WASHINGTON—Today, the Congressional Budget Office released its analysis of the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget. Based on CBO’s analysis, the President’s plan would increase spending by $1.1 trillion and raise taxes by almost $1.4 trillion over the next ten years. And unlike the House Republican plan, his budget would never balance—ever. Instead, it would run a $746 billion deficit in fiscal year 2024. Under CBO’s revised estimate, the President’s budget deficits would be $1.6 trillion higher than what he presented to Congress last month.
Upon release of the CBO report, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin issued the following statement:
“This new report is just more confirmation: The President’s budget would take us in the wrong direction. It would take more from families to spend more in Washington. It would hollow out our national defense. It would weaken key priorities like Medicare. And it would never balance the budget—ever.
“That’s why I’m proud that the House passed the Republican budget. Our plan would balance the budget in just ten years and help grow the economy. By getting our debt under control and advancing other pro-growth policies, it would strengthen our economy and help create jobs. The people deserve a government that works for them, not one that buries them in more debt.”Contrast in visions
After removing gimmicks, the President’s budget increases spending by $1.1 trillion.
The House-passed budget cuts spending by $5.1 trillion.
President’s budget increases taxes by $1.4 trillion.
The House-passed budget calls for revenue-neutral tax reform.
The President’s budget never balances—ever.
The House-passed budget reaches balance in 2024.
“Mr. Chairman, what this debate comes down to is a question of trust.
“We’ve offered a budget because we trust the American people. Unlike the Senate Democrats who have once again punted and not even offered a budget this year, we trust the people to make an honest assessment. We trust them to make the right choice for their future.
“Now, to their credit, the House Democrats have offered budgets as well. The problem is, they put their trust in Washington. Every time you hear the word 'investments' just know what that means—take from hardworking taxpayers, borrow more money from our next generations and from other countries, and spend it in Washington.
“Time and again, they are proposing to put government in the driver’s seat. They’ve already engineered a takeover of our entire health-care sector. They’re over-regulated our energy sector. They’re depriving us of jobs, and they won’t even give us the Keystone Pipeline. They’re proposing new taxes—another $1.8 trillion tax increase. They’re proposing more cronyism. They’re proposing more control from Washington, which is less control of our communities, less control over our businesses, less control over our lives, less control over our futures.
“In my respectful opinion, it is a vision that is paternalistic, arrogant, and downright condescending. You know, big government in theory—it sounds compelling. In practice, it’s totally different. Remember if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor? Remember if you like your health-care plan you can keep your healthcare plan? Remember if government takes over this sector it will lower your costs? Big government in practice is so different than the theory. The results have nothing to do with the rhetoric.
“We, on the other hand, trust the people. We are offering a balanced budget that pays down the debt. We are offering patient-centered solutions, so that patients are the nucleus of the health-care system, not the government. We’re offering a plan to save Medicare now and for future generations. We’re offering a stronger safety net with state flexibility, to help meet people’s needs and to help people get from welfare to work to make the most of their lives. We’re offering pro-growth tax code. We’re offering more energy jobs.
“You can boil the differences down to one question: Who knows better? The people or Washington? We have made our choice with this budget. I trust the American people to make theirs.
“Mr. Chairman, let’s call the vote.”
The world is less safe when America doesn’t lead. But for President Obama, this lesson has yet to sink in. In February, he offered a budget that would cut crucial funding for our national security. So tomorrow, House Republicans will pass a budget that would give our troops the funding they need.
First, let’s put things in perspective: For decades, defense spending made up roughly 50 percent of the federal budget. Today, it’s just 18 percent. And if we stay on the current path, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that defense will fall below 10 percent by 2024.
The reason? Entitlement programs and interest payments are growing out of control. Government spending on health care is set to skyrocket. Interest payments are projected to quadruple over the next decade.
But the Obama administration sees no need for alarm. Year after year, his administration has cut defense spending, all while the world has grown more dangerous. And rather than confront the entitlement challenge, he’s creating new open-ended spending programs and attacking our good-faith reform efforts.
“I want to thank Congressmen Woodall and Gohmert for offering this bill. We should write the federal budget the same way that a family writes its own budget. You don’t just assume you will spend more on the same item every year. You figure out what works and what needs fixing. It’s our job to set priorities and to assess the results. And that’s why I’m proud to support this bill.”
President Obama proposed a $1.8 trillion tax increase on hardworking families.
House Republicans proposed revenue-neutral tax reform to create jobs.
President Obama invents phony statistics to mask his tax-hike hypocrisy.
