Opinion: Paul Ryan's Budget Resolution
xmacro
Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 3,402
First off, let me say I like Paul Ryan - the guy's one of the few in Washington who's actually serious about the debt/deficit and isn't demagoging the issue. He knows we can't tax our way out of this hole, and he also knows that spending cuts aren't enough - we gotta grow our way out, which means tax reform; the man is the ONLY one who's offering a comprehensive plan to do what needs to be done.
His plan is one of the novel concepts to come out of Washington in decades, and I'll be watching the Presidential candidates and what they say about it - if they balk at it and start talking like Democrats that it's too radical, then they lose my vote as being unserious about the debt.
Anyway, thought I'd post a good article from the Wall Street Journal on here that breaks down what's in Ryan's budget. Enjoy!
His plan is one of the novel concepts to come out of Washington in decades, and I'll be watching the Presidential candidates and what they say about it - if they balk at it and start talking like Democrats that it's too radical, then they lose my vote as being unserious about the debt.
Anyway, thought I'd post a good article from the Wall Street Journal on here that breaks down what's in Ryan's budget. Enjoy!
The Ryan Resolution
The most serious attempt to reform government in a generation
Well, so much for dodging entitlements. This year's trendy complaint, shared by the left and the tea party, that Republicans hadn't tackled the toughest budget issues was blown away yesterday with the release of House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's budget for 2012. We'll now separate the real reformers from the fiscal chickenhawks.
Mr. Ryan's budget rollout is an important political and policy moment because it is the most serious attempt to reform government in at least a generation. The plan offers what voters have been saying they want—a blueprint to address the roots of Washington's fiscal disorder. It does so not by the usual posturing ("paygo") and symbolism (balanced budget amendment) but by going to the heart of the spending problem, especially on the vast and rapidly growing health-care entitlements of Medicaid and Medicare. The Wisconsin Republican's plan is a generational choice, not the usual Beltway echo.
That choice is clear enough by comparing the Ryan blueprint with the 2012 budget that President Obama rolled out only two months ago. The nearby charts show the difference in federal outlays overall and as a share of GDP over the next decade. Mr. Ryan proposes to spend $6.2 trillion less, return spending to its modern average of roughly 20% of GDP, and add $4.7 trillion less to the national debt.
Mr. Obama would keep spending at 24% of GDP even before ObamaCare fully kicks in, while running annual deficits of $600 billion a year or more despite trillions of dollars in tax increases.
Some House conservatives are grousing that Mr. Ryan's proposal doesn't cut spending enough to balance the budget in 10 years. This is a foolish complaint. Mr. Obama will be happy to balance the budget too—at 24% of GDP, which means far higher taxes. Republicans should keep their eye on what Milton Friedman understood was the real burden of government, which is spending.
The Ryan plan would chop $179 billion from the 2012 White House budget and another $241 billion in 2013. This would be the largest two-year savings since the demobilization of the military after World War II. Mr. Ryan would cut funding for corporate welfare and hundreds of ineffective programs, reform agriculture subsidies, reduce the federal work force by 10% and repeal ObamaCare, among other good ideas.
Mr. Ryan's budget would reduce federal borrowing to 2% of GDP by 2017, which is a manageable level of new debt and a huge improvement from the roughly 10% of GDP the Treasury is borrowing now. Given the epic hole we are in, this would be a historic achievement.
As for entitlements, the House GOP wants to let the states run Medicaid in return for an annual fixed payment or "block grant," letting Governors experiment with ways to save money and provide better care. This is the way welfare was successfully reformed in the 1990s, and it would give states more control over their fastest-growing budget item.
On Medicare, the Wisconsin Republican would phase in reforms for Americans under 55 years old. Medicare currently pays doctors and hospitals directly on a fee-for-service model that is price-controlled and increasingly unaffordable. Fewer doctors want to see Medicare patients and, among other deficiencies, it lacks true catastrophic coverage.
Mr. Ryan would create a "premium support" system in which government would pay a subsidy of roughly $15,000 to private insurers chosen by seniors. This means at age 65 you would be able to keep your same insurer, with the feds paying for that insurance instead of your employer. That would slow the growth of spending over time through competition and senior choice, rather than continue on Medicare's current path of government-rationed care.
Tackling Medicare is the politically riskiest part of this budget, as Democrats are already returning to their old stand of denouncing any change as a "war on the elderly and poor" (as Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky put it). These are the same Democrats who oppose smaller spending cuts on grounds that entitlements are where the real money is. The truth is they want only token spending cuts of the kind that Mr. Obama's budget offers.
For that political reason, Mr. Ryan decided not to walk point on Social Security, though everyone knows that retirement entitlement is also unsustainable with $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities. As a policy matter, Social Security is also the easiest problem to solve—change the benefit formula, means test benefits, raise the retirement age, and more. But you can't blame Republicans for dodging at least one political buzzsaw if Mr. Obama is going to continue to dodge all fiscal responsibility.
Unlike many Republicans and some in the tea party, Mr. Ryan understands that the budget can't be balanced with spending cuts alone. Above all, we need faster economic growth to drive higher incomes and more revenues. So Mr. Ryan also proposes a tax reform that would cut the U.S. personal and corporate tax rate to 25%, in return for eliminating loopholes and credits that allow companies like Whirlpool and General Electric to pay little tax.
Chairman Dave Camp has been pushing a similar reform in the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, and he deserves credit for letting Mr. Ryan roll it out as part of the budget. Republicans will have a better chance of winning the fiscal argument if they keep explaining that their reforms are essential to reviving growth and raising middle class incomes.
Since they only control the House, Republicans can't expect to pass all or even most of these reforms this year. But in rising to meet our main fiscal challenges, they are honoring their pledge to voters last year and offering voters a serious governing platform. Mr. Ryan is showing Americans that there is an alternative to Mr. Obama's vision of the U.S. as a high-tax, slow-growth, European-style entitlement state.
The GOP political bet is that this debate won't be another replay of 1985, 1995 or 2005 because the political times have changed. Our fiscal problems are far deeper, and Mr. Ryan's hope is that the American people realize this and are willing to reward politicians who address those problems, rather than politicians who say we can keeping spending and borrowing ad infinitum.
Republicans in Congress will need to rise to Mr. Ryan's occasion, and in particular so will GOP Presidential candidates. The first voter test for those candidates should be which of them are missing in action from the debate that House Republicans are kicking off. If we fail to reform the entitlement state now, we will do it eventually. But the price and pain will be so much greater.
Comments
I'm all for making the inmates grown what they want to eat.
And cutting the cable TV, and weight rooms, and non emergency health care.
But I digress if a government has no money they don't need to spend money. Last thing I want is to pay higher taxes, and know my children will pay higher taxes... but thats a rant for another day.
Secondly, Obama's own debt commission recommended, and Ryan is adopting the plan, to ERASE all loopholes and instituting 3 tax brackets - 8%, 15%, and 25% - flat tax that all Americans will fit into - no exceptions, no tax breaks, and no tax dodgers.
Just one of many when I googled the subject. Granted I was looking for this to support what I said so I didn't look up/for anything contradictory.
Under House rules, no measure can pass unless it's there's 72 hrs of notification and allowance for proposals by the entire House. The only spending measure that can be passed before Friday is one proposed by the Repubs. It's currently a spending measure that strips Planned Parenthood of $360mill funding, defunds NPR, cuts $12 bill from the 2011 budget and funds the Pentagon through the end of the 2011 fiscal year; it's not expected to pass the Senate, and Obama's said he plans to veto it if it does.
There's another one from a more reputible source.
Some are saying the blame will lie at Republicans feet like in 1995, but it's not certain; from what I've read/heard, Gingrich back in 1995 was openly pushing for a shutdown, and was viewed as a crybaby who didn't want to compromise. In the current situation, both Dems and Repubs are scared about who's gonna get blamed - since neither party is advocating a shutdown, and neither is willing to compromise on their 2011 budget plans, neither Dems nor Repubs know who the public's gonna blame for a shutdown, so there might yet be an 11th hour deal
And like I said, there's a proposal that's passed the House that'll fund the Pentagon for the rest of the 2011 year, but it's not expected to pass the Senate due to Democrats opposed to cutting $12 billion in spending, plus stripping PP and NPR of funding
But you can bet your a** that both parties will be spinning this like a dradel during Hanukkah for the next few months.
His plan also gives more money to the private health insurers while using tax dollars to pay for their service, thus the vouchers. I haven't looked too deeply into his crap bill but it's crap. It doesn't matter how much money GE, BP, .... make, they get refunds on their taxes! ...with record profits. That money they get is our money, the tax payer money. Never mind all of the other money huge defense contractors get that comes out of our taxes. You see if you get your head of the asses of the gop talking points you might see. Sure the dems are bad too but compared to the gop it's not even close. Cutting services doesn't save money, it kills off employment, hurts every day people and doesn't do a thing to help the deficit. All of this so called money is just leaving one area and going into the "private" sector.
You see it in most of the GOP controlled states where they are funneling money from state run programs into private programs. Selling off public buildings to private companies and paying a lease. Selling public land, parks and what not for private industry to mine, build, frack, or do what-ever too. Reaping the small term benefits. Economics is a long term thing, not a short term thing. All of these proposals are short term and won't do ***. I've taken economics for a long time and keep up on financial proposals and there are very few if any that really make any sense. Our entire policy is screwed up. And obama's own deficit panel are morons. He even made many remarks about how they didn't do a good job. Fact is no real economist is working in the admin or the congress, and if they are they are being spoken over.
Cutting social services and public workers is not going to fix anything, in fact it will cost more and damage many more lives. I have a feeling you and others like you really want to have it like in the 1800's. I mean he rich get everything and everyone else fights for living. Hell even the 1800's were better than that. All of the wealth of this country has been and is being sucked away and put into private industry which has no loyalty to this country. Maybe you should wake up and just follow where the money goes and who gets it.
http://www.good.is/post/how-american-corporations-pay-no-taxes-in-2010/
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/03/33_billion_corporate_tax_looph.html
On Ryan's bill....
http://fangaroo.org/ryan-refuses-to-say-if-new-gop-budget-will-end-corporate-welfare/
http://dccc.org/blog/entry/house_republican_budget_chairman_paul_ryan_says_budget_will_target_seniors_
Just some on his "ending" tax subsidies you mentioned. They won't end it, they get too much money from the corporations. ....
More GOP BS and damage.....
On Enviroment!
OHIO: At the behest of then-Vice President *** Cheney, an exemption was inserted into a 2005 energy bill — dubbed the “Haliburton loophole” — which stripped the EPA of its power to regulate a natural gas drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing. This method, named fracking, entails drilling a L-shaped well deep into shale and pumping millions of gallons of water laced with industrial chemicals — chemicals which the energy companies are not legally bound to disclose. The poisonous fluid fractures the shale and releases natural gas deposits for collection. But the public health risk associated with fracking doesn’t seem to bother Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) and state Republicans. The Ohio House introduced a bill early last month that would create a panel to open any state-owned land for oil and gas exploration to the highest bidder. Subsequently, in Kasich’s budget proposal, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources would be given authority to lease 200,000 acres of state park land for oil and gas exploration. Faced with a litany of problems related to fracking — even including a house exploding in Ohio — Kasich has fully endorsed drilling in Ohio state parks, saying, “Ohio is not going to walk away from a potential industry.” State Rep. John Adams (R), the House bill’s sponsor, said drilling in state parks can help erase a projected $8 billion budget deficit, and “keep our parks and our lakes up to the standards that the citizens of Ohio want.”
PENNSYLVANIA: After injecting fracking fluid deep into the earth to extract natural gas, the waste that returns becomes a nasty byproduct of saltwater mixed with radioactive materials. Most states require energy companies to inject the waste thousands of feet deep back into the earth — a technique that caused earthquakes in Arkansas. But Pennsylvania, one of the major states at the center of the natural gas boom, dumps the radioactive leftovers directly into rivers and streams, where communities get their drinking water. As a result of the atrocious practice, Pennsylvanians have gotten sick from drinking tap water. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R) doesn’t seem to be bothered whatsoever by releasing radioactive waste into rivers, recently saying that he wants to make Pennsylvania “the Texas of the natural gas boom.” In fact, Corbett’s draconian budget cuts funding for environmental oversight, and contains no increases in fines for environmental damages related to fracking. Corbett has even said that the regulation of the natural gas industry has been too aggressive. Not surprisingly, an analysis of Corbett’s campaign contributions has found that he has accepted more money from the natural gas industry than all other Pennsylvania candidates combined.
NORTH CAROLINA: With moratoriums on fracking in Arkansas, New York, New Jersey, and potentially Maryland, state Rep. Mitch Gillespie (R) plans to introduce a bill that would permit fracking in North Carolina. Currently, dating back to rules and regulations put into law in the 1940s, fracking is illegal in North Carolina. But Gillespie wishes to change the law, saying to the House Environment Committee, “It’s my intention to move ahead” with legislation, and natural gas is “a resource” that “North Carolina should be compensated for.” Energy companies are seeking to drill in southern Granville County through Durham, Chatham and Lee counties. But Robin Smith, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ assistant secretary, said that fracking will “endanger water sources in the area,” citing problems that have occurred in Pennsylvania.
TEXAS: Not only is Texas the biggest polluter in the country but it isn’t complying with federal air quality standards. Texas leads the nation in carbon dioxide emissions, and in 2008, Houston was ranked the fourth worst city for ozone. Texas has not been in compliance with federal air quality standards since 1994, when the state submitted a system of issuing flexible air pollution limits to the EPA — which allowed for a portion of a refinery or chemical plant to emit more pollutants than federal standards authorize as long as the total emissions did not infringe on federal air quality standards. In June 2010, the EPA published its “disapproval” of Texas’ air quality standards, stating that the Texas program “does not meet several national Clean Air Act requirements that help to assure the protection of health and the environment.” Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and state Republicans responded by filing a lawsuit that challenges the EPA’s ruling. Texas Department of Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples also pushed back against the EPA’s decision, saying, “
MAINE: Newly elected Gov. Paul LePage (R) — who infamously told the NAACP to “kiss my butt” and that he would tell President Obama to “go to hell” — announced that he will be trimming dozens of environmental protections in order to make Maine more “business friendly.” LePage will be changing a minimum of 36 environmental laws, including opening up 10 million acres of northern Maine for business development, weakening a new law that that requires manufactures take back and recycle old products, relaxing air emission standards, and replacing the state Board of Environmental Protection with an appeals panel. In another remarkably atrocious move, LePage wants to reverse a ruling that the chemical BPA — which has been linked to learning disabilities in children, obesity, and cancer — should be phased out of children’s products. Thankfully, in a significant policy defeat for LePage, a Maine legislative committee unanimously ruled to ban BPA last week.
MONTANA: Instituted in 1971, the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) is a “look before you leap” policy, “requiring state agencies to consider the environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts of proposals like mines, power plants, [and] subdivisions.” Allowing for public input and deliberation when considering new industrial projects, MEPA is largely considered a success. But state Sen. Chas Vincent (R) has proposed a bill to gut the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), citing that it’s what “venture capitalists” need. Moreover, state Rep. Joe Read (R) has introduced a bill declaring global warming a “natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it,” and that “global warming is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana.” In an effort to help business projects tied up in lawsuits, state Republicans have even proposed amending the Montana Constitution’s guarantee of a “clean and healthful environment” to a “clean, healthful, and economically productive environment.”
MINNESOTA: State Rep. Steve Drazkowski (R) convinced a committee to amend the House outdoors bill to include a provision that allows the for-profit logging industry to cut trees in Minnesota’s Frontenac and Whitewater state parks. The provision was ultimately taken out of the outdoor spending bill, and Drazkowski expressed regret, saying that black walnut trees — worth up to $5,000 — will be left to “rot on the stump.” But the fate of 24 existing state parks and plans for the development of Lake Vermilion State Park are still on the cutting block as the House and Senate begin negotiating their outdoor spending bills.
House GOP votes down Troop Funding...
Today, House Republicans pushed through their stopgap measure in a 247-181 vote. The bill, H.R. 1363, quickly came under fire for demanding a series of non-budget related policy riders, including an anti-abortion policy restriction banning D.C. from using its own local funds for abortions and anti-environmental restrictions to limit the EPA from regulating green house gas emissions, on top of an extra $12 billion in cuts. “With an eye to protecting themselves politically” from blame, the GOP quickly redefined H.R. 1363 today as the “troop funding bill.”
Slate’s Dave Weigel noted that five minutes after the White House declared H.R. 1363 unacceptable, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) slammed President Obama for threatening to veto a bill to “ensure that our troops are paid.” Minutes later, Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) ripped Democrats for “girding to oppose a ‘troop-funding bill.’” Republican lawmakers quickly picked up the rallying cry. Reps. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Harold Rodgers (R-KY) called it “astonishing” and “inexplicable” that Obama would, as GOP shutdown architect Newt Gingrich put it, use the troops as “bargaining chips for budget negotiations.”
There’s only one problem with this talking point — it’s the opposite of true. Today, the House Democrats tried three times to pass a measure that would ensure the troops received pay. The Republicans overwhelmingly opposed every single “troop-funding” opportunity:
– Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY) offered a motion to recommit that would ensure all military personnel received pay for the rest of the year. Only one Republican, Rep. Walter Jones (NC), voted with every Democrat to consider this amendment.
– House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), first by unanimous consent and then by amendment, offered an alternative budget measure that would provide a 1-week extension of the current budget agreement until April 15. The “clean” continuing resolution alternative includes funding for the military but omits the irrelevant policy riders the GOP attached to H.R. 1363. Republicans unanimously voted against consideration of the alternative.
What’s more, the Obama administration announced today that it “would support a short-term, clean Continuing Resolution” like the alternative Democrats offered. Thus, by voting against these measures, House Republicans are flatly refusing to support any “troop funding bill” unless their anti-abortion and anti-environmental riders get passed. Incidentally, Republicans have ensured that, unlike the troops, Members of Congress will still get paid. Last Friday, the House voted on a measure to stop their paychecks should the government shut down. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) was the only
http://www.businessinsider.com/budget-baloney-1-why-social-security-isnt-a-problem-and-the-best-way-to-fix-the-small-piece-of-it-that-needs-fixing-2011-2
Tax the Rich!!!
Some common reasons why it is bad... and they don't hold up
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/20-1
Raise the Corporate tax rate!!! Yes we have the 2nd highest at about 39 percent (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23473.html) but what they pay is another story...
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/09/news/economy/corporate_tax_reform/index.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html
http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/01/ge-exxon-walmart-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/03/tax-rich-fix-budget-deficit/
another example, a lot of budget issues with social services and the like could be fixed by doing away with subisdies to large corporations like big oil, however the GOP won't have it, but are fine with cutting social services..
http://transitionvoice.com/2011/02/gop-cut-food-aid-but-keep-oil-subsidies/
A pretty well known fact in the military world (at least in the aviation world like mine), sir, is that contractors can always do it cheaper, more efficiently, and faster!!!! Military contracts are not a problem, they are actually a solution. Contracts usually go to low bid, creating competition among companies, and saving the govt money. As contractors, we don't have to jump through hoops to get things accomplished or changed. Plus, you don't have to pay for my food, living quarters, healthcare, and 20 extra days of vacation. I pay for these things.
Tell me again how contracts are evil!!! You might want to research that a little more before you go using that argument again.
Secondly, the parts of the GOP that are fighting the Ryan budget are the new freshman, who say it doesn't go far enough. That's hardly what I'd call resisting.
Third, we HAVEN'T been cutting taxes - all Gov't has been doing for the past 20 years is growing, increasing regulations, increasing social spending, and pretty much doing everything that you support. Under Clinton, the debt rose by about $2 trillion over 8 yrs; under Bush, it rose about $2-3 trillion over 8 years. Under Obama, the debt rose $2 trillion in 2 years - you can't claim that Gov't spending is the answer after the failure of the bailouts, TARP, and Obamacare.
Lastly, like I told you last time, when you never responded - TAX CUTS ARE NOT THE SAME AS SPENDING. When the Gov't spends, it sends money out, when taxes are cut, the Gov't doesn't confiscate as much as it did before - you can't "spend" something you never owned in the first place; the Gov't doesn't "spend" money that it doesn't confiscate. By your definition of "spending", the Gov't "spends" money whenever it doesn't confiscate 100% of a persons earnings.
If a person makes $100,000/yr, and tax rates are at 80%, by your definition, the Gov't is allowing that person to keep $20,000. And if tax rates are cut from 80% to 60%, by your own definition, the Gov't just "spent" $20,000 in a giveaway to "those evil rich guys". Someone who doesn't subscribe to a Marxist/Socialist point of view would say the tax cut allowed the person who earned his own money to keep it, instead of having it taken by the Gov't.
My I need to use all caps RYAN'S BILL DOES NOT END LOOPHOLES~!!! HE AND OTHERS EVEN SAID OR DIDN'T SAY AS MUCH - WHATEVER SOUNDS BETTER EVEN WHEN ASKED DIRECTLY.
Finally, lest you forget, Bush pushed a tax cut for ALL Americans, not "those evil rich guys"; and his medicare part D is something a lot of conservatives still disagree with.
EDIT - Like I said, the Ryan budget incorporates the debt commissions proposal to end all tax loopholes and create 3 tax brackets - 8%, 15%, and 25% - so it DOES close the loopholes and lowers the tax rate from 35% (which no one actually pays), to 25% (which is actually higher than the approximate 23% that large corporations actually pay after the loopholes)