Skip to comments.The New York Time's and the Wall street Journal's Editorial Opinion on the Paul Ryan Budget
Posted on 03/13/2013 6:46:05 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
From the New York Times
All the tired ideas from 2011 and 2012 are back: eliminating Medicares guarantee to retirees by turning it into a voucher plan; dispensing with Medicaid and food stamps by turning them into block grants for states to cut freely; repealing most of the reforms to health care and Wall Street; shrinking beyond recognition the federal role in education, job training, transportation and scientific and medical research. The public opinion of these callous proposals was made clear in the fall election, but Mr. Ryan is too ideologically fervid to have learned that lesson.
The 2014 budget is even worse than that of the previous two years because it attempts to balance the budget in 10 years instead of the previous 20 or more. That would take nondefense discretionary spending down to nearly 2 percent of the economy, the lowest in modern history. And in its laziest section, it sets a goal of slashing the top tax rate for the rich to 25 percent from 39.6 percent, though naturally Mr. Ryan doesnt explain how this could happen without raising taxes on middle- and lower-income people. (Sound familiar?)
Theres no need, of course, to balance the budget in 10 years or even 20; these dates are arbitrary, designed solely to impress the extreme fiscal conservatives who now compose the core of the Republican Party. That same core in the House will almost certainly reject the 2014 Democratic budget expected from the Senate on Wednesday. It will take a far more evenhanded approach, cutting spending by $1 trillion while eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy and spending $100 billion on job training and infrastructure.
And this from the Wall Street Journal:
The political class seems to be scandalized that Paul Ryan had the cheek Tuesday to propose another reform budget. Doesn't the House Budget Chairman understand that the 2012 election settled every political question in President Obama's favor?
As a guide to how Republicans would govern, the third iteration of the Ryan budget blueprint would increase annual spending by 3.4% over the next 10 years, down from the roughly 5% rate under the current Obama autopilot. Government would gradually fall to 19.1% of GDP by 2023 from 23.3% this year, and average 19.5% over the decadea notch or two below historic postwar spending levels. This is not a return to the era of Calvin Coolidge.
The major difference with Mr. Ryan's previous two budget documents is that this would balance the budget faster, inside of 10 years instead of decades. The government would even run a mini-surplus of $7 billion in 2023. This change is in part a concession to Mr. Ryan's critics on the right, who view a balanced budget as a political totem.
Debt held by the public would fall fasterto 54.8% of GDP in 2023 from about 77% todayand Americans intuitively like the idea that the government should live within its means like a responsible family. But the folks who put a balanced budget above economic growth have their priorities upside down. The important goal is promoting fast enough growth, and enough spending restraint, that debt falls from its current heights over time.
Mr. Ryan retains the current Congressional Budget Office baseline that says revenue will average 18.8% of GDP between 2014 and 2023, nearly a percentage point above the post-1980 average of 17.9%. That may be achievable, or not, though the numbers depend on CBO growth projections that assume little or no economic benefit from better policy.
What really matters for spending over the long term is health care and the vast and growing entitlements. Here Mr. Ryan doesn't shrink from his ambition to convert Medicare into a market-driven program with more competition and choices for seniors.
Your vote will determine the future of this country.
Takes your breath away, doesn't it? I think I'll try this at home.
"Dear, we are spending more 50% more than we make -- we need to cut back our spending. "
"Don't be such a worry-wart Honey. I have a plan to get my spending under control over the next 20 years. Now give me the credit card...I need some new shoes."
The problem with the Times is they IGNORE the main issue -— this country’s impending bankruptcy, in order to read into Paul Ryan’s motives.
Of course, nowhere in their article do they even propose a better alternative.
“Theres no need, of course, to balance the budget in 10 years or even 20; these dates are arbitrary, designed solely to impress the extreme fiscal conservatives who now compose the core of the Republican Party. That same core in the House will almost certainly reject the 2014 Democratic budget expected from the Senate on Wednesday. It will take a far more evenhanded approach, cutting spending by $1 trillion while eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy and spending $100 billion on job training and infrastructure.”
these from the same left wing hypocrites who rally behind the false notion that bill clinton balance the budget...
