PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Top Ten Reactions to Ryan's Budget Proposal


HonestChieffan
04-05-2011, 07:54 PM
Sounds like some folks like what they see.....


Top ten Ryan budget reax

Associate Editor Of Commentary
1. Rush Limbaugh: “Folks, its wonderful. Forget all of this that is going on with the remaining budget and continuing resolution for the remainder of this fiscal year … the budget that will be announced tomorrow by Paul Ryan … substantively it is superb, politically it is brilliant. … Its exactly what the election last November was all about.”

2. The Editors, NRO: “Ryan’s budget proposal for next year is the most ambitious conservative initiative since — well, actually, since ever. … . The purpose of Ryan’s plan is to raise a standard to which Republicans can aspire in 2012. In the best-case scenario, their presidential candidate runs on most of these ideas, the party wins a mandate in the next election, and the work of making the government leaner and more sober can begin in earnest in 2013.”

3. Fiscal Commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson: “The budget released this morning by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan is a serious, honest, straightforward approach to addressing our nation's enormous fiscal challenges.”

4. Alice Rivlin, Brookings Institute: “The Ryan Budget is a bold and drastic set of spending cuts across the spectrum of federal spending including Medicare and Medicaid. Now its courageous for him to do that, I think its a good opening entry in the discussion that is going to take place over the 2012 budget.”

5. Chris Edwards, CATO: “To summarize, Ryan’s budget plan would make crucial reforms to federal health care programs, and it would limit the size of the federal government over the long term. However, his plan would be improved by adopting more cuts and eliminations of agencies in short term, such as those proposed by Senator Rand Paul.”

6. James Capretta, former Associate Director White House OMB: “It is unquestionably the boldest budget plan ever offered (including Reagan’s first budget), focused first and foremost on bringing federal spending commitments into line with the revenue generated from a pro-growth tax system. ... No corner of the budget is spared from scrutiny, including defense. The challenge of unlimited government, and runaway spending, deficits, and debt is immense — but the Ryan plan more than meets it.”

7. The Heritage Foundation: “Although this budget does rein in welfare spending on Medicaid and food stamps, it continues to approach the rest of the $950 billion welfare system in the same piecemeal fashion of the past. More notably, Ryan has not touched Social Security, preferring instead to fast-track solutions outside the budget process. He has also opted to essentially grandfather the grandparents: Benefits for those in or near retirement will not be touched. That also means that spending reductions will come slower than they might otherwise. Will we exempt so many baby boomers from contributing to the most urgent economic problem we face? While it is politically difficult to consider benefit changes for this group, it is virtually impossible to balance the budget within the near term without doing so. This is a discussion we must have as a nation.”

8. Veronica de Rugy, Mercatus: ““While it’s a good start, there are three major problems with the plan. First, it continues the Washington tradition of extending open-ended promises on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to millions of people without paying for them. Second, Medicare will continue to provide health care support to everyone including the richest Americans. Third, the plan introduces some competition between providers but consumers may still be bound to a list of guaranteed coverage options chosen by the government.”

9. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former Chief Economist for the Council of Economic Advisors: “The House budget proposal is commendable because it addresses the real problem: the structure of the entitlement programs. Under this plan, there is a vision of small, contained government that supports rapid economic growth, is fair to future generations, and restores America’s exceptionalism.”

10. Henry Olson, American Enterprise Institute: “Ryan slyly implied that the president’s budget, by adding trillions of debt without reforming safety net programs, created risk and uncertainty for the very people least able to cope. Ryan presented a stark and simple choice to Americans. Support his budget, and rest assured that the safety net will be there for you for decades to come. Support the president and who knows what will be left over for you. If this message is consistently communicated, it could be a game changer for the GOP.”



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/top-ten-ryan-budget-reax?utm_source=feedburner+BeltwayConfidential&utm_medium=feed+Beltway+Confidential&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BeltwayConfidential+%28Beltway+Confidential%29feed&utm_content=feed&utm_term=feed#ixzz1IhhMvjpw

The Rick
04-05-2011, 08:11 PM
I've been touting Paul Ryan for a while now, so it's really rewarding for me to see his influence come to fruition like this.

Now, the next step is hopefully the White House. Paul Ryan in 2012 or 2016!

BucEyedPea
04-05-2011, 08:18 PM
Lemme see Ryan supported TARP, the biggest Bank Heist in History and Medicare Part D. I guess that makes him the ONE to fix his own mess. Is he making amends?

