Washington spending."[1]
Reactions from Democratic politicians
editSome people believed House Democrats would pass the deal as a way to reduce the sequester cuts.[2] However, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) told a morning news show on December 12, 2013, that "members of his party are outraged that House Republicans are planning to adjourn without addressing unemployment benefits."[10] Van Hollen said that "it is too early to say" whether a majority of House Democrats would vote in favor of the budget bill.[10]
President Barack Obama announced his support for the deal on December 10, 2013, calling the deal "balanced."[2]
Reactions from commentators and policy groups
editEzra Klein said in a column that "the deal denies both Republicans and Democrats what they want most. Republicans didn't get any changes to Medicare and Social Security -- much less any structural ones. Democrats didn't get any new taxes."[6] According to Klein, "the deal is possible only because there are many Republicans who really hate the defense cuts."[6]
Advocacy groups Heritage Action, the Club for Growth, and FreedomWorks all opposed the budget deal.[3] Speaker Boehner "bashed" those groups for their opposition to the compromise.[3]
See also
edit- United States federal government shutdown of 2013 - 16 day shutdown of the federal government as a result of the failure of Congress to pass appropriations for Fiscal Year 2014
- Budget sequestration in 2013 - information about the 2013 sequestration
- Budget sequestration - the general practice of budget sequestration
- Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014 (H.J.Res 59) - the failed continuing appropriations bill that would have prevented the 2013 shutdown
- 2014 United States federal budget - information about the FY 2014 budget passed solely by the House and the separate FY 2014 budget passed solely by the Senate during the spring of 2013, as well as the proposed Obama FY 2014 budget. None of these proposed budgets were ever adopted as the FY 2014 budget.
- Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 - bill that ended the 2013 federal government shutdown by providing funding for part of FY 2014 until a budget deal (such as this one) could be reached or January 15, 2014.
External links
editReferences
edit- ^ a b c d Lisa desjardins; Deirdre Walsh (10 December 2013). "Budget deal aims to avert another shutdown". CNN. Retrieved 11 December 2013.
- ^ a b c d Kasperowicz, Pete (11 December 2013). "Wednesday: Assessing the budget deal". The Hill. Retrieved 11 December 2013.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Eric Wasson; Russell Berman (11 December 2013). "Ryan deal gets positive review at closed-door GOP conference". The Hill. Retrieved 11 December 2013.
- ^ a b c "Senate amendment to H.J.Res. 59". House Committee on the Rules. Retrieved 12 December 2013.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Desjardins, Lisa (10 December 2013). "The budget deal in plain English". CNN. Retrieved 11 December 2013.
- ^ a b c d e Klein, Ezra (10 December 2013). "Here's what's in Paul Ryan and Patty Murray's mini-budget deal". Washington Post. Retrieved 11 December 2013.
- ^ a b c d e f Wasson, Erik (11 December 2013). "Airlines win concessions in budget deal". The Hill. Retrieved 11 December 2013.
- ^ Laing, Keith (11 December 2013). "Air tax increased $3.10 in budget deal". The Hill. Retrieved 11 December 2013.
- ^ a b c d e Wasson, Erik (December 11, 2013). "Conservatives: Ryan not tarnished by 'bad' deal". The Hill. Retrieved 11 December 2013.
- ^ a b Cusack, Bob (12 December 2013). "Van Hollen: 'Too early to say' if most Democrats will back budget deal". The Hill. Retrieved 12 December 2013.