-
Time to Go for the Kill
May 22, 2013 | 66 comments
-
Obamacare Implodes
May 15, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Obama’s Rising Inequality
May 8, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Downsize the Liberals
May 1, 2013 | 53 comments
-
Fight Back! Privatize the FAA!
April 24, 2013 | 65 comments
A Further Perspective
Ryan’s Budget Is Better Than You Know
There is no alternative to its long-term perspective and the squawkers know it.
Both the Left and the Right are grousing about House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s 2013 budget. Both are factually wrong.
For conservatives, there are two amazing fundamentals in Ryan’s budget. First is how quickly it gets spending, deficits, and debt under manageable control. Emphasis on the word manageable, not completely solved.
Ryan’s budget actually cuts the total level of federal spending in nominal dollars for each of the first two years. Total federal spending actually declines from 2012 to 2013, and then declines again from 2013 to 2014. That would be the first and only time that has happened since the beginning of the Eisenhower Administration 60 years ago, when we were still climbing down from runaway wartime spending. Total federal spending under Ryan’s budget does not rise above the 2012 level until 2016. The total increase in federal spending over those four first years of Ryan’s budget is 1.8 percent. Those would be the four most tight-fisted years in federal spending growth since the Eisenhower Administration as well.
By 2015, after just three years under Ryan’s budget, federal spending would be nearly back to its long-term, historical average since World War II as a percent of GDP, at 20.1 percent, down from 24.3 percent today. That is a cut in federal spending of 4.2 percent of GDP in just 3 years. Even with Ryan’s proposed reductions in individual and corporate tax rates, federal revenues would be restored to their long-term postwar average as a percent of GDP as well. That would leave the deficit in 2015 at a quite manageable 1.7 percent of GDP, compared to roughly 9 percent on average under President Obama.
Balancing the Budget
Most amazingly, even under CBO’s static scoring, the federal
deficit in actual nominal dollars would be reduced to $182 billion
by 2017, the fifth year of the budget. That compares to $1,327
billion, or $1.327 trillion, today. So in just five years, even
under CBO’s static scoring, the deficit is reduced by 86 percent.
The deficit is less than 1 percent of GDP by that year, at 0.9
percent, where it stabilizes for 6 years to the end of the 10-year
budget window.
Given the sharp income tax rate cuts in Ryan’s budget, with dynamic scoring the budget would probably be balanced by that fifth year, 2017. Club for Growth President Chris Chocola should pay Fiscal Associates the $10,000 that would be needed to do a real dynamic score of Ryan’s budget to find out. That would be a major contribution to public policy.
But even under CBO’s horse and buggy static scoring, Ryan’s budget does solve America’s debt crisis. Federal debt held by the public is reduced from 77 percent of GDP in 2013 to 62 percent by 2022, reducing it by a third from the nearly 100 percent it would be by then on our current course. That averts the crisis, assuring that the credit markets will not abandon us as they did in Greece.
Moreover, under Ryan’s budget, federal debt held by the public continues on a sharp decline from there, as the long-term effects of Ryan’s structural entitlement reforms phase in. Debt held by the public is reduced to 53 percent of GDP by 2030, 38 percent by 2040, and 10 percent by 2050. That means the national debt is all but paid off by 2050, and would be soon thereafter. In fact, under dynamic scoring it probably would be paid off by then.
By contrast, on our current course, under CBO’s Alternative Fiscal Scenario, that federal debt rockets to 128 percent of GDP by 2030 (so Ryan cuts that by more than half by then), 194 percent by 2040, and 320 percent by 2050, on its way to over 700 percent by 2080. That is a clear path to bankruptcy, which Ryan transforms into paying off the entire national debt soon after 2050.
