The American Spectator : Choices Ahead

Text Size

Choices Ahead

By W. James Antle, III on 4.4.11 @ 6:10AM

Paul Ryan's plan and the current spending impasse mean Republicans have some decisions to make.

For weeks, Congress has been locked in a bitter stalemate over the budget. House Republicans, having promised the voters $100 billion in discretionary spending cuts during their first year in office, want to pass a continuing resolution that lops $61 billion in spending from the remaining six months of the fiscal year. The Democratic-controlled Senate, backed by the White House, prefers about $30 billion in cuts.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that both sides had come to an agreement on the dollar figure of spending they would cut. Reid ostentatiously thanked House Speaker John Boehner for negotiating with him and mocked conservatives: "I'm sure it's not easy trying to negotiate with the Tea Party screaming in his right ear." With Tea Partiers in Washington protesting in the background, Boehner said curtly that no deal had been reached.

Even if the two parties could come together on how much spending to cut, there would still be disagreements over which spending to cut. Should Congress defund Planned Parenthood? The Corporation for Public Broadcasting? The bureaucrats who will implement President Obama's national health care law? All three would be a no-go for Democrats in Congress and probably the president as well.

Yet the House Republican budget for fiscal 2012, due to be unveiled this week, may make all this look like penny ante stuff. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) told "Fox News Sunday" that the GOP budget would exceed the deficit reduction proposed by the president's fiscal commission. That would mean savings in excess of $4 trillion, as the headlines have blared since Ryan's interview, the number reached in the commission report now gathering dust somewhere in the Oval Office.

"We can't keep kicking this can down the road," Ryan said in his Fox interview. "The president has punted. We're not going to follow suit." Unlike anything the administration has been willing to seriously contemplate, the 2012 budget is going to tackle two major entitlement programs: Medicaid, which provides health care to the poor, and Medicare, which provides medical care to the elderly. The latter program is going broke; the former is driving many state governments into the poor house.

Ryan would block-grant Medicaid to the states, giving governors and legislators more flexibility. The idea is also to save money and make the program grow at a more sustainable rate. On Medicare, he would essentially give retirees vouchers to purchase private health insurance. He would retain Medicare's progressivity so that the benefits remained better for the poor and the sick. Americans already dependent on Medicare or nearing retirement would be exempt.

Sound right-wing? You'll hear as much in the coming days. But Ryan promulgated these plans with Alice Rivlin, a centrist Democrat and former Clinton budget director. Though the details of the 2012 budget have yet to be released, an analysis done last year by the Congressional Budget Office found that the Ryan-Rivlin plan would save $350 billion over the next decade.

Ryan plans to offer spending caps, as a percentage of GDP, as part of his effort to return federal spending to its historic pre-Obama, pre-stimulus levels. Most of the Obama administration's proposals, including its so-called freeze on government spending, would lock in these elevated spending levels.

Finally, the Ryan budget will take up the tax code. So far, few details have emerged over what shape "fundamental tax reform" will take. But the idea is to avoid a growing tax burden. "We don't have a tax problem," Ryan said on Fox. "The problem with our deficit is not because Americans are taxed too little. So we're not going to go down the path of raising taxes on people and raising taxes on the economy."

Democrats are sure to excoriate the GOP budget. Here is Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee: "To govern is to choose, and it is not courageous to protect tax breaks for millionaires, oil companies, and other big money special interests while slashing our investment in education, ending the current health care guarantees for seniors on Medicare, and denying health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans." (Note that Van Hollen is fresh from chairing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, a position that leaves him ill equipped for thinking beyond the next election cycle.)

But Republicans have choices to make too. Because Congress failed to pass a budget last year and the Senate has yet to pass a long-term continuing resolution, we are in the unusual position of debating a 2012 spending plan and spending for the remainder of 2011 at virtually the same time. Ryan is expected to release this new budget just three days before the government will shut down if no agreement on this year's spending is reached.

Should the Republicans be open to some kind of compromise over the next six months' spending to avert a government shut-down and retain their credibility for pushing the Ryan budget, keeping their eyes on the prize of a long-term spending blueprint? Isn't the next ten years going to have a bigger budgetary impact than the next six months?

Then again, if the Republicans cannot deliver billions in spending cuts why should we believe they can really achieve trillions in savings? Why should the GOP, whose commitment to fiscal discipline has habitually faded whenever Republicans find themselves in political trouble, be trusted to deliver on spending? Wouldn't winning the short-term budget fight make them more likely to prevail in the long term?

There are no easy answers. In remarks to the GOP House freshmen, the normally glib former Speaker Newt Gingrich seemed to simultaneously advise that they push for their full spending cuts and avoid a government shutdown at all costs. But it may not be possible to do both.

To govern is indeed to choose. Republicans have some choosing, and governing, to do.

About the Author

W. James Antle, III is associate editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/Jimantle.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (106) | Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 4.4.11 @ 6:28AM

First off, they should not listen to Newt Gingrich. All his plans failed and miserably. His Contract with American became a joke as the Republicans went on a spending spree that continues to this day and only emboldened the Democrats to spend even more.

As far as the situation being a stalemate, it isn't a stalemate.

All the Republicans need to do is point out the Democrats never passed a budget and if they reject the Republican proposed budget, then let the government suffer the consequences and close down.

The Republicans can then offer continuing resolutions to fund only the necessities.

By September it will be clear the government is bloated and can stand significant cuts in size and scope.

In the meantime if the Republicans don't pass the final numbers by tomorrow night, they will go back on another promise of posting bills 72 hours in advance.

As far as the long term, this is long term. If it isn't worth fighting for now and making it work, then we will know for sure the debt ceiling will be raised and any further budgets will simply cut spending growth, which means the out of control spending will live on.

The ruling class will have won again.

