Did Balanced Budget Act of 1985 hold true for either party (FY05-08)?

Looks like we'll have to wait another day before seeing a debt limit bill come out the House. Per FoxNews.com, Boehner couldn't muster the votes to pass his bill out of the House. But, the article went on to say that should the bill pass, the Senate would only have two options to end this debt limit standoff: pass the Cut, Cap and Balance bill that was passed in the House or miss the August 3 deadline. So, I figured I'd better bone up on the CCB bill.

While reading the bill, I came across a reference to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. This law, as extended last in Feb 2004, extended the debt limit out to FY2009. While the spending limits on discretionary spending did not apply a hard cap, there were recommended spending limits to military spending, but surprisingly not on entitlement spending. Now, here's the kicker: In order for the BBEDC Act to pass, it needed bypartisan support. Well, the 108th (2nd Session) got it:

House membership: 204 D / 229 R (Reps controlled)
BBEDC Act passed: 271-154; 47 Dems sided w/Reps

Senate membership: 48 D / 51 R (Reps controlled)
BBEDC Act passed: 61-31; 10 Dems sided w/Reps

So, now I'm curious...

Clearly, Congress couldn't hold spending for FY2009 (10/1/08 - 09/30/09) forward due to the housing bubble of 2008 (Fall). Because TARP was enacted in Nov 2008, it killed any chance of holding true for FY2009 figures. So, I'm curious to know if Congress stayed within budget from FY2005 thru FY2007?

Conservative, since you're good at finding government charts online, here's where you can prove Republicans right or wrong atleast for fiscal year FY05 (period ending 09/30/06; Reps controlled Congress, 2003-2005). Dems controlled Congress from FY06-09. So, except for two wars, Hurricans Katrina and (What was the one that hit Galvastan, TX? a few years later?), I don't know of any other crisis that would have affected Congress' spending from FY06-07. So, did either side stay within the appropriate spending limits? Here are the figures per the Act:

- fiscal year 2005, for the discretionary category: $816,404,000,000. (Notice each line states "not less than" such and such amount as specified directly toward a specific entity as opposed to "not more than"; in short, no spending caps were in place.)

- FY 2006-2009: same for FY2005 "adjusted to reflect the change in Consumer Price Index over the previous 12 months prior to October 1, 2004."

Judging from past history as far as the wording of spending bills, it's no wonder the Tea Party doesn't trust Boehner. His own bill doesn't have any spending caps, whereas the Reid's plan does. I'm not glouting; far from it. Just pointing out fact here. But that doesn't mean either side strayed from staying within the minimal spending limits as outlined in the Act. Still, I am curious to know if they did atleast for FY05-07. I'll do my own research on it tomorrow and get back to this. But I'd be curious to know what you find, Conservative, if you don't mind.

I'll get back to this thread later today and provide more details, but I want the readers to know - regardless of party loyalty - that it's not just important to know that a bill has passed, but also what the bill contains. Just as some have huge misgivings about the health care reform law, I'm beginning to think we really should look deeper into CCB and, as citizens, do our homework.

The CCB refers to two old laws:

- Title III of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and,

- the Balanced Budget and Control Act of 1985

As stated above, the CCB Act may attempt to place limits on discretionary spending, but it remains open ended, i.e., "adjustments to inflation", which is fine, except shouldn't that have applied moreso to entitlement programs instead? I mention that not because I'm for increasing the cost of such spending, but since some in Congress believe "means testing" some entitlement benefits, i.e., Social Security and Medicare, wouldn't it make sense to focus on how the cost of those programs may face cost overruns? And mind you, none entitlement program has spending limits in the CCB bill per modified section 317:

‘(b) Exempt From Direct Spending Limits- Direct spending for the following functions is exempt from the limits specified in subsection (c):

‘(1) Social Security, function 650.

‘(2) Medicare, function 570.

‘(3) Veterans Benefits and Services, function 700.

