Again, first off, I'm not sure why this guy is the person anyone looks to for important policy decisions:
Truthfully, my tastes in music can be pretty crappy, too... but I don't like Nickleback. While this picture has been around awhile, I feel like it's important enough to always keep it fresh in our collective memory. That being said, looking over the specifics of his proposal, I feel like we're listening to a skipping record. Or for the kids out there - I actually have no idea what glitch of the new millennium creates the same effect as a skipping record.
So going over specifics, essentially privatize Medicare, go to a two-tiered flat tax system, eliminate the corporate tax, repeal Obamacare, Growth™, and of course, increase defense spending. It also states that fixing this country's long-term financial solvency requires the passing of the Keystone pipeline. Not sure why that specific measure solves our ills but might as well tickle the conservative junk while putting a list together.
Here's why his budget is kind of bullshit and it doesn't take a PhD in addition and subtraction to see that. First, seriously... we have to increase defense spending beyond what we spend now? Not even lock it in at current more-than-the-next-umpteen-countries-combined levels? We have to eat social program cuts to make room for more defense growth? Privatizing Medicare by giving subsidies to seniors to go get reamed on the open insurance market because they are exactly the group of people it makes no financial sense to insure? And while doing this, taking away the power any large purchaser has to pressure prices downward?
Paul Ryan understands the political sensitivity surrounding Medicare:
"The other side will demagogue this issue. But remember: Anyone who attacks our Medicare proposal without offering a credible alternative is complicit in the program's demise," (Ryan) wrote.Of course, anyone who votes for his budget is also complicit in Medicare's demise since he want's to privatize it away.
Beyond that, the Ryan plan specifically builds in a 3.4% increase in government spending each year that will be covered by an ever growing economy that Republican estimates predict. I think Republican estimates have a rather poor track record in recent history, and while past outcomes don't necessarily predict future outcomes, it should make us question their methods for analyzing data. Growth is a proven tool for balancing budgets, it's what allowed President Clinton to successfully achieve a budget surplus back in the day, but it doesn't just happen and it's never a guarantee.
I'm not saying Ryan doesn't have a point, our government spending is pretty nuts, and some of his points definitely have economic reasoning behind them regardless on whether you agree (like eliminating the corporate tax rate and simplifying the tax code - although who knows if bullshit loopholes are a part of this simplification or if it's just a ploy to get the wealthiest tax payers into a lower bracket).
I guess what I'm saying is that Rep. Ryan isn't sincere in stating his point. Like many politicians in both parties who address the federal budget, Ryan's math won't work. Part of why it won't work is because balancing the budget is secondary to pushing his conservative agenda, which leads him down paths that don't really make sense. His budget also isn't truly something that fits the nation as a whole, just a slim constituency in wealthy and/or defense circles. I bet Ryan would give hot oil massages to deficit spending if it meant repealing Obamacare, outlawing abortion, giving the wealthy tax cuts, and making it rain for the defense industry, and I bet he wouldn't be too concerned if the United States as a whole went down the toilet in the process.
Obviously I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but I see a budget as a plan to figure out how to afford what it is you want and what many people want in this country amounts to safety nets and infrastructure. Good schools, well-trained and adequately staffed police and fire departments, roads and bridges, broadband internet, affordable health care, affordable educations, and a defense strategy to protect us from outside harm. There's also multiplier effects from government spending that can create more growth in the long run, a key to Ryan's plan, but proven methods to accomplishing growth (especially now that the cost of incurring debt is essentially zero) seem repulsive to the conservative nature.
What bothers me about the Ryan budget is that all he's doing is slashing social programs to make room for his pet projects and ideas. It's privatization uber alles regardless of whether privatization fits the problem. It wouldn't feel quite so disingenuous if I could believe this truly marked a starting point for debate. But given how Republican Congressional politics often reminds me of stubborn toddlers, the "my way or the highway" brinkmanship that's sure to follow makes this initial offering even harder to swallow.
The phrase "good faith" no longer applies to Congressional Republicans, and I fully expect the ensuing budget debates to be one of those laughing and crying at the same time tragedies.