You can’t discount these longer term projections as meaningless, for two reasons. First, that is how the crisis is defined, by projecting current debt trends long term. You can’t define the problem as long-term federal debt projections, and then disdain a long-term solution that transforms those long-term projections. Secondly, the solution is careful, long-term, structural entitlement reform that produces enormous changes over the long run. Under those careful Ryan entitlement reforms, no one gets hurt, contrary to the hysterics of the infantile left (which encompasses today’s Democrat party and its media allies). To discount the long-term effects of those careful structural reforms as too far into the future to take seriously is to deny the possibility and opportunity of such fundamental, structural long-term reforms that are politically viable, to embrace draconian, peremptory, entitlement cuts that would be validly subject to the hysterics of infants. That rejects a long-term solution that is viable, for a shorter term solution that is not viable and is never going to see the light of day.
Federal spending as a percent of GDP is reduced to 16 percent by 2050 under Ryan’s budget, one fifth lower than the long-term, historical, postwar average. That is not the promise of future spending cuts that will never happen. That is the long-term effect of the entitlement reforms that would be adopted today under Ryan’s budget. That is consequently a huge achievement that conservatives should embrace and fight for, not discount. Moreover, that 16 percent would actually be significantly lower under dynamic scoring, because the GDP will be so much bigger by 2050 under Ryan’s pro-growth tax reforms.
Reframing the
Debate
During the Bush Administration, the President and
congressional Republicans did lose control of federal spending,
letting it rise by one seventh as a percent of GDP. That reversed a
very successful reduction in government spending by the Republican
Congress before then, with federal spending declining by one
seventh as a percent of GDP from 1994 to 2000, which was
accomplished under Newt Gingrich’s leadership.
But President Obama is following the Bush apostasy by increasing federal spending as a percent of GDP in four years by one third more than President Bush did in eight years. In his 2013 budget, Obama proposes to increase federal spending by $2 trillion a year by 2022, $9 trillion more over the next 10 years as compared to this year’s level of spending over those 10 years.
President Obama’s budget actually proposes to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years, actually increasing spending above the current CBO baseline, ridiculously heedless of America’s fiscal crisis. Ryan’s budget proposes to cut that by $6.8 trillion. By 2022, Ryan’s budget would be spending nearly a trillion dollars less per year than President Obama’s budget. That reflects the long-term fix in Ryan’s budget.
Here is the bottom line between the two budgets. Ryan returns federal spending to its long-term, historical, postwar average at 20 percent of GDP for the next 20 years. Under the budget proposed by President Obama and the Democrats, federal spending soars to 30 percent of GDP by 2027, 40 percent by 2040, 50 percent by 2060, and 80 percent by 2080. Actually, it is much higher than that, as GDP would collapse under that burden. Add in another 15 percent of GDP for state and local spending, and we are at full blown communism.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (41) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/28/ryans-budget-is-better-than-yo
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Obama’s Drone War
- A President Loses His Power
- Self-Righteous Republic
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Timothy L. Pennell| 3.28.12 @ 7:20AM
"Oh my God, it's not a perfect Plan! We could do better! We could have it all!"
"The Ryan Plan leaves the baseline untouched. It doesn't Balance the Budget til 2040. It doesn't consolidated Government Departments and Restore Power to the States."
Every Journey of 10,000 miles begins with ONE STEP.
We've been at the Job of: Wiping our Ass with the Constitution, for a very long time. It's folly to believe that we can fix this problem Wham Bam, Thank You Ma'am. It just doesn't work that way. We'll be lucky if we can get HALF of the things that we need to get. We have a Democrat Party who thinks that we can Beg, Borrow, and Steal their way to Prosperity. They are single minded in their Quest for Ultimate Power and Control over everything we do, say, or think, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. They are more than willing to "Throw the Baby out with the Bath Water", and if the Baby should survive, call in a 3rd Doctor to perform the Abortion.
The Democrat "Plan" for everything was summed up quite concisely by The Treasury Secretary who doesn't know how to fill out his Taxes on Turbo Tax - Timothy FED Geithner: "As I sit here, I cannot say that we have a Plan. But I can say that We don't like yours."
Get the picture?
There's no such thing as COMPROMISE. There's no such thing as Reaching Across The Aisle. Not with this bunch. Not now.
