Paul Ryan's insane budget proposal

[Chris_Halkides]

mystery meat budget

Paul Krugman notes that Howard Gleckman also used the phrase mystery meat, although Dr. Krugman demurs. He wrote, "So the Ryan budget is a fraud; Mr. Ryan talks loudly about the evils of debt and deficits, but his plan would actually make the deficit bigger even as it inflicted huge pain in the name of deficit reduction."

 

[eeyore1954]

Bush lowered taxes on the promise that it would stimulate the economy and increase revenue. Fail. That was 10 years ago. It's been a colossal failure. What is the basis for defending the status quo of tax cuts? The Democrats have cut spending and have offered to cut more. The GOP? Well, let's see, they commissioned a report that called for a package of 15% tax increases with 85% spending reduction. And of course they rejected the advice of their experts (economists) and THAT makes the Dems whiney?

Can you give the details of that report. I hear about it a lot, I suspect it is true but I would like to see it.

 

[RandFan]

Can you give the details of that report. I hear about it a lot, I suspect it is true but I would like to see it.

I'm looking for the report. I had bookmarked because I was called on it before and had to dig it up. But I've since restored my system softare and lost my bookmarks.

Here is an article that discusses the GOP plan (and argues why 85% in spending cuts is too much).

Finding the Republicans’ golden ratio

Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

 

[RandFan]

From that article

I found this fascinating.

 

[leftysergeant]

I found this fascinating.

[qimg]http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3738/taxesandspendingpastdea.jpg[/qimg]

The interesting point is that Reagan raised taxes on working people and then claimed that the increase in revenue was the result of his tax cuts for the rich having worked.

Those people are all dellusional.

 

[Peephole]

Most recent Obama Budget defeated 414-0.

Current est cost of ObamaCare now at $2.6 trillion and an unfunded $17 trillion liability has been found hidden in ObamaCare.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/30/another-17-trillion-surprise-found-in-obamacare/

Over 75 years, so that would come down to 227 billion a year.

Of course the CBO disagrees and thinks the law will actually save money.

And since Republicans don't have credibility on anything: rofl.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Reelin' in the year

That column seems to be from last year:


Essentially Ryan released the same proposal he made last year with a few minor tweaks, so the analysis is basically as valid today as it was last year.

Does this mean that Ryan has had another year to figure out which loopholes to cut and still has not done it? The mind reels. Paul Krugman wrote, "Mr. Gleckman calls it a “mystery meat budget,” but he’s being unfair to mystery meat. The truth is that the filler modern food manufacturers add to their products may be disgusting — think pink slime — but it nonetheless has nutritional value. Mr. Ryan’s empty promises don’t."

RandFan, Thanks for the graph.

 

[eeyore1954]

I'm looking for the report. I had bookmarked because I was called on it before and had to dig it up. But I've since restored my system softare and lost my bookmarks.

Here is an article that discusses the GOP plan (and argues why 85% in spending cuts is too much).

if you read the report that is linked in the article you sent me to I don't think you will find it recommended that 15% to 85% ratio. I read the conclusion and did not see it. The 85% 15% is the average of one of the data sets they studied. This group did better according to the study that allocations with higher tax to debt reduction cases but I don't see it being classified as the optimum allocation.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Economist

if you read the report that is linked in the article you sent me to I don't think you will find it recommended that 15% to 85% ratio. I read the conclusion and did not see it. The 85% 15% is the average of one of the data sets they studied. This group did better according to the study that allocations with higher tax to debt reduction cases but I don't see it being classified as the optimum allocation.

eeyore,

I seem to recall that The Economist suggested more cuts than tax hikes in an editorial, but I don't have it in front of me at the moment.
EDT
My comment above may not be germane to the question you were asking. If so, my apologies.

 

[RandFan]

if you read the report that is linked in the article you sent me to I don't think you will find it recommended that 15% to 85% ratio. I read the conclusion and did not see it. The 85% 15% is the average of one of the data sets they studied. This group did better according to the study that allocations with higher tax to debt reduction cases but I don't see it being classified as the optimum allocation.

Just so we are on the same page. If you follow the link to the report you then need to click on "full commentary". Or follow this link. That is the report I was talking about.

Biggs, Hassett, and Jensen (2010) found strong evidence that government spending reductions outweigh revenue increases in successful consolidations regardless of the methodology used to identify consolidations.25 They found that across both methods for identifying consolidations—Alesina’s cyclically adjusted primary balance method (excludes interest payments and business cycle effects) and the IMF’s action-based method (spending cuts and tax increases explicitly for deficit or debt reduction)—successful fiscal consolidations averaged 85% spending cuts and 15% revenue increases, while unsuccessful fiscal consolidations averaged 47% spending cuts and 53% revenue increases [fig. 5]. Further, they show that the degree of success correlates to a larger share of spending cuts [fig. 6].

So, can we agree that the report is centered on the analysis of various Fiscal Consolidation programs and that it concludes what constitutes successful fiscal consolidation programs?

VII. CONCLUSION

...

The abundant empirical evidence is clear and irrefutable; increasing federal spending as a percentage of GDP will slow economic growth in the long term. Therefore, U.S. policymakers should embark on a fiscal consolidation program based on reducing federal spending as a percentage of GDP.

Okay, so, the conclusion calls for a fiscal consolidation program based on spending cuts but does not explicitly recommend tax rate increases, right? Could it be implied? If not then why study and then conclude what constitutes a successful consolidation program?

See page 8 figure 5

While it might have been prudent to omit any explicit reference to tax increases from the conclusion, I think there is little doubt that the report concludes that successful fiscal consolidation should include revenue increases of no more than 15%, right? Does the report conclude, ala Norquist, that tax rate increases are wrong entirely?