Bewbies
04-05-2011, 08:22 PM
Cutting 6.2 trillion over 10 years is a great start. Keep it up!

Bewbies
04-05-2011, 08:23 PM
Well, there won't be any budget cutting until Obama and Reid are out of the way, but this is a great direction to move toward.

The Rick
04-05-2011, 09:24 PM
Lemme see Ryan supported TARP, the biggest Bank Heist in History and Medicare Part D. I guess that makes him the ONE to fix his own mess. Is he making amends?

I see you're still quoting the same old, tired, holier than thou jabs. :rolleyes:

It's nice that you can live in a fantasy land where everything is simple and black and white. As I've stated to you in the past, the real world doesn't work like that. Sometimes, as much as we don't like it, the options come down to bad and worse. Choosing "bad" doesn't mean you like it, but it's better than "worse"

As I've pointed out to you in the past, Ryan didn't like TARP, but he felt the alternative was worse:

Ryan also voted for both the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), which bailed out Wall Street, and the auto-industry bailout. In all three cases, he argues the alternative would have been worse. “I believe we were on the verge of a deflationary spiral that would have caused a depression,” Ryan says of his TARP vote. “If we had allowed that to happen, we would have seen an expansion of government like we did during the New Deal.” He doesn’t regret his vote. http://www.amconmag.com/blog/great-right-hope/

TARP was bad, but better than a further expansion of government.

The unfortunate thing here, BucEyedPea, is that as much as you think of yourself as a conservative, from the things you've written, you're more like a liberal than you think.

The biggest problem with liberals is they often live in a dream world. Sure, it would be great to offer free health care for everyone, take care of everyone's needs, etc. The problem is it just isn't feasible in the real world because we can't pay for it all.

You too live in lala land where everything is milk and honey, just with a different spin than the liberals. Liberals try to please as many as people as possible, damn the consequences. You're like a child who plugs their ears with their fingers and shouts "la la la" over anyone talking because you only want what you want. People like Paul Ryan make good, sound, informed, and responsible decisions.

notorious
04-05-2011, 09:29 PM
Although I agree with cutting out all of the waste and entitlement bullshit, I can see this a major failure in the near future.

The Democrats are going to twist these cuts into some very nasty ammunition. Imagine this,"The Pubs want to take away your health care, they want to take food off your table" etc.

Idiots out there will believe them, too.

trndobrd
04-05-2011, 09:43 PM
This will receive the same warm as welcome as the one guy in the frat house telling everyone they should spend their Saturday night studying instead of partying.

Seriously, it is a good call politically to get this out now, if for no other reason than a reminder that the Democrats should have passed the 2011 budget almost a year ago.

FD
04-05-2011, 09:52 PM
I'll post the best 2 discussions I've read of the plan, both from the Economist.

1)
Mr Ryan makes his mark
WHEN Paul Ryan, the Republican fiscal wunderkind, moved from opposition to power in last year’s midterm elections, the biggest question hanging over him was whether he would bring his radical fiscal views with him or quietly stash them in a dark corner as he settled down to the realities of governing.

Mr Ryan has answered the question today by unveiling a budget plan that, at least superficially, is almost as bold and painful as the Roadmap for America that he has flogged for years. It claims to slash the federal budget deficit from a little over 9% of GDP this year to just 1.6% by 2021. By contrast, the Congressional Budget Office reckons the deficit would fall to just 4.9% under Barack Obama’s budget. He does this without, on net, raising taxes. By closing loopholes, he would pay for a cut in the top personal and corporate rates. So how does he shrink the deficit? Through an eye-watering assault on entitlement spending, in particular health care. Mr Obama’s health care reform would be ditched, Medicaid would be converted to block grants, and traditional Medicare would be replaced with vouchers.

There are many problems with this strategy but it’s worth keeping in mind how remarkable it still is: a legislative proposal that takes dead aim at the real source of the long-term fiscal imbalance, namely, entitlements. Republicans now have an answer to editorials and Democrats demanding to know what their plan is for tackling that looming crisis. Of course, the proposal remains just that, a non-binding resolution that leaves the grimy details to other legislators who may wad them up and toss them in the rubbish bin. But for now, Mr Ryan may have turned what has long been an arcane part of the budget process, the annual budget resolution, into a focal point for long-term debate.