You don't believe me? Go read last week's Big Story in the WAPO about the Lying, Double Crossing Muslim, in the Oval Office. He is Hell Bent on the Destruction of this Country as a Super Power, and all you need to do is read what he said to Russian President Medvedev. He will SELL US OUT to the Left's beloved Soviet Union. The GOOD GUYS in the Cold War. The Founding Fathers of everything they believe. Lenin, Uncle Joe, Kruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Putin, and Obama. The Future faces on a New Mt. Rushmore, dedicated to the Ideal of ARBEIT MACHT FREI, and a Land where everything is provided by THE STATE, and to Hell with GOD.
This is what we're up against. Ryan's plan is a 1st step, of a long journey to come. ROME wasn't Re-built in a Day, and neither will The Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave.
But we have to stick together.
aware| 3.28.12 @ 7:57AM
The whine of a loser. You content yourself with baby steps while the Statists of both wings of the Uniparty are taking broad jumps. The same "coulda' been" mealy mouthed excuse I've heard for 40 years. Even the "expectations" of "conservatives" has become almost microscopic.
Ryan's plan is a cap gun against a raging grizzly bear. We don't have the time he, and you, think to implement a baby step plan. We don't even have a couple of years. Rome didn't collapse in a day either but the end was foregone for quite a while before it did.
Calvin| 3.28.12 @ 9:51AM
The whine of somebody that does nothing but complain.
Timothy L. Pennell| 3.28.12 @ 10:14AM
Thank You.
aware| 3.28.12 @ 5:49PM
Tell you what, Calvin, you just keep thinking some politician is going to fix everything, since that seems to be the extent of "doing something" around here. At this point there is no stopping calamity. Or maybe like Timothy you actually think we have until 2050.
As far as "doing nothing but complain" I have been very busy preparing for what is inevitable. We are just about through the grace period so I hope you haven't wasted it "hoping" for a miracle.
Oldefarte| 3.28.12 @ 3:13PM
You [and yours] are simply FOS! A partial plan is better than NO PLAN or a DESTRUCTIVE PLAN [which is what's happening now]. PF and TLP tell the TRUTH, whereas subhumans like you and your obvious friends within 1600 LIE CONSTANTLY AND TOTALLY. Tell the GD truth, fool or get the hades out of the resto of our faces! We didn't create this crap, your Democrats did so [and I won't waste my time enumerating how, when or where they did so for the last 50+ years of political power in craming down the taxpayers' throats their welfare economic governmental policies]. Go STICK IT.....11/4/12 will be the beginning of the end for you and yours and a taking back of this country from the thieves and BS artists disguised as Democrats!!!!!!!
aware| 3.28.12 @ 5:54PM
You are not only old but stupid too. I way to your right Republican waterboy. Yeah there are plenty of those "thieves and BS artists" in your party too. Just keep sending the same faces to Mordor on the Potomac and expecting different results.
George S| 3.28.12 @ 10:56AM
Rome wasn't rebuilt in a day but Obama spent 787 billion in that time frame. That comes out to $5,600 for each of the 140 million tax
payersfilers. So a good first step would be to pay for the stimulus. How many people would be willing to part with $5,600 today just to pay back money (without interest) that went to buy off state and federal employees salaries and pensions and to the pockets of Democrat Green Energy titans?If we can't do that -- pay back money borrowed only three years ago to establish a baseline budget of 2008 -- then there is a very slim chance that people who haven't been born yet are willing to do that. The Ryan budget is as good as future congresses abiding by it.
And to add insult to injury: what do you think a congress would do if we paid back the stimulus with hard cash? That's like us finding twenty grand in an old coat pocket -- would we pay down our overvalued home equity loan with it or would we buy things? Same with congress -- they'll find a way to spend saved money.
There is no substitute for paying down debt. Each of us has to cut a check or get taxed more money or forgo promised benefits. Any plan that pushes that off into the future is a political document.
I agree that we have to start somewhere. But we cannot expect to be spared the hardship of paying back money we have borrowed and pushing it off to future generations.
Mike 3/505| 3.28.12 @ 12:02PM
"There is no substitute for paying down debt. Each of us has to cut a check or get taxed more money or forgo promised benefits. Any plan that pushes that off into the future is a political document."