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 12:08PM

Bill, I agree with your excellent ideas in general, but I do think the R's should concentrate mor upon the 2012 budget than this 2011 short term one. From what is known now about Ryan's upcoming ideas, I tentatively agree with [ie $4 trillion+ in cuts over a decade]. I'd suggest not only downsizing/block granting Medicaid to states; but doing the same thing with Medicare [providing a fixed amount of available coverage to beneficiaries and allowing each to spend same for their own health insurance coverage from private industry insurance carriers]. As to what to cut our of government, the government should be forced to reconstruct their budget on a zero-based methodology, whereby instead of adding/deleting from the current, each agency/department should be initially justified as to demonstratable public need and also be required to build its needed budgeted amount from "0" [ie EDUCATION, FOREIGN AID, FARM AID, MILITARY SUPERSONIC WEAPONRY etc really essentially needed and affordable at what amount]. Again I just think the fight whould be with the upcoming 2012 budget; and also with the 2012 election [we taxpayers need to provide Ryan etc with more conservatives and another president in order to accompolish his/their proposals into law]!!!!!!!

Drew J| 4.4.11 @ 7:27PM

I agree the problem is the way we treat the budget process itself. It should be pretty simple; next year’s projected revenue minus interest (and debt pay down, yea right) is what the government has to spend next year. This BS game of "cutting deficits" is ridiculous. You are either running a deficit or a surplus. One increases the debt; one hopefully pays down the debt. It is truly sad when supporting a balanced budget is considered "extreme". Unfortunately half of the American population believes cutting the deficit (or 'saving' $4 trillion dollars in spending) is the same as paying down the debt. If you are drowning due to a large weight (the debt) tied to your ankle, slowing the rate at which you add weight to your ankle (the deficit) is not going to solve your problem.

The Republicans should pass a budget that doesn’t have $4 trillion in cuts, rather a budget that is balanced in 2012. Revenues = Spending (counting interest). Let the Democrats put together whatever continuing resolution they want for this year, and tie raising the debt ceiling and their Continuing Resolution to the Republican balanced budget for 2012. Take it or leave it!

www.freedomthoughts.com

Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 7:55PM

You know, as part of the Camp David Agreement, we paid the Egyptians $70 Billion and they're going to unilaterally abrogate it. We need to take that money out of their hides.

ENOUGH ROPE| 4.4.11 @ 5:42PM

Those who quest to make the state supreme and scorn the individual can erode our resolve because of their seeming invincibility. Can we Americans today, who believe in truth, justice, and our God given individual freedom, think that we are worse off than General George Washington at Valley Forge? Visualize that portrait of Washington kneeling in the snow in prayer for God's help. Does anyone doubt that if enough of us pray to God to save America that God will not help us to triumph over evil within and without our nation?

I believe that General Washington's prayers were answered because he was unselfish. Do you think that if we as individuals imitated Washington's courage, unselfishness, and prayerfulness that our prayers will be answered?

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.4.11 @ 6:38AM

Shutherdown, and getherdone!

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.4.11 @ 1:02PM

You don't seem to be putting much effort into your posts lately, what gives?

Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 7:55PM

Great books he's writing, Old Texican is. Check them out.

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.5.11 @ 1:03AM

Have you read the first one?

figusja| 4.4.11 @ 7:32AM

Bill, Bill, Bill you always have great comments, but.......Newt and the GOP ARE the Ruling Class. Is that not sad? Why do you think the Dems always get their way when in power. Why does the GOP compromise when THEY are in power? Ruling class thinking. Politicians know that the majority of citizens are conservative. They (DEMS) will always need accomplices for their schemes. Hence GOP always plays ball.
No one will fix this problem until it blows up and everyone is hurt. Sad but true.

Mimi| 4.4.11 @ 8:03AM

Yes...and it will END when a "TEA PARTY PATRIOT" wins the PRIMARY. ENROLL Republican...to be able to vote in the 2012 primaries. Enough already!!!

Mimi| 4.4.11 @ 7:51AM

Listen close to what Paul Ryan said on Sunday...ALL if it ! His words were chosen carefully...Wise , Comforting, truthful. The DEMS got a "respectful" lashing and was called out on their failures to LEAD, and a "SHAME" on them if they Lie and Demogogue. As he did after the State of The Union speech , his words were POWERFUL, and oh so believable! Striking, coming from a POL!!!

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 12:12PM

Amen, correct Mimi! When disclosed, his proposals will result in blood curtling screams from Democrats due to deletions of GOVERNMENTAL WELFARE. Count on it. Our jobs are to vote for conservatives in November of 2012 in order to send Ryan some needed reinforcements!!!!!!!!!!

LiveFreeOrDie| 4.4.11 @ 1:03PM

Paul Ryan for President!

suzy000| 4.4.11 @ 8:08AM

I was happy to hear Rep. Ryan say to Chris Wallace yesterday that he was promoting much more than 4 Trillion. Look, we are over spending 1.1 to 1.4 Trillion Dollars every year since Obama took office, not including interest. In order for the National Debt to stay the same, we would have to CUT 11+ Trillion in 10 years. So this 1.1 Trillion cut for 10 years that Obama is proposing is an insult to our country and it will only serve up a collapse of our economy.

Intelligent Design| 4.4.11 @ 8:12AM

We are not going to get meaningful cuts in federal spending until voters send Obama home, and send more Senate Democrats home. This should not be difficult, since the huge Republican victory in November 2010 was based mainly on the voters' disgust with the size and cost of the federal government. Democrats are clearly deaf and dumb.

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 12:15PM

ID, you're intelligently correct. Already, the polls are indicating a crawfishing/lack of backing for Walker's bold/brave proposals against unions. People have to politically support these courageous politicians such as himself who are no on the front lines of this fight!!!!!!!!!1

Nunya| 4.4.11 @ 12:23PM

ID, I don't disagree, but we did that once before. When we got W in place and Republican control of Congress, all they did was spend money like it was going out of style. He is part of the reason we are where we are.

We need our leaders in Congress to STAND FAST. If they give in to Reid and his minions this time, we have no hope to reign in spending, ever.

Clint| 4.4.11 @ 8:13AM

The Big Government Out Of Control Spending Ship Might Be Shutdown.