The President claims the House Republican budget hands out “massive tax cuts to households making more than $1 million a year.” But that’s simply not true.
This budget calls for revenue-neutral tax reform that both broadens the tax base and lowers tax rates for all Americans. Under our budget, the tax code would raise the same amount of revenue as we’re taking in today, but in fairer, simpler, more competitive way.
The President and his allies say there’s no way we can lower rates without making the middle class pay more. But the tax code is littered with special preferences, exclusions and deductions that add up to more than $1 trillion per year—or over $10 trillion over a decade. Upper-income households are much more likely to use these preferences. 
For instance, the top 1 percent of taxpayers reap about three times as much benefit from tax preferences (excluding refundable credits) as the middle class. So this budget calls for tax reform that would curb or eliminate these special preferences.
The majority of non-corporate small businesses pay taxes under the individual-income-tax system. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, over 60 percent of non-corporate businesses have profits in excess of $1 million.
Small businesses generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually and employ about half of all private-sector employees, according to the Small Business Administration (SBA).
So raising the individual-income-tax rate hurts successful small businesses that are the engines of job creation in our economy.
It’s also worth pointing out that only the President’s budget calls for more revenue. In fact, his budget would raise taxes by $1.8 trillion over the next ten years.
It’s more than possible to reform the tax code without hurting middle-class families. In fact, tax reform is one of the best ways to get our economy growing again—if only the President would cooperate.
 "National Taxpayer Advocate 2012 Annual Report to Congress, Volume One" Internal Revenue Service
A smaller increase is not a spending cut.
Under this budget, spending will grow, on average, by 3.5 percent a year over the next decade—on the current path, it will grow by 5.2 percent.
This budget spends $3.5 trillion on Medicaid over the next ten years. We increase spending every year from fiscal year 2016 onward.
This budget spends $600 billion on food stamps over the next decade. And it does not convert SNAP into a block grant until 2019, when the economy will have recovered.
This budget maintains the current maximum Pell award ($5,730) throughout each of the next ten years of the budget.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities claims the House Republican budget “gets 69 percent of its cuts from low-income programs.” Instead, the House GOP budget grows them at a more sustainable rate.
On the current path, the federal government will spend roughly $48 trillion over the next ten years. By contrast, this budget will spend nearly $43 trillion.
On the current path, spending will grow, on average, by 5.2 percent a year over the next decade. Under this budget, spending will grow, on average, by 3.5 percent a year.
Nearly $43 trillion is enough. Increasing spending by 3.5 percent instead of 5.2 percent is hardly draconian.
President Obama and his party have made promises they can’t keep—they’ve promised huge expansions to safety-net programs that ultimately would bankrupt them.
Medicaid: This budget repeals Obamacare—including the law’s massive expansions of Medicaid, which are unsustainable. Instead, this budget spends $3.5 trillion on Medicaid over the next ten years. We grow the program every year from fiscal year 2016 onward. We simply slow the rate of growth and give states the flexibility to meet the unique needs of their people.
SNAP: This budget spends $600 billion on food stamps over the next decade. By capping open-ended federal subsidies and allowing states to develop new, innovative methods, the budget’s gradual reforms encourage states to reduce rolls and help recipients find work. The budget also doesn’t covert SNAP into a block grant until 2019, when the economy will have fully recovered. The budget also calls for time limits and work requirements like the reforms that helped reduce poverty nationwide in the mid-1990s.
Pell Grants: Congressional Democrats and the President have pushed Pell Grant spending to unsustainable rates. The Congressional Budget Office reports the program will face fiscal shortfalls starting in 2016 and continuing through each year of the budget window. We need to reform the program so it can keep its promises. This budget brings Pell spending under control and makes sure aid helps the truly needy, not university administrators. At the same time, this budget maintains the current maximum Pell award ($5,730) throughout each of the next ten years of the budget.
“The Budget and Accounting Transparency Act would force Washington to be upfront about the cost of its decisions. I want to thank Congressman Garrett for sponsoring this bill. Thanks to his hard work, we will make sure that Washington spends taxpayers’ money wisely. Today’s vote is just one more sign that House Republicans are committed to fixing the broken budget process.”
“Federal policy has a big impact on the economy, and when policymakers have more information, they can make better decisions. The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act will help Congress understand the economic effects of proposed legislation. This bill takes nothing away; it adds to lawmakers’ tool kit, so they can better understand and debate public policy.
“So I want to thank Vice-Chairman Tom Price for sponsoring this bill. He and the rest of our committee are committed to fixing Washington’s broken budget process.”
207 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515