Correct...no substitute for paying down debt. But....not at MY expense. I have been carrying too much of the load already. Dump all the illegal and unconstitutional charity programs & agencies...Medicaid, Welfare, Housing & Urban Development PELL grants. Pare the Federal government back to its constitutional lane and that alone will cut over 40 percent of the Federal budget and bring it into balance. Once you do that THEN I MIGHT be willing to cough up a little extra to pay down debt I had nothing to do with.
John McG| 3.28.12 @ 8:06AM
CBO's static scoring seems to be matched by the author's static assumption of Congress's resolve lasting more than two years. Ryan's well thought out plan relies on his shipmates holding the course for years to come. But human nature being what it is, we'll see Congress revert to form as soon as they glimpse fair seas ahead. It would be nice if our fiscal house could be gradually put in order, but unless the reforms occur primarily at the front end, Ryan's plan will be too little too late.
TrueBlue | 3.28.12 @ 4:45PM
Which is why they'd need to pass a budget Amendment holding future Congresses to the resolution proposed in Ryan's budget. Have to start somewhere though.
We keep getting told that this or that policy will take too long to have an effect (kind of like drilling won't have any effect for nearly 10 years, which we've been hearing for over 30). Start with the improvements and build on them. If you don't start you'll never finish.
aware| 3.28.12 @ 5:59PM
Yeah they certainly have shown a lot of respect with the rest of the constitution, haven't they? What's it going to take for you guys to understand the game is rigged and you are just being played?
Clint| 3.28.12 @ 8:15AM
" Presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) termed the effort “very disappointing,” in a Tuesday statement. And he’s now been joined by fellow GOP candidate Rick Santorum, who told Glenn Beck later Tuesday that he believed Ryan’s spending plan is a “great blueprint” but he believes “we need to cut government spending faster” than the $5.3 trillion Ryan has proposed slashing over the next decade."
Jack in Wi.| 3.28.12 @ 12:47PM
This plan is a political disaster that the Democats will use to destroy whatever chance the Republicans have in this election.Until we close down these wars, end foreign aid, and bring most of our troops home to their families this country can never return to fiscal sanity. Then we should slash corporate welfare, and close up useless and wasteful depts like Education, Transportation, Energy, Homeland Security, the TSA, Commerce, Labor, etc. When all that is done then we should look at how to control entitlements and eliminate most of them and return most public charity to the control of the states where there can be far better cost controls.
Ryan's plan can be summed up by the opposition as tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the poor and elderly. I don't think you can sell such a kettle of fish. Ryan is my neighboring congressman and I like him. But I think his plan is a political nightmare.
LiveFreeOrDie| 3.28.12 @ 2:06PM
"Until we close down these wars, end foreign aid, and bring most of our troops home to their families this country can never return to fiscal sanity. "
Entitlement spending has been more than defense spending since 1976. In spite of multiple "wars" defense spending has gone down while entitlement spending has gone up. Defense spending isn't bankrupting the country, it's unfunded entitlements.
Oldefarte| 3.28.12 @ 3:33PM
I partially agree and disagree with all of you. Paul has a valid point in that the need/utility of military operations/bases in foreign countries has passed, and is fiscally too expensive and useless IMHO. Paul's extremism is not politically possible in an ALL AT ONCE sense, and has to be implemented over time [ie Paul's plan] since the American voting public will never approve same. Combine Paul's and Ryan's ideas and you've got a winning combination politically. This upcoming election must be understood as critical for this country's survival, and this current experimentation with the socialism of the current radical administration is a huge failure [and should have been predictable by Americans but sadly due to stupidity was not so]. The point as editorialized by Ferrera [and confirmed by TLP etc] is that this country does not have four more years of the current situation financially/economically. We are headed over the cliff! LFD's truth above ignores the fact that BOTH military and entitlement governmental spending must be brought under control. We simply cannot [as Paul indicates] continue to fight the problems of the rest of the world, and they have to begin to solve their own problems without our help. We have to support the Scott Walkers of this nation who are fighting a valiant fight against labor unions in Wisconsin, and deserve our praise and thanks for same. We have to dismantle the governmental welfare budgetary spending of all governments [federal, state and local] and wean indigents off of governmental welfare [by converting same to WORKFARE with replacing some governmental employees with welfare recipients being forced to work for their welfare received]. I'd like to see a business oriented Romney hire as governmental agency heads the fiscally intelligence of Ron Paul, Newt Ginguich, Scott Walker, John Kacish, Paul Ryan, etc as a DREAM TEAM run government. It has to be implemented over a reasonable timeframe but it has to be done so NOW!!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 3.28.12 @ 3:37PM
PS: I advise also anyone to search and read Newt Ginguich's latest proclamation concerning the beginnings of private industry trucking companies use of natural gas to convert their long haul trucking operations and reduce their expenses accordingly!!!!