The Professional Big Government Parasite Leech Spenders Are Scurrying Around Deck Rearranging The Deck Chairs.

Tax Day Cometh.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Rise Up.

martin j smith| 4.4.11 @ 8:18AM

Here is my take. Republican Leadership should take to the airwaves to address the American People on the economy. And it should --as it is -be presented as IN CRISIS NEEDING MAJOR SACRIFICES FROM EVERYONE-- And that means many cuts in spending. They should openly criticize the Socialists especially Obama for his over the top and beyond spending and Obama Care as a Prime example. They should challenge the Socialists to a debate on the budge instead of name calling like __hear this Chucky-"extreme" or " right wing" . There should be more than one speaker and openly challenge Reid and the Socialists to e4xplain to the American People why they did not pass a budget for this PT and how they intend to make the economy better given was has happened so far ?
Then explain why Republicans will insist on fiscal discipline and lay the ground work to blame the Socialists if they fail to agree. Republicans must make the case that ma) there is an extreme crisis b) that the spending is to blame on top of the FED and EPA policies and to get out there must be a change of course. The let the voters decide.

Nunya| 4.4.11 @ 12:25PM

Martin, I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately though, what you are proposing will require LEADERSHIP, which is sorely lacking in most politicians today. It's incredibly hard to find a spine in Washington these days...

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 12:45PM

Martin, I agree as always with your excellent ideas, but please remember that Democrats [and their indigent constituents] will not listen/agree to logical, truthful arguments. To them, it's all about forcing additional taxiation from income producers in order to provide the government with the funding to pay for the welfare benefits provided to these dependent constuents, in return for their votes that maintain their political power. Economics, finance, debt mean absolutely nothing to these people and never will....all they care about is their governmental manta continuing!!!!!!!!

Ken in Tyler| 4.4.11 @ 9:11AM

The R's can't make the strong case which is necessary and appropriate because over the years, they have been complicit in the plundering of the nation- just in a slightly different way than the socialists.
We may wind up with decent candidates and we may actually win the election. But until someone begins to explain to the American people that the only real road to fiscal sanity is a return to limited Constituional government which would eventually eliminate all transfer payments and unfunded mandates to the States, the outcome for the Republic will not be changed.

Michael92104| 4.4.11 @ 6:59PM

We had a war on the very issues you outline here (1861-65). Your side lost. Get over it. Our elected representatives, whether they be Democratic or Republican are sworn to uphold the Constitution as it exists right now, not the one that was vanquished and serves as a wet dream for people like you.

Peter Skurkiss| 4.4.11 @ 10:06AM

"Choices ahead," indeed.

In this piece, Mr. Antle asks, "Should Congress defund Planned Parenthood?"

Of course it should, but not everyone agrees.

Conservative money-man, Dick Scaife of Pittsburg, has taken out a full page add in today's New York Times calling on congressional Republicans not to defund Planned Parenthood.

Scaife's basic argument, when he's not commending the noted eugenics pioneer Margaret Sanger for her "vision" and "bravery," is that Planned Parenthood is more than an abortion mill and that the organization provides useful services to the underprivileged and teenagers.

Yes, and Mussolini made the trains run on time, too.

Message to Mitch Daniels: How can there be a truce on social issues when rationalizations like Dick Scaife's fill the media.

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 12:54PM

Peter, we here all agree on the deplorablity of abortion, but the fact remains that horrowably, abortion represents birth control of last resort. If abortion was disallowed, the babies born to their typically indigent/welfare mothers would be imprisoned to a lifetime of crime, abuse and death. Right-to-lifers are noble in their cause, but if/until they and others are willing to step up to the plate and totally/completely adopt/financially provide fro these children born to indigent mothers, the worst immaginable target is sadly placed upon the resultant babies born into this environment. Government must be forced to institute criminality policies for indigent pregnancies/births, before abortion can/should be outlawed/eliminated!!!!!!!!

Kenny| 4.4.11 @ 3:10PM

What a sad rationalization.

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 5:02PM

That's what the TRUTH sadly represents sometimes, Kenny!!!!!!!!!!!

Neo-libertarian| 4.4.11 @ 5:10PM

One man’s truth is another man’s rationalization; why would anyone in their right mind not fund the part of Planned Parenthood that deals with legitimate birth control. (Invest pennies to save millions.) The welfare rolls are ballooning as we speak; children are having children. The country is being destroyed and the only things you offer is meddling which does not concern you personally and will ultimately make things worse. Abortion is to be decided by pregnant women, they should be the ones that pay, and our creator will be the ultimate judge, not you. Unless you are pregnant STFU, as for input as to the address where to sent the bill, see the contract. Get back to us when you read the part about More Personal Freedom.
OldFarte is absolutely correct, whenever you feel you are willing to raise the illegitimate children the SoCon’s policies bestow upon our Nation we will listen. Till then you’re your just another clown like the one in the White House proposing more schemes for spending other people’s money.

jeniinIL| 4.4.11 @ 4:37PM

You are absolutely right, Oldefarte! We cannot complain about welfare for indigent parents who cannot afford another child, while at the same time saying that they MUST have an unwanted child. Are all of us really ready to adopt these children? It's truly a tragic reality.

jeniinIL| 4.4.11 @ 4:40PM

I do want to add, though, that I don't believe the government should be funding these abortions...

Kenny| 4.4.11 @ 5:19PM

I see the spirit of Margaret Sanger is alive and well.

So what's next, putting the old and the handicapped to sleep to save money?

Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 7:59PM

Oldefarte,

you are quite wonderful. Allow me to point out a mild hole in your reasoning---50 million babies would have paid a lot of taxes since 1973. We don't have enough workers to pay for our entitlement programs now, and they are going under. Imagine if we had 50 million more young people working (or, say, 30 million). How would that have affected things.

The problem is that the baby boomers are the most selfish group in American history, and now the piper's bill is coming due. I say this as the adoptive dad of the World's Two Best Children.

skip| 4.5.11 @ 4:52PM

Left out of all these rationalizations is the fact that the assumption 'right-to-lifers' and 'others' must 'step up to the plate' and 'financially provide' for any children not aborted not only defies common sense, and is not only unconstitutional, it is also unbiblical. Talk about a triple whammy.

Killing a human being is murder.

Killing a tiny defenseless innocent unborn human is the ultimate act of bullying.

All humans, whether male or female, rich or poor, are required to exercise personal accountability.

There is never a scenario where any human exercising liberty has a right to violate any other human's liberty.

If indigent / welfare mothers commit crime they should pay the punishment.

If children are born, who otherwise would have been murdered by what is called abortion, these humans in no way have the liberty or any right to violate any others' liberty or rights through coerced redistribution of wealth.

Hey, here's an idea, how about we only exercise capital punishment on individuals proven guilty of actual crimes as opposed to exercising capital punishment on individuals so innocent they are deprived of self-evident rights including life and liberty endowed by their Creator?

WeMustResist| 4.4.11 @ 10:08AM

The Federal government is not going to run a cash surplus unless some clear and simple rules are agreed by Congress and White House. The first rule should be: No new spending unless it is to save American lives.
The Libyan extravagance is disgraceful because it is new spending to save foreign lives, at a time the US needs every dollar it can get to save American lives. American lives are at risk because of the overspending.
The second rule is that existing spending, ie programs already budgeted in past years, should be cut as quickly as possible unless the consequence is to risk American lives, or the health of Americans, or to drive Americans bankrupt. If it does not increase those three risks then it should be cut out real quick. It is not as if the deficit can be turned into a surplus by easy decisions, or by waiting. Time is running against Western civilization. We have to hurry, if we wish to save ourselves. If Congress doesn't reveal some common sense principles to use when cutting expenses then we can tell that it is just horse trading, a temporary show, while they play for time. They think they have time, but it is not true.

Steve A| 4.4.11 @ 10:25AM

Wemust, Your goal is noble but your method needs closer examination. Newsflash for you: Progressives claim virtually EVERYTHING conservatives wish to cut would kill people. Obamacare, need I say more? Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security reforms all would kill old people or at least cause them to eat dog food. Have you been under a rock for the last 30 years or so??

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 1:02PM

Steve A: I agree in principle [and would be will to forgo my Medicare/SS if my lifetime of premiums-taxes were refunded] but the budgetary problem is not SS/Medicare. Medicaid IS a huge problem and since it is NOT paid for by its recipients [as is SS/Medicare] and it needs to be block-granted to states. The budigetary problem results from foreign/farm aid, welfare[housing,food, education, transportation], and military [unneeded/excessive/expensive hardware]; any/all of which is wasteful and causes our defecit/debt problems. Substantially reduce/eliminate same and the defecit/debt problem is solvable!!!!!!!!!!!

Steve A| 4.4.11 @ 1:17PM

Oldefart, I agree. Especially with our military budget. We could massacre any foe on Earth within a week if we wanted to. It is overkill. It needs to be cut. Foreign Aid I would drop to ZERO, although it is a very small piece.

I mentioned those prior items in response to our efforts to kill old people exclusively.

Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 8:02PM

Not sure I would drop all foreign aid to zero---I would just insist that it only be given to Democratic countries (NATO IS foreign aid, folks, plain and simple. I'm not sure we need it, but we need a debate before we slice it. Aid to Islamic countries---eliminate. Aid to Africa--eliminate. But NATO and Israel---think about, because it's defense spending.)

Deborah D| 4.4.11 @ 10:44AM

It's time Republicans shout from the rooftops that if we don't cut, cut, cut spending (and that includes chopping whole departments from the government) that our country will not survive. We are now bracing for hyperinflation, and if we still calculated the inflation rate as it was calculated before 1992, the rate right now would be 10% (not 1.5%). We have 44 million Americans on food stamps (up from 22 million when Bush left office). Gas prices are double what they were when Bush left office. The way this country is being run is an outrage if not outright treasonous. We cannot go on this way, and we cannot pay for what we already owe especially the way this administration is strangling our businesses. Paul Ryan is a likeable, honest leader who is trying his best to do the right thing.

Hey, Congress, get off your duffs and do what's right for the nation. We might end up broke, but we'll remember who you are and what you did to bring our country to economic collapse or did not do to prevent it. Count on it.

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 1:08PM

Amen, Deborah; and one example is the governmental welfare of housing. The CRA of 1977 began same and now our real estate industry is on the brink of bankruptcy. As liberals would say, A CHICKEN IN EVERY POT, AND A POOR PERSON IN EVERY OWNED HOUSE. When these indigents should have been renting their housing, they were allowed by the government to buy same. Being ill equipped to pay for same from their little or no incomes, naturally they defaulted and now us taxpayers have to pick up the tab for same. We simply have to get the government OUT OF providing welfare!!!!!!!!!

buckeyeman| 4.4.11 @ 10:58AM

Let's face reality. It's over. Well, almost over. My evidence? The fact that we are even debating a 61 billion dollar cut in the face of a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit. If my laptop calculator is correct, 61 billion is 3.8125 percent of 1.6 trillion. Moreover, we continue to debate (seriously) over whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for Planned Parenthood, NPR, and so forth.

The real debate should be whether our constitution authorizes the federal government to force me to pay for someone else's retirement, a la Social Security. You can bet your bippee that few of the self described Tea Partiers would give up their own government goodies. We have come to the logical conclusion of collectivist thinking and policy. It doesn't work. It has never worked. It could never work. All the lefties who constantly harp on this benefit or that benefit never address the consequences of confiscating the wealth of others.

Ryan's game plan? What a joke.

Jack London| 4.4.11 @ 11:19AM

'All the lefties who constantly harp on this benefit or that benefit never address the consequences of confiscating the wealth of others.'

I've asked this before but not had a reply - are you absolutely happy to see wealth continuing to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands? Bear in mind that the top 20% now own 85% and the top 1% own 35%.

Steve A| 4.4.11 @ 11:28AM

Jack, I will provide you with an answer. Yes. How's that?

You assume wealth is a zero sum game, this is your error. If I invent Microsoft out of thin air, in my garage, & make 7 billion, I HAVE NOT STOLEN OR DEPRIVED any other citicen of any $$. The deadbeat loser, would still be a deadbeat loser if I had not invented Microsoft. Further, I am entitled to my 7 billion because I created it & earned it fairly. I am also entitled to dontae a huge portion of it to the cause & or charity of MY choice. Not Congress choice. Not Obama's choice.

Because I am successful, in America, I & those like me, pay the VAST MAJORITY of all collected taxes. Fine, no problem.

Jack London| 4.4.11 @ 11:40AM

Ok, are you also happy to live with the consequences of gross inequality - crime, high health problems, lower literacy, high drug problems, community breakdown, low/absent trust, low economic productivity, high stress levels... compared with more equal societies.

Steve A| 4.4.11 @ 11:46AM

So if you confiscate my fairly earned wealth & give it to a guy sitting on his front porch drinking a 40, all of those problems go away?? Is that how it works?

Further, you fail to respond to any point I made above. The fact that I create wealth does not cause some other random human do rob an old lady. Liberalism creates poverty every time it is implemented. You are just too dense to see it.

Jack London| 4.4.11 @ 12:15PM

The question is whether you see anything divisive in say CEO pay going up from a ratio of about 50 x average pay in 1980 to over 500 x in the early 2000s.

This is also about income as well as wealth. Do you honestly think that huge disparity promotes less crime etc? And do you honestly think that more equality will not lead to more social cohesion over time?

Nunya| 4.4.11 @ 12:53PM

Jack, I'm sorry but you are not only misinformed, if you really believe what you're saying you're part of the problem.

Your statement "...do you honesty think that more equality will not lead to more social cohesion over time?" is absolute bunk. When or where has this EVER happened? Never, and noplace would be the correct response. There always exists a ruling party who are better than the rest, the oligarchy that runs the show.

It's all about equal OPPORTUNITY--NOT equal outcome.

Jack London| 4.4.11 @ 3:42PM

If you think the vast majority of Americans have the same opportunities as the top 5-10% then you must be living in a very different land.

Nunya| 4.4.11 @ 6:26PM

Jack, I recognize that those with money have greater opportunities than the rest of us; however, I have known many self-made millionaires in my life who started off as poor or middle class at best. Maybe not Bill Gates rich, but wealthy enough to never have to worry about money again.

This country wasn't founded on equalization of outcome--it was built on the premise that anyone could make it, and many do. Not everyone, but many--and it DOESN'T happen because of the government, it happens in SPITE of the government. Thinking that the government can make things better by equalizing things is sheer folly.

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 1:27PM

If the company's stockholders and B of D'er approve his 500x salary[based upon their appraisal of his value to the company], then the CEO has earned it. If not, then they fire/replace him with someone else. Just because some dummie manual laborer makes peanuts is nothing but a reflection of his uneducated status in life!!!!

Jack London| 4.4.11 @ 3:44PM

Do you thing all executive compensation is determined strictly on a reward for performance basis? Seriously?

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 5:06PM

In most cases, yes. Corporations compensation committees research and make recommendations to the B of D, who thereafter finally decide. Corporations have to justify their decisions to their stockholders [and the public] who would other revolt. Learn the facts!!!!!!!!

Jack London| 4.4.11 @ 5:32PM

You're a funny man - even most of the business magazines think that US executive pay has long reached an orgy of corrupted excess that's an embarrassment to business conduct worldwide.

Jack| 4.4.11 @ 12:06PM

The very socialist policies that you commend are the ones that are creating the very problems that you refer to. The over regulating and over reaching policies have created this mess.

George True| 4.4.11 @ 12:09PM

Every item you listed is a false premise. Strawmen, all of them. Where in the world did you get the idea that wealthy people creating even more wealth are somehow the cause of all the ills of the world? And which "more equal" societies would you point to as somehow better?

I would suggest you start by reading "The Wealth of a Nation" by F.A. Hayak. Then come back and we can have an informed discussion.

Jack London| 4.4.11 @ 12:43PM

I think you've got a screw loose George - The Wealth of Nations is Adam Smith's big one (and it's Hayek, not Hayak).

And you obviously don't understand that countries with a more equal wealth/income distribution function better on many levels - there's a wagonload of research on this.

Steve A| 4.4.11 @ 12:59PM

Jack, If this is what you truly believe, then why don't you pack up your s**t & move to one. Quit trying to ruin the foundation of this country. The only reason the wealth you despise even exists, to be confiscated, is because our country is unique in its historical tendency to reward success, not punish it.

If I honestly believed that a more fair, equitable, just environment existed to raise my family, I would seek it out. Why in the hell do you suppose we have an immigration problem?? Is it because you get punished for success here??

Also, I could care less what the CEO makes. Just don't let guys like Obama & phoney Republicans bail his ass out when his company goes south.

Jack London| 4.4.11 @ 3:38PM

Well Steve, I'm one of the 20% that owns 85% so I'm OK. But I am concerned about my 250 million other fellow Americans. I doubt you or anyone else here is.

And you appear to have zero idea about the effect that gross wealth inequality has on our society - how it means power and determines the opportunities for children before they're even born.

As I've said before, even the incredible negative effect of inequality on our productivity - such as with low educational attainment - seems to cut no ice with you people.

You would all rather we fall in line behind China rather than deny the rich tiny taxes on their dividends and clearance to salt billions away in tax havens, at the same time as granting entities such as Walmart the same status as human beings.

tonypal| 4.4.11 @ 4:31PM

No Jack, we're just as concerned about those 250 million people as you. Herein lies the problem with people such as yourself. You have a great deal of difficulty accepting the fact that someone who disagrees with you might be well meaning. We simply disagree on the best way to run a multi- trillion dollar economy. We believe in the free market, you believe in people (lifelong politicians) who have no experience creating jobs or meeting payrolls.