Mr Ryan’s "chairman's mark" for fiscal 2012 incorporates the steep cuts to discretionary spending (spending that must be authorised each year) that his party is now battling to embed in this year’s fiscal 2011 budget. It assumes the same spending on defence and security that Mr Obama did in his 2012 budget.

The bigger real cuts come in entitlements, also called mandatory outlays: this is spending that continues automatically from one year to the next. Instead of matching state Medicaid spending the federal government would provide block grants, as was done with welfare under Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s. This would strengthen states’ incentives to control costs, rather than having the federal government share in the cost of increased eligibility or coverage.

At present, Medicare beneficiaries typically pay premiums and deductibles in return for full coverage of a wide range of medical services. Mr Ryan proposes that starting in 2022, new enrollees receive a voucher from the federal government to buy a private plan. (He prefers the term “premium support” to vouchers, but they’re really the same thing.)

Neither block grants nor vouchers magically cures the root of rising health care costs, namely, medical inflation and rising case loads. What they do is shift the responsibility for bearing those costs to the states and to individuals. Mr Ryan rather disingenuously says his proposal would “strengthen” Medicaid. I guess you could call it that, if your idea of strengthening your son is to throw him out of the house at age 16 to fend for himself. States will no doubt welcome the freedom to shape Medicaid as they see fit; I doubt they will savour the need to raise taxes or slash services to cope with foregone federal funding.

Mr Ryan notes that with the government now paying roughly half of all health care costs, more disciplined federal funding could force efficiency into the system. However, that still leaves rising costs due to technological progress, an aging population, and the shrinking coverage offered by private sector employers. Mr Ryan’s cuts will have real consequences. The proportion of Americans with no insurance, which was set to decline significantly under Mr Obama’s plan, will rise instead. Medicare beneficiaries, who now enjoy benefits on a par with those enrolled in private plans, would instead have to accept a far less generous range of services, or pay out of pocket for more.

On taxes, Mr Ryan proposes chopping the top personal rate to 25%, from its current 35%, and from the 39.6% it is scheduled to reach if George Bush’s tax cuts expire as planned in 2013. He would also cut the top corporate rate to 25% from 35%, bringing America’s rate in line with international norms. Mr Ryan implies that his plan would be revenue neutral by eliminating loopholes and deductions.

Despite the impressive rhetoric, this is still a timid and politicised document by the standards of Mr Ryan’s original roadmap and the health care plan he proposed with Alice Rivlin, a budget director under Bill Clinton. Both contained far more detail about precisely how the entitlement changes would be implemented. Unlike the roadmap, his latest proposal completely ignores social security; apparently, you can only touch so many third rails at once. His tax reform plan is so bare bones that judging its credibility is almost impossible. Of the plan's $6.2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years, more than a quarter come from "other mandatory" categories, without specifying which: food stamps? Pell grants? Veterans' benefits? If the Congressional Budget Office scores this plan, it may well find the numbers don’t add up.

Its projections of the economic impact are also surreal. To be sure, the plan is not as severe as Britain’s: the deficit is only 1.7 percentage points of GDP smaller in 2015 than under Mr Obama’s 2012 budget. Economic growth would be dented, but not grievously. Yet Mr Ryan, citing analysis by the Heritage Foundation, claims his plan would actually create 1m additional private sector jobs and slash the unemployment rate to 4% by 2015, compared to the Blue Chip private sector consensus of 6.6%. While the Heritage Foundation is probably not the first organisation most people turn to when seeking authoritative, impartial economic analysis, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. Yet when I read their report, I find the prediction of a massive investment boom utterly implausible. Corporations today enjoy record or near record profits. If government deficits were crowding out private investment (a key assumption of their analysis), short-term interest rates would not now be near zero and long-term rates near postwar lows. Mr Ryan risks undermining the credibility of his overall plan by casting its economic consequences in such an implausibly optimistic light.

The final question mark about Ryan’s plan is: what is it for? It’s a non-starter with Democrats and even fellow Republicans are going to think twice about embracing it. After all, they won last year’s midterm elections by scaring seniors into thinking Mr Obama would cut their Medicare benefits. Moreover, there is already an alternative long-term deficit reduction plan available: the one advanced by the Simpson-Bowles commission which has been embraced by a growing band of bipartisan senators. Mr Ryan was a member of the commission, but voted against its report, because it included tax increases and didn’t repeal Obamacare. Today, he offered his alternative, perhaps not as a final offer but in an attempt to drag the debate further to the right. Whether or not it succeeds, the debate is better off for having it.

http://www.economist.com/node/21017628

FD
04-05-2011, 09:57 PM
2)
The CBO scores Paul Ryan
THE federal government has been described as a gigantic insurance company with a side business in security. Its largest fiscal obligations, outside of defence, involve protecting Americans from various risks: unemployment, destitution, illness and lack of education. Paul Ryan’s budget is, ultimately, an alternative to that vision—one in which the federal government would shift many of those risks to the states or to Americans themselves.