tsd| 3.28.12 @ 9:03AM
We all can sit and bitch about the never ending details and never do a thing.... it seems we have a million reasons why not to do anything rather than actually do something to improve our condition. For the last few years Ryan has been the only one with a plan to improve our economic condition, TIME TO SHUT UP AND DO IT!!
Clint| 3.28.12 @ 9:15AM
The John McCain Bumper Sticker :
" TIME TO SHUT UP AND DO IT!! "
Indy| 3.28.12 @ 9:03AM
Thanks for the article explaining the budget proposal. There is much I like about the plan but there are areas of concern:
"Ryan has indicated the 10 percent rate would apply to families making less than $100,000 per year, with the 25 percent rate applying to families making over that, with sharply increased personal exemptions ensuring no tax increase for anyone from current law."
So by ensuring no tax increase for anyone from current law, we would still have the same problem of almost 50% not paying Federal Income Taxes? That's a problem...too many are paying $0.
His plan leaves the stimulus spending in the baseline, most voters don't know that, if they did they would be outraged. The massive increases to EPA, Education and other departments (think DHS) must be cut. The more funding for higher education, the faster tuition rises, the EPA, IRS, DHS / TSA, etc. are out of control, everyday I see an ad on TV from HHS. Why do the IRS and Dept of Education need weapons? Enough!
The private sector had to cut jobs for companies to survive, the Federal Government has exploded under #43 and #44. Sure it would be painful for Federal workers to lose their jobs but it must happen, we have to scale back. Federal government cannot be reduced simply by attrition. There are many jobs which are not critical and wasteful like the person from NOAA who sent me a survey twice asking questions about how often I plan to go fishing / boating, WTF? Seriously, "Weather and Outdoor Activity Survey" what a waste!
Ryan's plan is a good start but we can and must do better. Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Jim DeMint's plan has merit. Senator Coburn's past work clearly identifies areas to cut. Why not take parts of each? Yes, the Democrats will balk but Americans need to know how bad our fiscal position is, do we want to be Greece or do we want to right the ship?
Doctor Detroit| 3.28.12 @ 9:19AM
Keep Ryan's plan, but add to it. Instead of ONLY across the board spending cuts, also eliminate entire Departments. We can all think of the depts ripe for the picking.
Lets not get to huffy over Ryan's tremendous effort. If this resolution is amended and edited in the proper way, it would be a true winner for this country.
Maxwell| 3.28.12 @ 9:19AM
Indy, thank you for asking two of the questions I was thinking about, that is the baseline should be cut (I was thinking back to 2000 spending level) and the number of people working for the federal government in the Departments of Education, EPA, & Homeland Security. I'd love to see the BATF cut too but then some on the Spectator do not love their guns as I do.
Mama used to say, keep your mouth shut that way no one can know for sure you are a dummy.
Indy| 3.28.12 @ 9:57AM
You bet, I could easily go back further than 2008 but I figured 2008 was such an easy sell to the public, pre-stimulus spending.
As much as I like Paul Ryan, Mr. Budget Wonk, I cannot undertand why he is is not advocating for budget reform to get rid of baseline budgeting, why? I realize it won't pass now, Reid would never bring it to the floor for a vote but get the issue out there, educate the public to build support for it when hopefully, the Senate flips away from Reid's control.
