Trade-off da – gdi 2011 1 Earth Science D/A 2

No Link – PayGo/CutGo

The measure is unsubtly titled "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," lest some of the slower members not realize they're voting to kill President Obama and the Democrats' prize health-care reform. Republicans freely concede repeal is going nowhere as long as the Democrats control the Senate and the White House, but they argue it is not a complete waste of time because of the vote's symbolic importance. It is also symbolically important for another, less honorable reason. To get to that vote, the Republicans, who took office on a pledge to cut the deficit, had to ignore a critical mechanism called pay-as-you-go intended to put a brake on the deficit by requiring that tax cuts and spending increases be offset by tax increases and spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday that repealing the new health-care law will add $230 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. The Republicans have no plans to cover that cost under the "pay-go," as it's commonly called. Apparently adding to the deficit is bad only as long as the other party is doing it. Moreover, House rules changes adopted by the Republicans leave a gaping hole in pay-go. New spending will still have to be offset but new tax cuts do not. The rules change will make tightening the leaky tax code that much tougher by treating loophole closings as tax increases. Future tax cuts, even though deficit financed, will not have to be justified.

A couple of weeks ago, congressional leaders and the administration tried to calm those investors, along with an increasingly nervous American public, by signaling a new commitment to fiscal restraint. The principal vehicle they chose was the old "pay as you go" budget rule that supposedly requires lawmakers to offset any new spending or tax cut with spending cuts and/or tax increases in other areas. The rule, commonly referred to as PAYGO, can be an effective restraint when strictly applied. It was helpful during ‘90s in turning large budget deficits into significant budget surpluses. The rule was abandoned in 2002 to accommodate the previous administration's tax cuts and post-9/11 spending in Afghanistan and on homeland security. It's doubtful that the PAYGO rule enacted earlier this month will be nearly so effective as the ‘90s version. Unlike its predecessor, this Congress' budget exempts many costly spending initiatives. It will allow Congress to extend middle-class tax cuts enacted by the Bush administration without any corresponding spending cuts or tax increases. The rule allows Congress to restrain the growth of the alternative minimum tax, lower the estate tax and cancel scheduled payment cuts for Medicare physicians - all without corresponding cuts in spending of tax hikes. Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, was dismissive of this porous budget rule during last year's debate. "This is like quitting drinking," she said, "but making an exception for beer and hard liquor." Advocates acknowledge the new PAYGO rule's flaws, but argue that it is preferable to no rule at all. It's true, we suppose, that the budget rule has value if it helps focus congressional attention on the need to restrain spending and convinces foreign investors that U.S. lawmakers are indeed committed to getting the nation's fiscal house in order. But this budget rule will do little restrain spending or reassure investors unless congressional leaders are willing to follow it to the letter. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be happening. About a week after enacting PAYGO, congressional Democrats were attempting to carve out a loophole large enough to slip a costly jobs bill through the rule.