It's beneath the standard that should be for the premier newspaper.
RE: It’s beneath the standard that should be for the premier newspaper.
This so called premier newspaper is mostly owned by the richest man in the world — Carlos Slim.
I have many Mexican friends in the know who can attest to how he got rich (let’s just say there’s a lot of corruption going on ).
I bet that this is NOT news that’s fit to print in the New York Times.
Let me offer another.
Given that this resolution is DOA, even deader than it was in 2011 before Ryan lost his VP bid, he should instead propose a serious idea instead of this many times rehashed gimmick which is intended as a smoke screen which is working with some.
Instead of offering an alternative to medicare that starts in 10 years(which shows it to be a scam) , propose offering it right now. Come up with some details and go out and propose it right now.
The Ryan-rehash-resolution is not going anywhere, and the GOP has already caved on the real CR that will become law, so why not propose something serious this time Ryan?
The NYT is lying. The "guarantee" is that government will force younger working Americans to pay your medical bills. That's simply legalized theft and despicable. Medicine needs more free market reforms such as:
1. Using the Commerce Clause to allow freedom of employment/movement of health care professionals across state lines without onerous regulations/testing/training.
2. Using the Commerce Clause to allow the purchase of health insurance interstate. I can buy oranges from Florida, beef from Texas and natural gas from Nebraska but not health insurance?
3. Using the Commerce Clause to stop localities and state governments from colluding with in-state doctors and hospitals to block new practices and hospitals.
These three simple and wholly Constitutional actions would immediately inject competition into health care, thus lowering costs.
dispensing with Medicaid and food stamps by turning them into block grants for states to cut freely
The presumption that states would cut them indicates that the government nearest the people knows where the waste is. We want effective spending, not just spending. Furthermore, what proof exists that the federal government is effective in administering and dispensing these programs?
repealing most of the reforms to health care and Wall Street
These "reforms" are in the eye of the beholder and that a leftist loves them is telling. See my three health care reforms above and note the simplicity and obvious effectiveness of increasing competion.
shrinking beyond recognition the federal role in education, job training, transportation and scientific and medical research
What is the federal role here? Education is a local issue. So local that it is, quite literally, beyond the scope of government. The one constant in education is parenting. If parents, even dumb uneducated ones, want their child educated that kid gets an education.
Job training? Again not a federal function and I'd ask, "where are all the jobs?"
Transportation? Outside of Ike's defense interstate highway system, the government has hobbled innovation in transportation. See TSA for an easy example.
As for scientific and medical research the federal government has no role in basic research. That has happened and will happen without federal money polluting the process with politics. See here for an example of basic science innovation without direct government funding: US teenager crafts early detection tool for cancer
One of the changes that Ryan made to his Medicare pitch from 2011, to his 2012 (and this one) was that now he says retirees will have a choice between privatization and real Medicare, real Medicare which he well knows todays seniors love by the way because its so generous.
This addition was a strong suggestion I used to give on the 2011 Ryan reform threads, one that was met with Boo’s and hisses as usual (non-Koolaid drinkers always get that from some) , and he included it in his 2012 after getting yelled at in Town meetings.
The major flaw STILL in his current pitch and what will always cast suspicion on it is that his medicare proposals will all take effect at least 10 years after passage.
(In fact Sunday Ryan was claiming rather bogusly that these 10 years delayed cuts on passage would jump-start the economy right now, a joke.)
This says : ‘We can party on for 10 more years but you who were born after a certain date are out of luck, and you get to pay the bills too’, and it fits in with his supporting Medicare EXPANDED benefits under GWB, 'party now dudes'
This is intended rather obviously to insulate it from criticism and so it instead it naturally draws suspicion. The logical conclusion by most will always be that it is delayed for 10 years after passage because he knows retirees then will HATE it when it does go into effect.
He needs a proposal that reforms medicare now, or at least starts the reform now, propose to show it works as soon as possible.