Derek Leaberry| 3.28.12 @ 9:53AM
The Ryan plan is not good enough because it ratifies the Obama-Democratic budget increases made in 2009. At a minimum, the budget needs to be cut to the final Bush budget in one swoop.
Cynicon Implant| 3.28.12 @ 10:10AM
The plan is fine. The problem is whether Washington will stick to it, as John McG says above. I'm afraid I don't hold out much hope on this front as a majority of Americans have switched from preferring a government of limited powers to one that serves as their nanny. That reality, combined with the irresistible temptation for politicians to buy votes with giveaways, will cause budgetary irresponsibility to creep back as soon as the ship stops taking on water. Sorry to be so negative, but I don't really see any other course.
Doctor Detroit| 3.28.12 @ 11:05AM
Balanced Budget Amendment.
Bill| 3.28.12 @ 10:40AM
The Ryan Budget is the "road map" to defeat Obama in Fall.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.28.12 @ 11:10AM
The reason the liberals reject the Ryan Plan is that it is "fair" and provides "justice" under the "law."
The current tax plan devised over decades has become a plethora of exemptions, deductions and credits that provide loopholes for cronies and a smorgasbord for lawyers and lobbyist. Examples are GE paying no taxes on $14.2B profits, GM $50B in tax breaks, Kaiser at Solyndra receiving $528M in loan gauarantees. Ryan proposes to reduce the rate from 35% corporate, to 25%; but the caveat is that every company will pay the same. On the personal tax side, it is similar in that it provides a 10% rate for average Americans that is consistent with the current effective tax rate. Again, it strives to eliminate the special deals for the Kennedy and Kerry trust fund babies, and others that use creative accounting and lawyers to avoid taxes like Obama's buddy Bufffet.
Crony capitalism, or what is known to economist as "fascism," means government control of business. So it is clear why the Democrat Socialist Party would be kicking and screaming being threatened with the end of their cronyism. And the moochers will not get their free handouts from the corrupt machine politics.
But under the Ryan Plan, everyone would have a more "level" playing field. Companies could plan and hire. Consumers could choose the best products from a functioning free market system. And employees would receive fair pay for their performance (instead of corrupt union deals and structural unemployment).
So who is standing in the way? Liberal elites (socialist) and the entitlement class (mooches).
Disclaimer: The GOP has its share of statist that also manipulate and benefit from the current planed chaos of taxation and doling out favors.
Jack London| 3.28.12 @ 1:31PM
It's not much of a plan though - as it stands it would add about $5.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. Unless he says what other taxes he would raise to cover the tax cuts he wants, it's useless. And he's not saying.
Oldefarte| 3.28.12 @ 3:42PM
What is it with your insane liberals always wanting to RAISE TAXES? Do you morons know the meaning of the other side of the ledger of REDUCING EXPENSES. Governmental welfare will and should be reduced [along with discretionary military spending]. Governmental revenues are high enough, it is expenses that should be reduced to solve the imbalance problem, not the raising of taxiation. Someone always has to pay the price of government and that someone is the TAXPAYERS [and they're sick and tired of being taxed to death in paying for governmental crap]!!!!!!!!
Von Mises Jr.| 3.29.12 @ 8:40AM
Well said, Oldfart. And let's not forget growth to GDP. When Reagan cut tax rates, GDP soaRED TO ABOUT 7% in ther mid-1980's.
buckeyeman| 3.28.12 @ 11:58AM
Too much analysis. I have an easier plan: refuse to increase the debt limit. Then let the CEO of the country apportion the available funds based on the priority of what he thinks the proper function of the federal government is and then justify that apportionment to the populace. This is what the board of directors would typically do in a corporation.
cicero| 3.28.12 @ 11:59AM
I am sstill waiting for an accounting for the various TARP and Stimulus give aways. Where did the money go? Who got what? Unless the public gets the answers to those questions, any baseline should delete those numbers. In the past 3 years, the deficit spending has amounted to between 5 and 6 trillion dollars. Any budget should be balanced on its face from year one. The economy will take off like a shot, and any increase in revenues can be earmarked for deficit reduction.
