The Ryan Budget - 2013 Edition

[Puppycow]

Anyone care to speak up in favor of this?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...ns-why-ryan-budget-plan-is-all-wrong-for-gop/


http://news.investors.com/blogs-cap...op-budget-core-spending-lowest-since-1948.htm



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2013/03/14/paul_ryan039s_budget_is_a_firing_offense_303921.html

 

[Upchurch]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...ns-why-ryan-budget-plan-is-all-wrong-for-gop/

As I read that article, I had to keep checking the url to make sure I on foxnews.com. That was amazingly off the party line for Fox News.

 

[Dymanic]

That was amazingly off the party line for Fox News.

I agree. Have they a rogue cannon on board? Did their system get hacked? Is it some kind of trick? I find my mind leaping at various imaginative explanations.

 

[seayakin]

I like this quote for a reality check:

To put it mildly, Granny will not do any better than GM jawboning Humana and Walgreens.

 

[elbe]

As I read that article, I had to keep checking the url to make sure I on foxnews.com. That was amazingly off the party line for Fox News.

The Fox news website has at least one liberal leaning opinion poster, but Peter Morici doesn't appear to be one.

 

[Kaosium]

Anyone care to speak up in favor of this?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...ns-why-ryan-budget-plan-is-all-wrong-for-gop/


http://news.investors.com/blogs-cap...op-budget-core-spending-lowest-since-1948.htm



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2013/03/14/paul_ryan039s_budget_is_a_firing_offense_303921.html

I've not read his budget in its entirety , but I read the articles you posted, a quick reply:

1. He makes some good points, I too think more drastic measures should be contemplated and while he mentions Germany I also think what other countries like what Australia did should be looked at as well.

However the GOP holds only the House, they are not in a position to propose a major overhaul, the Obama administration and the Senate would be better place for that to start. There are so many fingers in our health care pie any drastic change to cut costs is going to cost some group something and they're gonna scream bloody murder if their precious little finger is so much as scratched by the meat cleaver we need to take to (federal) health care spending.

The proposal in Ryan's budget is at least a plan which has some support, its been bandied about for roughly twenty years now as a prospective solution. I personally have reservations as to its effectiveness, (in cutting costs as much as is going to be necessary) and realize that unintended consequences must always be kept in mind, but it does have virtue in that it would encourage competition. Being as it's not a drastic solution it might actually get passed.

2. I don't think this guy Jeb gets it. Federal spending outside SS & Health care is destined to be crushed by the mounting costs of entitlements: it's one of the reasons those have to be addressed and the quicker the better. He wants more non-defense discretionary spending it appears: the best way to achieve that is more drastic cuts to entitlements and real sustainable growth leading to increased revenues. The GOP proposes tax reforms, that's something to consider, an onerous tax code can inhibit activity and thus diminish revenues.

3. I like the CNN article better than the headline. He lays it out pretty fairly, but the ode to the CBPP isn't especially encouraging, as all they want is more spending or everyone's gonna die!

That's the problem with his proposals, he wants the federal government spending more on 'infrastructure.' Huh? Infrastructure isn't (really) the purview of the Feds, it's the state and local governments who build and maintain (most) roads and provide things like education. The Feds can help and should with the Interstates, but otherwise those are luxuries for a federal government that isn't being eaten alive by entitlement programs. Hurricane relief? I don't get that either, other than it has been argued that sometimes its better to budget for it as if a supplemental bill gets passed there might be some oinking being heard in DC! However I'd hope at this juncture they could just not do that if it becomes necessary to offer federal disaster relief aid.

No budget is gonna look pretty at this juncture, anything that is proposed is going to have tough choices in it, and something drastic with entitlements is likely to require one party having all three requisite bodies thus will probably have to be delayed until '15 or '17. However I do find it encouraging that at least the Senate and Administration is producing budgets as well.

 

[beren]

. The Feds can help and should with the Interstates, but otherwise those are luxuries for a federal government that isn't being eaten alive by entitlement programs.

In what way is the government being "eaten alive" by entitlement programs. Please justify that absurd assertion.

No budget is gonna look pretty at this juncture, anything that is proposed is going to have tough choices in it,

What specific tough choices does this so called budget make? Can you give an example of a specific tough choice?

 

[Ausmerican]

1. He makes some good points, I too think more drastic measures should be contemplated and while he mentions Germany I also think what other countries like what Australia did should be looked at as well.
)

Australia, I believe, used a combination of a stimulus package only a tiny fraction larger in terms of GDP percentage than the U.S along with infrastructure spending.

Also, did I not read that Ryan's budget isn't designed to work without the repeal of 'Obamacare'?
Even Chris Wallace told him, "Not going to happen."

 

[Kaosium]

In what way is the government being "eaten alive" by entitlement programs. Please justify that absurd assertion.

Have you read this? That's a bi-partisan commission which is why I post it, and I don't expect you to read the whole thing but just glance at some of the charts and tables and you can get an idea of what I mean by our budget (federal government spending) being eaten alive by entitlements. What I'm getting at by posting that is the descriptive, not the prescriptive, though we can talk about that as well if you want.

What specific tough choices does this so called budget make? Can you give an example of a specific tough choice?

Whatever you and many other people don't like goes in the 'tough choice' category. I know they're in there because of his revenue assumption of 19% GDP, that's lower than the 21% made in that bi-partisan commission I posted, which was quite likely less realistic but probably necessary to get much bi-partisan agreement on anything drastic. His real( meaning adjusted for inflation) growth assumptions are also realistic, averaging a little over 2.5% it appears from a cursory glance and developed by the non-partisan CBO. This means he's playing it straight, and no better praising with faint damning can be seen than Ezra Klein's last words on the subject:

Ryan’s budget makes a series of extraordinarily tough choices. But he doesn’t like to talk about them.

That would (probably) be because he knows everyone else will, and he'd rather not see those words quoted below a picture of him laughing hysterically whilst hacking away with a chainsaw at a screaming grandmother in campaign ads the next election. He also makes his case in the budget itself with reasons why those proposals will turn out to be the best in the long term, and perhaps minimize the pain associated with them.

He put his weenie in the wicker, (just about) everyone's gonna take a whack at it, he doesn't need to be whacking his own weenie! I am especially encouraged by the fact the Senate and Administration will be putting their weenies in the wicker too, as that might allow for a more honest debate about what we should do as they (and all their allies) must expose themselves (to criticism) as well. Perhaps that will lead to a little less willingness to whack away if they also must propose a holistic plan that plays by (more or less) the same rules. There's a number of ways one can be very deceptive in this budget process, the simplest way being by using assumptions on tax rates that don't produce the revenue assumption, and/or assumptions of growth rates that allow for more spending with the same rates.

 

[Kaosium]

Australia, I believe, used a combination of a stimulus package only a tiny fraction larger in terms of GDP percentage than the U.S along with infrastructure spending.

I was referring solely to their health care policy. I got the impression from a cursory glance that it allowed for a basic level of care for all, with the option of paying for more if they could afford it and it seemed to be working well.


Regarding infrastructure, the US has several states with roughly the same level population which have governments quite capable of providing infrastructure, the federal government doing so is unnecessary and at this juncture a luxury we probably cannot afford.

Also, did I not read that Ryan's budget isn't designed to work without the repeal of 'Obamacare'?
Even Chris Wallace told him, "Not going to happen."

I read somewhere he keeps some of the tax increases though! However he's proposing alternative solutions, and one thing to keep in mind about the recipients of medicare and social security is while their incomes are generally lower (many if not most are retired) that also happens to be the wealthiest single age demographic in the United States, which figures if you think on it as they've had a lifetime to accumulate wealth. Obviously that doesn't apply to all, but it's something to keep in mind when those like the CBPP go saying things about the lowest incomes getting 'hardest hit.' Yeah, retired people generally don't have high incomes, but they quite likely have more wealth. The trick (in my view) is to help the ones who need it and not so much the ones who can afford it.

I wasn't following this, perhaps you know more than I picked up just from the periphery, but what is Obamacare outside a guarantee/requirement to buy insurance, tax increases and unfunded mandates to the states? Does anyone think this is the best final solution anyway?

 

[beren]

.




Whatever you and many other people don't like goes in the 'tough choice' category. I know they're in there because of his revenue assumption of 19% GDP, that's lower than the 21% made in that bi-partisan commission I posted, which was quite

Then why not give me a specific example. What is something specific he cuts and by how much?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I wasn't following this, perhaps you know more than I picked up just from the periphery, but what is Obamacare outside a guarantee/requirement to buy insurance, tax increases and unfunded mandates to the states?

It's also some desperately needed insurance reforms. For example, it will do away forever with the horrible practice of rescission and post claim underwriting. It will effectively limit what portion of premiums collected insurers can take as profit. It will allow college students to remain covered under their parents' insurance policies. And so on. . .

Funny, while this thing was going through a year long public debate, critics complained that it was too big a chunk of legislation. Now you're suggesting that it only does two things.

Does anyone think this is the best final solution anyway?

I don't think anyone thinks it's the best solution. I think it's the result of our system that reserves enough power to the minority that broad reforms are virtually impossible without going through substantial compromises. So "Obamacare" included quite a few conservative ideas (including the individual mandate and state insurance exchanges).

Politics is the art of the possible.

 

[Kaosium]

Then why not give me a specific example. What is something specific he cuts and by how much?

You want the truth? Probably not, but I'll give it to you anyway!

Because I'm not entirely sure it's worth my time with someone who would say something like our federal government (budget) being eaten alive by entitlements is an 'absurd assertion.' We can't really communicate unless there's a willingness to at least attempt to reach an understanding of how it really is first. Thus I posted some papers, I wasn't actually expecting you to read them, but merely glancing at it you could see where I was coming from.

There's plenty of cuts in there, to health care and to things like student aid which will be unpopular and thus 'tough.' If that's what you wanted, there it is, there's more in the budget proposal I linked.


Keep in mind one thing though: the people on Medicare/Medicaid don't actually get that money, they just wanna get fixed, the money goes to (or ends up with) hospitals, health care professionals, insurance companies, and the like, and others like medical equipment manufacturers and the sort also end up benefiting. The government dumping hundreds of billions--soon to be a trillion--into the health care industry every year without effective cost controls has (helped) lead to the United States (both public and privately) paying an absolutely absurd amount in health care costs as a percent of GDP. That has to be fixed, I (personally) am open to what would be considered 'extreme' solutions including a single-payer plan if it's designed rationally, but even if Ryan was he has to propose something that is passable by the GOP House.

I know (basically) what the likes of Paul Krugman have been proposing, I could make the argument and a dozen years ago I might have, but as it stands we cannot continue to finance on the order of twelve trillion dollars (increasing on the order of a trillion every year!) for basically no (real) interest, and the Fed is playing with (inflationary) fire already and much more could be (eventually) absolutely disastrous and cost us the benefit of being the world's reserve currency. It is so easy for economies in our current difficulty to do incredibly stupid things and/or delay making changes until it's too late, and our political system makes it incredibly difficult to do anything drastic. That's what has led to this, and your not even recognizing it is simply part and parcel of the problem.

 

[beren]

There's plenty of cuts in there, to health care and to things like student aid which will be unpopular and thus 'tough.' If that's what you wanted, there it is, there's more in the budget proposal I linked.

What I wanted and still want is a single specific example. More than one is fine if you want, but specificity is a must.

 

[Random]

I read somewhere he keeps some of the tax increases though! However he's proposing alternative solutions, and one thing to keep in mind about the recipients of medicare and social security is while their incomes are generally lower (many if not most are retired) that also happens to be the wealthiest single age demographic in the United States, which figures if you think on it as they've had a lifetime to accumulate wealth. Obviously that doesn't apply to all, but it's something to keep in mind when those like the CBPP go saying things about the lowest incomes getting 'hardest hit.' Yeah, retired people generally don't have high incomes, but they quite likely have more wealth. The trick (in my view) is to help the ones who need it and not so much the ones who can afford it.

Seniors may be the wealthiest age demographic, but that doesn't mean they are financially secure. They may have a lifetime of savings, but that's just at the point where their earning potential drops off a cliff, and medical bills skyrocket. $200k in assets and a $1000 a month SS check isn't much to live on if you plan to stick around for twenty years. Cutting Social Security can be brutal for seniors, even more so now with 401ks giving meager returns and the death of private pensions.

 

[Kaosium]

It's also some desperately needed insurance reforms. For example, it will do away forever with the horrible practice of rescission and post claim underwriting. It will effectively limit what portion of premiums collected insurers can take as profit. It will allow college students to remain covered under their parents' insurance policies. And so on. . .

Ah, thanks! Those kinda look like 'little things' to me, meaning they could have been debated and passed separately on their merits.

Funny, while this thing was going through a year long public debate, critics complained that it was too big a chunk of legislation. Now you're suggesting that it only does two things.

I dunno, I wasn't paying attention, so I am unsure what they meant. Was it the size of the bill (in pages)? Or perhaps they meant tackling health care at that juncture at all, which in itself is going to mobilize legions of lobbyists and all their attendant groups. It might have been better for him to wait until his second term, as just messing around with it with anything that appears comprehensive is gonna start something that may not end well and we had a lot on our plate at that moment in our history.

I don't think anyone thinks it's the best solution. I think it's the result of our system that reserves enough power to the minority that broad reforms are virtually impossible without going through substantial compromises. So "Obamacare" included quite a few conservative ideas (including the individual mandate and state insurance exchanges).

In a general sense, I'd agree, however I cannot help but point out the last time the GOP had the presidency, the House and something close to a supermajority in the Senate was around 1930, and it's my understanding Obamacare was passed before the '10 elections. Maybe they needed to get a pubbie or two in the Senate, but that sort of thing can be done, and is not uncommon after elections such as '08 to even get them to switch parties such as Spector did.

It just seems to me if they had that kind of power and wanted to do something about health care they ought to have been able to put together a coalition to actually do something substantial as opposed to not actually achieving a solution to the long term problem. They shouldn't have needed much if any Republican support.

I'm just saying that it surprises me that so much power was in the hands of the Dems and they took on health care and appeared to achieve very little that addressed the long-term problem.

Politics is the art of the possible.

 

[Kaosium]

What I wanted and still want is a single specific example. More than one is fine if you want, but specificity is a must.

I choose not to play. This is a highly complex subject and I don't see the point of your exercise.

 

[Kaosium]

Seniors may be the wealthiest age demographic, but that doesn't mean they are financially secure. They may have a lifetime of savings, but that's just at the point where their earning potential drops off a cliff, and medical bills skyrocket. $200k in assets and a $1000 a month SS check isn't much to live on if you plan to stick around for twenty years. Cutting Social Security can be brutal for seniors, even more so now with 401ks giving meager returns and the death of private pensions.

To be honest I think it unlikely we can arrange it so most everyone (who survives) can be retired for twenty years at this juncture. I'm willing to listen to your proposal, but nothing in this budget (really) addresses social security, instead it requires both Congress and the Administration to come up with a plan.

Social Security in brief
•Require the President to submit a plan to shore up the Social Security Trust Fund.

•Require Congress to submit a plan of its own.

 

[Random]

To be honest I think it unlikely we can arrange it so most everyone (who survives) can be retired for twenty years at this juncture.

I don't see why not. Its really just a question of priorities and political will. We are a wealthy nation, if we wish to made sure our elderly spend the last years of their lives in relative comfort and security, we can. If we decide we would rather insure that a small handful of rich people have more money that they know what to do with while we spend trillions of dollars killing goat farmers on the other side of the planet, we can do that instead.

I'm willing to listen to your proposal, but nothing in this budget (really) addresses social security, instead it requires both Congress and the Administration to come up with a plan.

Eh, I like a lot of the plans that come out of the House Progressive Caucus. We never hear about them due to conservative media bias, and the Progressive Caucus itself has an unfortunate tendency to fold like a wet Kleenex whenever Obama offers up vital liberal policies on the sacrificial altar of bipartisanship, but the plans themselves are solid.

 

[Kaosium]

I don't see why not. Its really just a question of priorities and political will. We are a wealthy nation, if we wish to made sure our elderly spend the last years of their lives in relative comfort and security, we can. If we decide we would rather insure that a small handful of rich people have more money that they know what to do with while we spend trillions of dollars killing goat farmers on the other side of the planet, we can do that instead.

So how much do you plan to increase Social Security spending which has already exceeded the amount of revenue the payroll tax generates? Mind you higher employment and the restoration of the rate to 12.4% may very well allow for it to run a surplus again for a few years, but the undertow of the baby-boomer generation hitting retirement age makes it a forgone conclusion that deficit will return (without an increase in the payroll tax) which means that (then) current social security benefits will have to be paid for with cuts in other programs. Everything in the 'social security trust fund' must be offset by more cuts elsewhere or it's added to the deficit, and thus obviously the debt.

Eh, I like a lot of the plans that come out of the House Progressive Caucus. We never hear about them due to conservative media bias, and the Progressive Caucus itself has an unfortunate tendency to fold like a wet Kleenex whenever Obama offers up vital liberal policies on the sacrificial altar of bipartisanship, but the plans themselves are solid.

I read through the last budget from the Progressive caucus, make-believe economics in my view, and too much reliant upon dubious assumptions like raising the payroll tax on those making over ~100k to cover their entire gross income won't have (significant) negative economic effects. Note that wouldn't just apply to professionals, actors and athletes and the like, but also small business owners, many of whom are taxed at individual rates. It's currently capped at ~100k, meaning income above that isn't subject to the 12.4% (total) FICA tax, and completely eliminating that exemption would quite likely have disastrous destructive effects on employment.

Tell you what, I see the Progressive caucus advanced another budget, and there will be debate and vote made upon it. I think it would be hilarious (and quite revealing!) were the Republicans to all vote for it, along with Ryan's budget, and have both sent to the Senate; it would be even better if they passed both too and then Obama could decide to sign either one or another. It would be interesting what people would say about it were the Progressive budget actually have a chance of being implemented, it would be even more revealing to see which Dems in the House and Senate would vote for it.

It would be a win-win scenario (politically) for the GOP even if Obama signed it (he probably wouldn't--he's no fool). Odds are the economy would be crushed and everyone would get an object lesson in how economics works, something that would reverberate throughout society and remind everyone just why communism failed and why Sweden (who runs a more rational welfare state than we do) backed off when the government percent of GDP reached about 64% and to this day hovers around the 50% mark and has since cut in half their debt as a percent of their GDP.