Pay-go + $1.9 trillion increase to debt ceiling?!

So it seemed like business as usual in Washington yesterday. The House Democrats voted to pass a bill that would not only institute a pay as you go law, but also approves an increase in the debt ceiling so great that it actually exceeds last years GDP. According to this Bill the acceptable debt for 2011 is $14.35 trillion and actually increases to $17.1 trillion in 2014. This under the name of fiscal responsibility.

I watched the debates absolutely fascinated by the rhetoric from both sides. All you see in Washington today is finger pointing at the opposing party. So while they should be trying to bring the country out of it's economic slump, they choose instead to campaign for their party's success in November. Nearly every speaker called for a bi-partisan effort while refusing the ideas of the other party. I don't believe any Democrat mentioned the increase of the debt ceiling, while the Republicans treated pay as you go in a similar manner. I can see it in the campaigns now, everyone who voted can claim that they fought for fiscal responsibility. While at the same time everyone who campaigns against them can accuse them of voting against it. It was a ridiculous Bill, and seems to be completely superficial.

Rep. Paul Ryan (WI) may have been the only person who had any substance in the debate. He actually seemed to care about the direction of the country. Shortly after Nancy Pelosi spoke about how proud she was that the House Democrats voted Pay-Go, as a rule, on her second day as speaker, he pointed out it's failure. It turns out, the same people who brought you Pay-Go also brought TARP, and every other big government program since. He points out four major flaws here:

• The $787-billion “stimulus” bill (now estimated by CBO to be $862 billion) was designated as an “emergency,” so pay-go did not apply to it.
  

• According to CBO, H.R. 3961, adjusting the sustained growth formula [SGR] for dodged pay-go in this case by burying this cost in the budget baseline. Thus, relative to the pay-go baseline, this $200 billion in real spending and deficit increases disappeared.

• The State Children’s Health Insurance Program expansion (H.R. 2) provided an increase of $74 billion over 10 years. So Congress wrote into the bill a spending “cliff” – a provision that cut SCHIP spending by 65 percent in 2014, meeting pay-go’s requirement with a reduction that will never occur.

• In 2008, the war supplemental (H.R. 2542) included $66 billion in mandatory spending that otherwise would have been subject to pay-go.

He calls for serious people from both parties to come up with serious solutions. I like this, because there is a lot to be gained from both sides. The Pay-go deal could be useful with a few more restrictions. Maybe a budget where you don't increase the limit each year. Why don't we use a pay-go with an annual decrease until we reach a certain percentage of the GDP. Instead of 27%, why not 15%? Why don't we create a program that monitors all government programs and forces them to justify their need and holding them accountable to wasteful spending? It seems to me that Washington was restricted in size they would be forced to be a lot more efficient. Maybe if the taxpayer wasn't held accountable to every bright idea that came out of Washington our economy would once again become manageable.

I'd be lying to say that I'm not looking forward to next November, but a Congress worried more about campaigning than solutions doesn't give me much hope for either party's success.