Unless the above questions are answered, and someone is held accountable - goes to jail - this is all just more rearranging of the chairs on the deck of the Washington Titanic.
Jack London| 3.28.12 @ 12:36PM
So - Ryan hasn't said what tax loopholes he would close. Who here is for the 25% tax rate to apply to all income such as capital gains?
Orlan Gaeddert| 3.28.12 @ 2:29PM
Gee, Jack, I guess you think you are saying something worthwhile. But you are not. Please return to your hideaway under the rock.
Mike Stein| 3.29.12 @ 1:54PM
@Orlan - Actually, Jack London is saying something firmly in line with conservative principles. Government shouldn't favor one kind of economic activity over another. Why does the government tax me less for buying a share of stock, holding it for a year, and selling it for a 5% profit than it does if I lend a company the same money at 5% interest? How is favoring stock traders over bankers any more conservative than favoring Solyndra over Exxon?
Oldefarte| 3.28.12 @ 3:43PM
Who here is for a n initial slashing governmental expenses by 50% [I've got my hand raised high]????????????????????
aware| 3.28.12 @ 6:37PM
Slash "government" 70% and taxes 50%. That's the 1st year. The 2nd take another 50% out of both.
This, of course, will never happen. Rand Paul's plan is superior to Ryan's in every way. And even it is a long way from my, what I call the Harding Solution, plan.
jgo| 3.29.12 @ 9:12AM
So, what's actually preventing the "conservative caucus" from proposing a balance budget for THIS YEAR, and gradual pay-down of the federal debt? The willingness to give up most of the ground before negotiations begin.
The opening bid should be to rip out, i.e. totally eliminate, ALL of the unconstitutional departments, agencies and functions -- all of the unconstitutional illfare spending, all of the socialist gimmicks like the Socialist Insecurity abomination, all of the corporate illfare... -- tomorrow, then bargain down to eliminating them over the next 2 years.
Why 2 years? Why not 10 years or 50 years? Because that's the election cycle. If congress-critters could be held responsible with a 4 year trim, if someone in our faction were carefully reminding us of the last 10 or 50 broken budget trimming promises and every filing date to run in opposition and every primary season and every general election season, then that would be OK. If congress-critters were up for election every year and 90% of their useless behinds sent packing post haste every round, then 10 years might be OK.
But the fact is that the so-called "conservative" congress-critters and presidents were too timid 60 years ago and have gotten worse and worse over this time. We have "conservative" darlings like Rubio talking about "saving Medicare", FCOL! Thus betraying libertarians and conservatives young and old.
jgo| 3.29.12 @ 9:15AM
"The total increase in federal spending over those four first years of Ryan's budget is 1.8 percent."
This just gets worse and worse. The total decrease in federal government spending needed each year is closer to 50%, and these "conservatives" are talking about INCREASING the over-spending. (And that's just looking at the need to balance the budget, not eliminating all the radical leftist gimmicks.)
hangemhi| 3.29.12 @ 10:46PM
Such drivel. Ask yourself where money comes from? How do US dollars come into existence? Only 2 ways - the Gov spends it in (pay a soldier, food stamps, etc) or a bank makes a loan. The bank loan, when paid back, destroys the money it loaned. If things went well it created wealth in the economy (new house, tilled farm, innovative machine) but the money is still gone. That leaves ONLY the Gov spending money into the economy. So when you say "Gov debt held by the public" you are referring to what the private sector EARNED. Meanwhile, the Gov runs on fiat tied to nothing, so that so-called "debt" is not actually debt. Why on earth would we want our savers in the private sector to pay the US Gov back?
Run those ideas through your brain a few times, then start reading up on MMT and MMR. The MMR guys are republicans. You won't like the MMT guys. But they both know the truth about this imaginary bankruptcy, aka turning into Greece, that will never happen in our lifetimes even under your "communism" scenario.