I’ve been away from my keyboard for a while, so I haven’t been able to participate in the various discussions as much as I’ve wanted. I’m sorry about that. Worse, I haven’t been able to write any posts since yesterday morning! Again, to the faithful readers, I’m sorry. I try to keep the content fresh and the conversations moving. But, with this blog being just little ole me, sometimes it is an impossibility.
Now that out of the way, I thought I’d write a little note about Ryan’s budget plan and the Dems characterization of it.
As soon as Ryan was picked as the VP candidate for team Romney, the left has tried to portray his budget as extreme. It isn’t.
Now, mind you, it is incomplete. There are any taxes specified, he left that for a separate committee of the House. But, in general terms, which is all we have to go on, Ryan’s budget is almost exactly what we need.
I say almost, because in my estimation, he doesn’t go far enough in limiting federal growth. That’s right, I said limiting federal growth. While the left continues to pretend Ryan’s budget is extreme and cuts federal spending, it doesn’t. According to noted economist Dr. Daniel Mitchell,
the Ryan budget is that it limits the growth rate of federal spending, with outlays increasing by an average of 3.1% annually over the next 10 years.
I believe 3.1% is too much, I’d much rather see it limited closer to 2% to get to a balanced budget quicker. Ryan’s budget also addresses the bleak future of Medicare, which very few politicians have the wherewithal to approach the subject, even though nearly every citizen in this country understands the need to address it.
One of the best features of the Ryan budget is that he reforms the two big health entitlements instead of simply trying to save money. Medicaid gets block-granted to the states, building on the success of welfare reform in the 1990s. And Medicare is modernized by creating a premium-support option for people retiring in 2022 and beyond.
Did you notice that? Ryan’s proposes to do with Medicare exactly the same thing that Clinton did with welfare reform. Dems often cite this as a grand accomplishment of Clinton! (They never credit the Repub House that forced Clinton to the table on that issue.) For some reason, emulating success is something the left hates.
While there is room for debating proper approaches to specifics, I don’t think we can question that the general approach is what we need.
Assuming we get the current job-killing president out of the way, we can get back to the path to prosperity and fiscal solvency without any pain. We simply have to limit the growth of the federal government.
We don’t have to alter the tax rates, though, I would prefer a flatter tax and less loopholes and write-offs.
So there you have it. A bold plan with very little pain involved if implemented. How extreme.
The growth rate has been to high for to many years. It is time to truly cut spending, rather than limit growth to even .5%. Paygo with a surplus for debt reduction is the answer.
The problem with pay-as-you-go is that no one does it.
And that is what lead us to the current situation.
True. I just get a kick how the left characterizes Ryan’s budget proposals as “extreme”. They’re a laughable lot.
I made this comment before concerning Harry Reid, & it sums up the Democrats view of the budget. Reid arguing that ‘Cowboy Poetry Festival’ funding should not be cut, while we’re 15 trillion in debt. If cowboy poetry is off the table, everything is. That’s their true position.
It’s a mindset equivalent to: If I was a $million in debt, the wise move would be to put my house up as collateral for a lamborghini. The insanity of their mindset is what’s extreme.
Indeed. those people need to get a grip. Cowboy Poetry, studies of Chinese working girls, incredibly stupid spending projects….. all of it needs to go.
“A bold plan with very little pain involved if implemented.”
Not very bold and the pain will be significant if the growth projections do not stack up which will mean continued debt increases even as a proportion of GDP but a move in the right direction. The best part of Ryan’s rhetoric is to broaden the tax base by getting rid of loop holes whilst reducing the headline rates.
Well, the bold part what tackling the entitlement programs. Most politicians won’t even mention them. But, yes, I think the 3.1% increase is too much, but it does put things in proper perspective.
I agree. I have stated from the outset that the Ryan Budget is not austere enough. It merely cut the rate of growth. It never cut the budget.
But the Jekyl and Hyde aspect of the democrats is they say a cut in the rate of growth when republicans propose it is a cut. But when they propose it (medicare) it is not a cut.
Exactly. And half of the electorate blithely swallows their bs.
Here’s my take on it: http://christianliberal.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/budget-plan/
You got the pushing granny off the cliff thing right but you forgot that Romney will ban tampons and shoot Big Bird.
CL, you linked to a cartoon as a contribution to the discussion? You found a 2 month old post to do that?
Actually, it can be taken as an argument. Christian thinks that the economy works this way – the government pumps money into health care or into corporate profits.
He made a typical stage 1 analysis. He doesn’t show the next step – maybe because he doesn’t want to show it; or maybe because he didn’t think about it. Companies are becoming more competitive, expand and hire more people, offshored jobs return when corporate tax rates become competitive in USA again.
Christian: Germany, a EU welfare state, has a lower corporate tax rate than the USA. China, the progressive posterchild (see Friedman), has a much lower corporate tax rate.
Dirk, i think if someone is going to present the simplistic cartoon as CL did,and the inferences one can glean from the cartoon, I’d say you just spoke over his head. For some reason, many believe corporate profits are bad things, and that jobs appear out of nowhere and aren’t related to profit. Profits are for rich evil people……. or something.
Well, I never give up the hope that someday a leftist learns something from my diatribes.
I just found this fresh interview with Art Laffer who very succinctly explains that lower tax rates lead to MORE ECONOMIC GROWTH per TAX DOLLAR TAKEN.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1914857756001/real-economic-recovery-or-more-trouble-ahead
(Hollande just explores how you maximize economic shrinkage per tax Dollar taken…)
Right, never give up hope!
Hollande….. I’m wondering why the French thought he was a good idea…… wait, never-mind.
Well he could let things grow just like they do at the moment…
The US Federal Government only spends $1 Billion of your money (and borrowings) in roughly 2.5 hours, about $9.6 billion per day every day.