That is what emerges, in its own antiseptic way, from the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of Mr Ryan’s proposal.

Since the proposal is most specific and sweeping on health care, that’s what the CBO dwells on. Starting in 2022, Medicare beneficiaries would receive a voucher to pay for private insurance. In the first year of the plan, a beneficiary would pay 61 cents for services that he would have paid 27 cents for under traditional Medicare, while the government contribution is unchanged: 39 cents. Why are they, in combination, paying more for the same services? Because private plans cost more than traditional Medicare. Thereafter, the value of the voucher grows more slowly than health care costs so by 2030 the government is paying just 32 cents while the beneficiary is paying 68 cents for that same set of services.

The federal government, instead of matching the states in paying for Medicaid, would, starting in 2013, switch to block grants that grow in line with population and overall (not health care) inflation. Federal Medicaid spending would be 32% lower in 2022 and 49% lower in 2030 than currently projected. The CBO says:

States would have additional flexibility to design and manage their programs to achieve greater efficiencies in the delivery of care. Because of the magnitude of the reduction in federal Medicaid spending under the proposal, however … states would probably need to consider additional changes, such as reducing their spending on other programs or raising additional revenues. Alternatively, states could [save money by] cutting payment rates for doctors, hospitals, or nursing homes; reducing the scope of benefits covered; or limiting eligibility… [I]f states lowered payment rates even further, providers might be less willing to treat Medicaid enrollees. As a result, Medicaid enrollees could face more limited access to care…. [B]eneficiaries could face higher out-of-pocket costs, and providers could face more uncompensated care as beneficiaries lost coverage for certain benefits or lost coverage altogether.

These cuts have the intended effect. Federal spending on health care is dramatically lower than it otherwise would be. Total federal spending drops to 20.25% of GDP in 2022 and 14.75% by 2050. The budget swings from a deficit of 2% in 2022 to a surplus of 4.25% in 2050. The federal debt declines instead of soaring. The catastrophic consequences of unrestrained entitlement spending are avoided.

However, a huge asterisk must be appended to these figures: much of the CBO’s estimates of revenue and spending are not the result of evaluating particular policies.

Mr Ryan’s staff simply instructed the CBO to assume revenues remain at 19% of GDP. “There were no specifications of particular revenue provisions that would generate that path”, it says. This can be risky. When the CBO analysed Mr Ryan’s Roadmap for America’s Future, it accepted Mr Ryan’s instructions that revenues would rise to 19% of GDP. When the Tax Policy Center analysed the specifics of the Roadmap, it concluded that tax revenue would fall below 17% of GDP. It also concluded that its benefits would accrue overwhelmingly to the most affluent 20% of American families, mostly because Mr Ryan exempted capital gains and dividends from taxation. By contrast, the Bowles-Simpson plan does not, and thus its tax proposal is mildly progressive.

The CBO also notes that Mr Ryan’s staff specified that all spending other than health care, Social Security, interest, defence and security decline from 12% of GDP in 2010 to 6% in 2021, then grow with inflation thereafter. That would cover, among other things, federal civilian and military retirement, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, parts of the earned-income and child-tax credits, and most veterans’ programmes. At a press conference today, Republicans did say that food stamps, housing and some other programmes would, like Medicaid, be moved to block grants.

A commenter on my previous post criticised me for using the CBO’s unflattering score of Barack Obama’s budget in my charts while using Mr Ryan’s own figures for his budget. That’s a fair point, but now that we have the CBO letter, it doesn’t help much because Mr Ryan’s budget lacks so many important details.