 

[RandFan]

Does this mean that Ryan has had another year to figure out which loopholes to cut and still has not done it? The mind reels. Paul Krugman wrote, "Mr. Gleckman calls it a “mystery meat budget,” but he’s being unfair to mystery meat. The truth is that the filler modern food manufacturers add to their products may be disgusting — think pink slime — but it nonetheless has nutritional value. Mr. Ryan’s empty promises don’t."

RandFan, Thanks for the graph.

Eye opening to say the least.

 

[eeyore1954]

Just so we are on the same page. If you follow the link to the report you then need to click on "full commentary". Or follow this link. That is the report I was talking about.

So, can we agree that the report is centered on the analysis of various Fiscal Consolidation programs and that it concludes what constitutes successful fiscal consolidation programs?

Okay, so, the conclusion calls for a fiscal consolidation program based on spending cuts but does not explicitly recommend tax rate increases, right? Could it be implied? If not then why study and then conclude what constitutes a successful consolidation program?

See page 8 figure 5

[qimg]http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2964/fisccalconsolidation.jpg[/qimg]

While it might have been prudent to omit any explicit reference to tax increases from the conclusion, I think there is little doubt that the report concludes that successful fiscal consolidation should include revenue increases of no more than 15%, right? Does the report conclude, ala Norquist, that tax rate increases are wrong entirely?

I was interested in the validity of this claim.

GOP? Well, let's see, they commissioned a report that called for a package of 15% tax increases with 85% spending reduction. And of course they rejected the advice of their experts (economists) .

It appears to not be correct. I don't see it saying zero tax increases are wrong.

 

[RandFan]

deleted

 

[RandFan]

It appears to not be correct. I don't see it saying zero tax increases are wrong.

Questions:

• Would you agree that the GOP report concludes that successful fiscal consolidation programs on average are comprised of 15% - 85% ratio?
• Is there anything in the report to conclude that what has been successful for other nations would not be successful for the US?
• Is there anything in the report to conclude that 0% tax revenue - 100% spending cuts would be successful? (is that conclusion supported by the data?)
• Are you just looking for some kind of gotcha, because that seems somewhat intellectually dishonest?

eeyore, if what worked best has no meaning, why base your conclusions on what worked best?

 

[Corsair 115]

GOP? Well, let's see, they commissioned a report that called for a package of 15% tax increases with 85% spending reduction. And of course they rejected the advice of their experts (economists).

They didn't just reject the advice of economists, they rejected the path that other industrialized nations facing deficit and debt issues took to successfully cure their deficit and debt issues. In other words, the rejection of practical examples of techniques that worked elsewhere.

 

[leftysergeant]

They didn't just reject the advice of economists, they rejected the path that other industrialized nations facing deficit and debt issues took to successfully cure their deficit and debt issues. In other words, the rejection of practical examples of techniques that worked elsewhere.

I am begining to think that Grover not only castrated all of the republicons, but lobotomized them as well.

You would think, after thirty years of tax cuts and a shrinking middle class they would figure out that tax cuts don't work quite like that old fool from California told them they would.

 

[eeyore1954]

Questions:

• Would you agree that the GOP report concludes that successful fiscal consolidation programs on average are comprised of 15% - 85% ratio?
• Is there anything in the report to conclude that what has been successful for other nations would not be successful for the US?
• Is there anything in the report to conclude that 0% tax revenue - 100% spending cuts would be successful? (is that conclusion supported by the data?)
• Are you just looking for some kind of gotcha, because that seems somewhat intellectually dishonest?

eeyore, if what worked best has no meaning, why base your conclusions on what worked best?

I am not that familiar with the report. I never saw it before yesterday. But it does appear that the average was 15% - 85% ratio.
I do not know enough to answer the 2nd question.
Figure 6 seems to indicate that plans with zero and tax cuts have been succesful.

Let me understand your point about intellectual dishonesty. You post a statement that does conform to the facts

GOP? Well, let's see, they commissioned a report that called for a package of 15% tax increases with 85% spending reduction. And of course they rejected the advice of their experts (economists) .

and I am intellectually dishonest for pointing it out.

 

[RandFan]

Let me understand your point about intellectual dishonesty. You post a statement that does conform to the facts

and I am intellectually dishonest for pointing it out.

I'll withdraw the statement about intellectual honesty as I was upset with your post and acted emotionally.

I do not think it is at all black and white. If you fail to note that the report makes a case for 15% - 85% then I think that is wrong. If you say that it does not explicitly make the recommendation in the conclusions but acknowledge that the report would lead to that conclusion them I'm fine with that.

I understand your point and would be willing to concede to the lack of an explicit recommendation.

 

[eeyore1954]

I'll withdraw the statement about intellectual honesty as I was upset with your post and acted emotionally.

I do not think it is at all black and white. If you fail to note that the report makes a case for 15% - 85% then I think that is wrong. If you say that it does not explicitly make the recommendation in the conclusions but acknowledge that the report would lead to that conclusion them I'm fine with that.

I understand your point and would be willing to concede to the lack of an explicit recommendation.

I agree that the report says 15-85 is better than 50-50. But I do not see where it would say that 0-100 is also not good. Graph 6 I believe shows cases like that. I have not studied the report.

 

[RandFan]

I agree that the report says 15-85 is better than 50-50. But I do not see where it would say that 0-100 is also not good. Graph 6 I believe shows cases like that. I have not studied the report.

Fair enough. To be sure it shows the optimal success ratio and make much of that. So I will say this, the GOP has evidence of what constitutes a successful program. They went out of their way to study various programs and in the end did not come to a conclusion that some percentage of taxes were bad. On the contrary, the found an average optimum for success. That optimum includes tax revenue increases of no more than 15%. They did not make a case for not raising taxes.