For the first time in a while, we actually have two competing budgets out of Congress.

The Senate budget was put together by U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. It emerged largely intact from a committee hearing last Thursday. The House budget was constructed by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

Overall

It’s difficult to compare the two budgets in a straight comparison, because the Ryan budget assumes miracles whereas the Murray budget is short on some specifics.

For instance, the Ryan budget assumes Obamacare will be repealed before next fiscal year. Since House Republicans have tried and failed 33 times and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld it, it’s fanciful to write a budget assuming it’s repealed.

The Ryan budget also calls for nearly $2 trillion in unsepcified cuts to “entitlements” — another nonstarter.

All in all, the Ryan plan slashes spending $6 trillion in the next 10 years. There are no new revenues in the Ryan budget.

The Murray plan cuts spending, too, but increases revenue an equal amount. Revenues would come from closing loopholes for corporations and the wealthy, estimated in the Murray budget at about $1 trillion, while cutting spending a like amount.

The spending cuts would come from modest cuts to health care providers, the Pentagon, domestic agencies and interest payments on the debt. Senate Democrats want to restore about $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts from the sequester, so the Murray budget would end up increasing spending slightly.

Ryan on spending

— Discretionary. Nondefense discretionary spending would be cut $600 million. Defense discretionary spending would hold at $552 billion per year.

— Financial services. Repeals the Dodd-Frank financial reform act; eliminates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

— Safety net. Would convert Medicaid into state block grants indexed for inflation and population growth. To offer some context, health-care costs often increase at twice the rate of inflation, or more. Food stamps would also be indexed in the same way and turned into block grants. Pell Grants would be returned to 2008 levels, wiping out recent increases. Obamacare would be repealed.

— Retirement security. Would privatize Medicare and include choice of current Medicare policy. Wealthier taxpayers would pay more for Part B and Part D. Vouchers would grow at 0.5 percent of GDP, whether Medicare does or not. The House GOP plan does not change the 2 percent Medicare sequestration cuts set to hit each year through 2021. Ryan’s plan also seeks a bipartisan process to reform Social Security.

Ryan on revenue

— Taxes. Would not increase tax revenue, would repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, and would collapse individual income tax rates to just two: the 10 percent bottom bracket and “a goal” of 25 percent for the higher one. It also cuts the top corporate tax rate to 25 percent.

— Debt ceiling. Requires a debt ceiling increase of $3.7 trillion through 2023.

Murray on spending

— Discretionary spending. Would replace the nine years of sequestration that began March 1 with modest reductions to defense and nondefense discretionary spending.

For defense, the Murray budget would provide a base of $552 billion in 2014 then phase in about $240 billion in cuts through the rest of the 10-year window. In nondefense discretionary spending, this budget calls for approximately $140 billion in cuts below the adjusted non-defense Budget Control Act caps.

— Stimulus. The Murray plan calls for about $100 billion in stimulus deficit spending: $50 billion for transportation infrastructure investment; $20 billion for repairs and technology infrastructure investment in schools; $10 billion for fixing and maintaining dams and ports; $10 billion for a public-private infrastructure bank; and $10 billion for job retraining.

— Safety net/discretionary. Would increase funding for public preschool; early-childhood home visits; activities of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers, including the construction of deeper harbors; clean water programs such as the Rural Water Supply Program; NASA; the Food and Drug Administration; the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, which helps regulate derivatives markets; an electronic claims processing system for veterans with disabilities; Violence Against Women Act programs that fund prosecution of domestic violence on American Indian reservations; the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program; and energy efficiency programs.

— Obamacare. Murray’s budget retains all elements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that are scheduled to take effect.

In contrast, Ryan’s budget repeals all of the coverage expansions, other spending increases and tax provisions affiliated with that legislation, while only retaining the reductions to Medicare spending contained in the law. Medicaid would get modest, unspecified reductions in Murray’s budget — about $10 billion over a decade.

— Medicare. Murray proposes $265 billion in cuts to Medicare but offers very few details. The budget indicates cuts would not be focused on beneficiaries, and offers suggestions for approaches to reduce the cost of delivering care.

— Retirement security. Murray’s plan does not address solvency of Social Security.

Murray on revenue

— Taxes. Would raise $975 billion in the coming decade, mostly from eliminating loopholes for wealthy individuals and corporations. Murray also would include a permanent extension of low-income tax credits legislated in 2009 and scheduled to expire after 2017, such as the American Opportunity Tax Credit for education and enhancements to the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit.

— Debt ceiling. Would require a debt ceiling increase of $7.9 trillion through 2023.

Of course, the final budget will probably look like neither of these.

Ryan’s budget is not only a political nonstarter, it’s based in thinking that simply isn’t reality. Obamacare is not going to be repealed, nor will seniors stand for privatization of Medicare.

The Murray budget is more realistic, but is light on details in key areas.

These are the starting points for what is expected to be a lively budget battle in the coming months.

GINA HAMILTON, of Bath, is editor of the New Maine Times. She welcomes emails at editor@newmainetimes.org.