‘(4) Net Interest, function 900.

Click to expand...

Odd considering we keep hearing that Social Security and Medicare in particular are what's bankrupting the nation. Again, I'll get back to this, but for now it's something to think about.

Alright, here's my first real update concerning our nation's budget since 1985. Tracking down the info was tricky because our budget process isn't as straight-forward as some may think.

In 1985, Congress passed the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (Pub Law 99-177). The Act (which was actually a joint resolution which carried over appropriations from the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974) covered discretionary spending from FY985 thru FY1990 (Oct 1, 1994 - Sep 30, 1990). The Act was then amended and extended as outlined below along with other continuing resolutions which carried the budget through FY2011:

- Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990; covered discretionary spending from FY1991 thru FY1995 (Oct 1, 1990 - Sep 30, 1995)
- Continuing Resolution of 1996; covered discretionary spending for FY1996 (Oct 1, 1995 - Sep 30, 1996)
- Balanced Budget Act of 1997; covered discretionary spending from FY1997 thru FY2002 (Oct 1, 1996 - Sep 30, 2002)
- Continuing Resolution of 2003; covered discretionary spending for FY2003 (Oct 1, 2003 - Sep 30, 2003)
- Common Sense Spending Act of 2004 (HR 3853); covered discretionary spending from FY2004 thru FY2009 (Oct 1, 2004 - Sep 30, 2009)
(Note: Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 amended FY2009 expenditures)
- Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (HR 3288); covered discretionary spending for FY2010 (Dec 16, 2009 - Sep 30, 2010)
- DoD and Full-Year Continuing Resolution Act of 2011; covered discretionary spending from Apr 15, 2011 - Sep 30, 2011
(Note: Between Oct 1, 2010 and Apr 15, 2011 the federal government worked off of seven separate Continuing Resolutions)

And that takes us up to where we are now, raising the debt limit, towit:

- Budget Control Act of 2011 (which amends both the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985) which covers discretionary spending from FY2011 thru FY2021 (Oct 1, 2011 - Sep 30, 2021).

Now, while it is true that the Democrats haven't submitted a long-term budget as Congressman Paul Ryan and other Republicans love to point out, I think from my notes herein it's very clear why. They didn't have to! When Democrats controlled Congress from 2006-2010, the federal budget was clearly outlined through FY2009 and CRs carried the fed the rest of the way thru FY2011. It should also be noted that although President Obama had submitted his budget for FY2011 in February, he amended same in April. Neither of which matters, however, since the 2011 Act has been passed.

So, that's the chronology of past federal budgets over the last 26 year. I'll post back with more info as to what's in the 2011 budget bill, as well as, insight to the big mystery question, "Just how close did we stay within budget over the years?". Until then, I'll leave the readers with this snippet from the Congressional Research Service which summarizes the President's FY2011 budget prior to the passage of the 2011 Budget Act. I think you'll find that the President didn't give up as much as some people may think he did in signing the Act to raise the debt limit.

Also, if I may add, there's another reason Senate Democrats haven't officially proposed a budget to the House: Congressman Ryan is keenly aware that any budget bill Senate Democrats would submit would include raising revenue. He eludes to as much in his WSJ op-ed piece linked above.

By contrast, the president and his party's leaders have refused to submit specific, credible budget plans that tackle health-care costs while restoring economic growth. Unwilling to reconsider their failed bureaucratic approaches to health and retirement security, the Democrats can only propose tax increases, and lots of them.

Click to expand...

As such, Ryan knows that any bill seeking to raise revenue must originate in the House, not the Senate per Art. 1, Section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution. Moreover, accepting any bill (or amendment thereto) from the Senate that includes a tax or tariff would be in violation of House Rule 22, paragraph 6. So, what you have coming from Congressman Ryan is a little bit of misinformation. The historical record of budgets, appropriations bills and continuing resolutions should help to clarify matters for those who care to know the truth of the matter.