This issue of income inequality is a red herring put forth by leftists and swallowed whole by naive liberals. All leftist arguments have one purpose; to confuse and obfuscate for the purpose of encouraging outrage. The players are always the same, the so-called victims and the evil bogey men out to get them. The resolution is always the same; take from the bogey man and give to the so-called victim. Of course, before it gets to the designated victim, the money must first pass through many hands, such as trial lawyers and busy body leftist organizations whose very survival depends on the permanent existence of an underprivileged class.

Please explain in your own words why income inequality of any sort is a bad thing? Seems to me that the best thing for those 250 million people you care so much about would be pro growth policies designed to encourage job creation and upward mobility. Raising taxes on wealthy people, or as we conservatives call them "employers," doesn't seem like a particularly bright idea. Raising the cost of doing business on multinational corporations that are worth billions of dollars doesn't seem to make much sense either. What the hell do you think an employer does when the cost of doing business goes up? As a self-employed attorney, I know that when my taxes go up, my bottom line isn't going to suffer. So I cut back on staff, either by reducing hours or by firing someone. That's the result of liberal policies designed to help the poor and downtrodden.

So how would you address the income inequality question? Would you confiscate wealth? If income inequality is the problem you believe it to be, then you must believe that there are people out there who have the unique ability to decide from whom to take and to whom to distribute. Perhaps that's President Obama, a man who still isn't qualified to be the assistant manager of the local deli. Who would you want making these decisions?

Jack London| 4.4.11 @ 5:04PM

As I've said, income (and wealth) inequality is strongly correlated with a wide range of adverse factors - crime and prison rates, social immobility, teen pregnancy, low literacy, poor health and life expectancy, obesity, low social trust, low economic productivity...

What you're confusing is tax with other solutions to combat inequality, such as reducing differentials between the high and low paid, promoting employee stakes in companies, investing in better education, health and environment to cut the massive overheads we have in society, and generating more trust and creativity.

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 1:28PM

Yeah, like Russia and Cuba no doubt!!!!!

George True| 4.4.11 @ 1:30PM

And Jack, you obviously have a few screws loose yourself, pal. Such as all of your Marxist/Leninist/Socialist B.S.

Jack London| 4.4.11 @ 3:40PM

So George, who did write The Wealth of Nations? Was it Mr S. Crew Loose?

Drunken Sailor| 4.4.11 @ 4:40PM

Honestly Jack, I want equal chances, not equal results. Like many conservatives I don't want you or the goverment to 'Garuntee" my results. Give me a fair shot to prove myself and I'll take my chances. If you are so set as you claim to be why not establish a Not-for- Profit organization and re-distribute your own wealth? Lead by example buddy.

Jack London| 4.4.11 @ 5:22PM

Do you think more could be done to promote equal chances? The reason I ask is because the rich/poor gap is widening and social mobility is getting worse.

Obfuscation City| 4.4.11 @ 9:30PM

London Bridge is falling down . . . my dear gentleman.

Socialism has never worked. Try the facts for once in your life. No one here buys your tripe.

Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 8:03PM

Dear Jack---have you read the Gulag Archipelago?

Claypoole| 4.5.11 @ 12:46PM

Brings back memories of "West Side Story." "We're depraved because we're deprived."

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 1:20PM

Jack, the reason wealth is concentrated is because THESE WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS '''''EARNED'''''THEIR ASSETS BASED UPON THEIR HARD-EARNED EDUCATION! The reason why most blue-collar types are unemployed and losing assets is because in many cases they are STUPID. They pi&^ed away their free public education opportunities and thereafter were replaced in factories by computerized machinery [ie elevator operators of yesteryear]. Educated people for the most part have lost income due to this sour economy but can adapt and regain partially, whereas uneducated/less-educated ones cannot. That is why wealth is earned by the former in today's environment only!!!!!!!!

skip| 4.4.11 @ 2:30PM

Jack London,

In 2007 the top 1% of all income earners paid more in income taxes than the bottom 95% of all income earners combined paid in income taxes.

How is this constitutional?

How is this fair?

What facts support any correlation whatsoever between crime and poverty?

Are you implying the top 1% don't pay enough?

How do you sleep at night? Is your unintelligence and dishonesty of such a degree that these inconsistencies don't affect you?

Jack London| 4.4.11 @ 4:02PM

'What facts support any correlation whatsoever between crime and poverty?'

You're behind the curve here. There is certainly a correlation between poverty and crime in many countries, But I'm talking about inequality - the gap between rich and poor - and here the stats are solid - countries with a narrower gap have less crime. Further, US states with less inequality have less crime, and lower prison populations.

As for the income/tax thing, the problem is that the gap is widening, not closing between rich and poor. Do you really think this is a good thing for us?

skip| 4.4.11 @ 4:16PM

Your correlation certainties remind me of conspiracy theories: long on motive and short on evidence.

It does not matter a whit whether you are rich or poor, your behavior must not violate another's rights.

In '07 the top 1% paid more than the bottom 95% in income taxes.

Is this just?

You are promoting tyranny over liberty.

This makes you unintelligent and dishonest.

Jack London| 4.4.11 @ 4:30PM

Well, you can disregard all the evidence for inequality and crime if you like although I'd like to see how you explain say the lower violent crime rates in say New Hampshire compared with say Louisiana. and say the Netherlands compared with the US. Why is this do you think?

And noted is that the fact that you presumably think a widening wealth gap is a good thing for American society and in fact you'd like to see it go much further - I take it you want yet more tax breaks for the rich no matter how their wealth came about.

skip| 4.4.11 @ 5:53PM

You don't seem to connect the correlation between your position and unintelligence and dishonesty.

Your variables (New Hampshire vs. Louisiana) correlate more with cultural factors than with economic factors.

Your position is so flawed, i.e. unintelligent and dishonest, you take as given where no such exists. For one thing the wealth gap is shrinking. Take a look at the percentage of those under the poverty level that have: a flat screen tv; computer; cell phone; two cars; air conditioning, etc.

The constitution forbids manipulating perceived wealth gaps anyway. Tautology Alert: This is yet another example of your flawed, i.e. unintelligent and dishonest, position.

If the rich did not have to spend so much effort and wealth protecting what is theirs, i.e. the fruits of their labors, they would flood the economy with investment capital resulting in more businesses resulting in more employees resulting in more competition among businesses for productive efficient effective employees resulting in increased standard of livings for anyone not deliberately lazy etc.

Not only do I think the wealth gap is irrelevant I believe the ultimate tax break, no income tax whatsoever, is preferential and of more economic benefit to the nation than the status quo.

Your flawed position is that redistribution of wealth is a beneficial good, when it is actually defined as stealing in The Bible, and as stealing in the Constitution.

One more time:

In 2007 the top 1% of income earners paid more income taxes than the bottom 95% of earners combined.

Is this just?

Jack London| 4.4.11 @ 6:26PM

Come on Steve - you're not stupid. You know perfectly well that wealth inequality is higher today than at any time since the 1920s and has been a widening trend for 30 years. You also know that economic factors play a huge part in accessing education, healthcare, housing, travel and so on. You also know that much of the wealth is not generated by any 'fruits of labor' but by ownership, inheritance, tax avoidance and depressing worker wages. And you also know that the reason why the top pay so much tax as a share is because of inequality, but despite that they are not being taxed highly at all. And you also know that with taxes we wouldn't have any vestige of a functioning society.

So - you're not stupid at all.

Clint| 4.4.11 @ 6:57PM

Below is the list of top 10 countries with highest per capita income. Literally per capita income is the average income of group, obtained by dividing the group’s total income by its number of members. According to IMF 2009 the top 10 countries with highest per capita income are…

1. Qatar stands at number one with the highest per capita income of Intl. $83,841

2. Luxembourg is at number two with per capita income of Intl. $78,395

3. Norway is at number three with per capita income of Intl. $52,561

4. Singapore is at number four with per capita income of Intl. $50,523

5. Brunei is at number five with per capita income of Intl. $49,110

6. United States is at number six with per capita income of Intl. $46,381

7. Switzerland is at number seven with per capita income of Intl. $43,007

8. Hong Kong is at number eight with per capita income of Intl. $42,748

9. Netherland is at number nine with per capita income of Intl. $39,938

10. Ireland is at number ten with per capita income of Intl. $39,468

Clint| 4.4.11 @ 7:10PM

United States,2009 : Median Household Income ( Purchasing Power Parity) $49,777

skip| 4.4.11 @ 8:35PM

So - John Paris - the point is your position is not only stupid it is based on lies.

Anyone claiming with absolute certainty wealth differences are higher today than in the 20's legitimately loses credibility.

Wealth generated, whether by ownership or inheritance or manipulating the tax code or basing wages on maximizing profits for stockholders, is exactly the fruits of labor.

If commerce were allowed at true liberty, like the founding fathers intended, there would be little need for tax code or wage manipulations in the first place.

One lacking in intelligence and honesty would, of course, refer to these as 'tax avoidance' and 'depressing worker wages'.

And would, yet again, avoid answering whether it is just, meaning whether it is moral and constitutional, that in 2007 the top 1% of income earners paid more income tax than the bottom 95% of income earners did.

Only someone with a position based on unintelligence and dishonesty could possibly spin the fact 1% would in reality pay more than 95% in a way that would describe this situation as one where that 1% were "not being taxed highly at all".

skip| 4.4.11 @ 8:45PM

In fact - Jake - only someone with a position based on unintelligence and dishonesty could possibly confuse no income taxes with a nonfunctioning society - as if no income taxes has anything to do with taxing commerce.

Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 8:04PM

Go to New Zealand sometime. Supposedly economically free, relatively narrow gap between rich and poor---the worst child abuse stats I have ever seen. Jack, you don't know.

Thom| 4.4.11 @ 7:04PM

"Bear in mind that the top 20% now own 85% and the top 1% own 35%."

In 1900 before the Karl Marx Progressive Income tax, 20% of the population owned 80% of everything. After the wealth redistribution scheme was put in place 20% still own about 80%. Knowing why this is so is central to knowing why all such redistribution schemes don't work. I take it at face value you don't understand wealth and its function in our prosperity and thus can't grasp that weatlh goest o those that generate it not those that merely wish for it from the labors of others.

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 1:12PM

WRONG! I'd gladly give up my SS/Medicare IF the government would eliminate Medicaid, Affordable Housing, Foriegn Aid, Farm Aid, Welfare to Government Contractors, Food Stamps, Aid to Dependent Children, Educational Grants and Giveaways, etc. Bring it on!!!!!!!

Steve A| 4.4.11 @ 1:19PM

Yes, but then you would clearly be "killing old people" & never get elected. This is the political reality.

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 1:29PM

In life, it's suvival of the fittest!!!!!!

Steve A| 4.4.11 @ 1:58PM

I think it may be turning into survival of the fattest. Have you been to a Golden Corral lately??

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 5:09PM

I was strictly speaking FINANCIALLY!!!!

cicero| 4.4.11 @ 11:20AM

A good start would be to repeal all monies already authorized for programs over the past 20 years, or so, that have not yet been spent. That should save about $1 trillion dollars. If even the beaurocrats have not found a way to squander our money over that period, maybe it is not really necessary to do so. On top of that, Ryan's plan looks like a good start.

martin j smith| 4.4.11 @ 11:39AM

There are two things that will make a case. Conditions on the ground: How much do things coast--and Messaging. Some day the Rzzzzz will get the novell idea that they must do three things --actually four:

Money,manpower,motivation and a constant drumbeat of an idea--which --and this is different from the Socialists-actually reflects the TRUTH of the situation. The TRUTH shall set you FREE!!!!!!!!!!!

bill glass| 4.4.11 @ 11:48AM

The president's campaign mensches and campaign hacks haven't called me, but if Obamao would get Paul Ryan up to the White House, put his arm around him, and embrace Ryans' plan, he would be going a long way to guarantee his reelection. It would take away the 'pubs biggest issue.

John Navratil| 4.4.11 @ 12:33PM

bill glass,

That would do it. But, I'll have whatever you are drinking if you think Obama would, even in an alternate universe, do such a thing. That would be real hope and change :)

bill glass| 4.4.11 @ 3:43PM

I don't really need to drink anymore...it just comes natural.

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 1:31PM

Yeah, Bill, maybe he and Joe should have a WH BEER SUMMIT with Ryan???????

bill glass| 4.4.11 @ 3:45PM

Well,... Ryan's from Wisconsin, so maybe you're not too far off.

Oldefarte| 4.4.11 @ 5:12PM

Maybe he and Scott Walker could team up and replace that idiot that now in charge at 1600 ????

Timely Renewed| 4.4.11 @ 3:46PM

Even if a Republican Congress became truly fiscally conservative, ultimately that is a retail solution when the problem is wholesale. We need to redress the underlying distortions of the Constitution which have allowed the federal government to expand far beyond its original constitutional powers, not nitpick at separate individual usurpations. We need to amend the Constitution to restore the original constitutional structure which limited the federal government's ability to expand to such a ridiculous size and power.

However, this is difficult to achieve when Congress holds a monopoly on initiating constitutional amendments. The solution is an "amendment amendment" which gives the States the ability to initiate constitutional amendments without a convention. This will allow grassroots constitutionalists to press a program of amendments carefully drafted to achieve the restoration of the original constitutional structure as well as such useful improvements as a balanced budget amendment without having to go through Washington at all. Only this will permanently constrain federal overreach of the sort rejected by the people last November. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

vtwin| 4.4.11 @ 4:41PM

“On Medicare, he would essentially give retirees vouchers to purchase private health insurance.”

Paul Ryan’s plan of putting the for-profit healthcare insurance in-between the taxpayers and the elderly will only increase, to cover the profits, the program’s costs to taxpayers.

“Ryan would block-grant Medicaid to the States”

And, Paul Ryan’s plan to “block grant” Medicaid to the States is not a solution to the rising costs of Medicaid but is rather a transfer of the program's costs onto the already financially overburden States.

John Navratil| 4.4.11 @ 4:53PM

vtwin,

Only if insurance is a health maintenance plan. If, as I suggest, 95% of all health care expenses are fee for service, then a 15% profit on top of the 5% isn't such a big deal.

We have got to get away from the notion that health care is an entitlement. It's necessary - like food, clothing and shelter - but is it not an entitlement.

Scary thought - just imagine what the world would be like if legal services were viewed as an entitlement. In this litigious world it doesn't seem so far-fetched, does it.

MikeH| 4.4.11 @ 5:13PM

Pardon me if I'm underwhemed by the Ryan plan. Cutting $4 Trillion over 10 years is $400 Billion a year. That would take a deficit of $1.65 Trillion all the way down to... $1.25 Trillion.

ryan| 4.4.11 @ 5:23PM

Maybe Ryan shouldn't have voted for TARP...

bill glass| 4.4.11 @ 5:30PM

Nixon had China, and Clinton had welfare reform...Pols can make their mark by going against their party's grain. At least it'll fool the independents long enough to get reelected.

Mikeh106| 4.4.11 @ 8:03PM

A significant percentage of our problems are caused by our ludicrous tax code. I sat down this morning to do my taxes and realized, as I do every year, just how stupid it all is. I don't have a complicated return. I'm retired, have both stocks and mutual funds, have 2 IRAs and a 401-K, have savings accounts. But nothing out of the ordinary. No business. No farm. No home office. No relative living weith me thagt I cvan claim as a caregiver. No overseas investments. No children living at home. No need for any of the convoluted deductions, exemptions and allowances that consume so many hours.

And even so I will spend 6 or 7 hours doing taxes. On a SIMPLE return. So how many dollars and how much time is wasted on taxes anyway? As an example, I think there are 3 different ways to compute your farm income, just to cite one example. The waste must be endless.

Worse, our idiotic code encourages us to "stretch the truth", to put it charitably. Look around and you suspect that no one else is paying their "fair share" (which differs according to who you are), so everyone has incentive to "cheat", to put it uncharitably. Our news is inundated with stories like the latest on GE which reinforce the appearance of "cheating". BTW, GE did nothing wrong. They just used the existing system to their advantage. It's the system that's screwed up, not GE.

Next - everyone should pay something, even if it is only 1%. No one should get a completely free ride, no matter how little you make. Having said that, those who have earned/benefited more from our society should pay more. A "flat tax" is not a "fair tax".

In the late 70's I met a friend who came from Rhodesia. He was flabbergasted at the American tax system and asked me to help him file his return. What he said about Rhodesian taxes seemed amazingly sane to me and I wish we would do it here.

In Rhodesia the tax form was one page long. There were lines for your salary, retirement income, investment income (capital gains of all types), interest, and dividends. There were NO deductions, exemptions, allowances. None, nada zero. Not for personal, not for spouses, not for children. No medical, no taxes, no charity, no miscellaneous etc deductions. So simple. You added up your income for the year, and depending on your total income amount paid taxes at one of 5 (I think) applicable levels. I think the highest was 30%.

Our politicians talk about simplyifying taxes. They could just cut the Gordian knot and go to a simple Rhodesian-like system. More revenue, more compliance, no incentive to cheat, more fairness at both the top and the bottom as well as in the middle.

Probably never happen but I can dream.

Occam's Tool| 4.4.11 @ 8:06PM

In New Zealand, you just enrolled with an accountant and sent them your income slip---very inexpensive tax set up. Very few deductions. But the cost of living was insane.

Nite| 4.4.11 @ 10:26PM

Individuals who are ill, can't buy private insurance at any price, no matter what Paul Ryan thinks. Either under Obmacare or under Paul Ryans proposal, people will simply die quicker.