The larger picture, however, is quite clear. The federal government's health care bill would become much more predictable and manageable under Mr Ryan’s budget. For individuals and states, the opposite would be true.




http://www.economist.com/node/21017643

Chiefshrink
04-06-2011, 08:31 AM
Honest, excellent thread topic:thumb:

Here is the best endorsement IMO that Mark Levin gives at the very beginning of his show. He say's that Ryan could be our next 'Reagan':thumb:

Well worth the listen:thumb:

http://rope.zmle.fimc.net/player/player.html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpodloc%2Eandomedia%2Ecom%2FdloadTrack%2Emp3%3Fprm%3D2069xhttp%3A%2F%2Fp odfuse%2Ddl%2Eandomedia%2Ecom%2F800185%2Fpodfuse%2Dorigin%2Eandomedia%2Ecom%2Fcitadel%5Forigin%2Fpod s%2Fmarklevin%2FLevin04052011%2Emp3

BucEyedPea
04-06-2011, 08:56 AM
The Economist---> Keynesian economics with a Mercantilist overtone––––> Status Quo!

talastan
04-06-2011, 10:04 AM
Hey Buc I know you're hesitant about Ryan but IMO given the alternatives I'd love to see Ryan tabbed as a VP for 2012 or a Presidential tab in 2016. Other than Chris Christie or either of the Pauls (Ron or Rand) I don't see anyone else that is putting their money where their mouth is. JMO though......

chiefsnorth
04-06-2011, 10:07 AM
Ryan might be the only one in Washington who can lead us out of this mess before Obama and Company send us over the falls. I am very impressed with him.

talastan
04-06-2011, 10:12 AM
I was excited about this guy back in 2006 when he was on some interview on HLN or CNN. His knowledge of the budget and the budget process is second to none in Congress and the Senate and I'm very happy that the GOP chose him despite the concerns of his "radical and extreme" ideas. He is using common sense and is working to avert the disaster that is Europe from coming here to the U.S. if it isn't already too late.

The Rick
04-06-2011, 10:16 AM
Hey Buc I know you're hesitant about Ryan but IMO given the alternatives I'd love to see Ryan tabbed as a VP for 2012 or a Presidential tab in 2016. Other than Chris Christie or either of the Pauls (Ron or Rand) I don't see anyone else that is putting their money where their mouth is. JMO though......

Ryan might be the only one in Washington who can lead us out of this mess before Obama and Company send us over the falls. I am very impressed with him.

I was excited about this guy back in 2006 when he was on some interview on HLN or CNN. His knowledge of the budget and the budget process is second to none in Congress and the Senate and I'm very happy that the GOP chose him despite the concerns of his "radical and extreme" ideas. He is using common sense and is working to avert the disaster that is Europe from coming here to the U.S. if it isn't already too late.

Music to my ears! :)

BucEyedPea
04-06-2011, 01:08 PM
Hey Buc I know you're hesitant about Ryan but IMO given the alternatives I'd love to see Ryan tabbed as a VP for 2012 or a Presidential tab in 2016. Other than Chris Christie or either of the Pauls (Ron or Rand) I don't see anyone else that is putting their money where their mouth is. JMO though......

Look I'll admit that this budget is a start. I will validate that. But based on the longer term track of Republican Establishment congresscritters, I sincerely doubt this man would really roll-back govt. Should we have one party-rule again with the wrong R in office you can bet there won't be any serious long term roll-back. In fact there just may be another war. Ryan is posturing to gain power just as the Ds did when Bush was in office. Time to smell the coffee. We need a more radical R for a president. Ryan is NOT that Republican. Nor is corporatist Bushman Mitch Daniels, Pawlenty or Mitt Romney ( one of the worst of the Rs.) Sorry that's where I am at if you really want to liberate America!

Lzen
04-07-2011, 09:42 AM
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" style="display:block;margin:0" width="320" height="384" data="http://www.kyte.tv/f/"><param name="movie" value="http://www.kyte.tv/f/" /><param name="flashVars" value="p=1011&c=451373&s=1264639&tbid=85300" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="never" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object>

The Rick
04-07-2011, 10:04 AM
Look I'll admit that this budget is a start. I will validate that. But based on the longer term track of Republican Establishment congresscritters, I sincerely doubt this man would really roll-back govt. Should we have one party-rule again with the wrong R in office you can bet there won't be any serious long term roll-back. In fact there just may be another war. Ryan is posturing to gain power just as the Ds did when Bush was in office. Time to smell the coffee. We need a more radical R for a president. Ryan is NOT that Republican. Nor is corporatist Bushman Mitch Daniels, Pawlenty or Mitt Romney ( one of the worst of the Rs.) Sorry that's where I am at if you really want to liberate America!
After the release of this budget, one that contains strong and sound ideas that many in the past have been too afraid to propose, it's hard to believe anyone could consider Paul Ryan to be anything but a little bit radical...in a good and measured way, of course. :shake: