House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has produced another budget proposal, which unbelievably is worse than his previous one. Ryan proposes to shut down the entire federal government permanently except for the Department of Defense, which gets an increase (despite the fact U.S. military spending exceeds that of every other nation put together, including our allies).
Ryan’s plan would give wealthiest Americans an average tax cut of at least $150,000 a year, increasing our National Debt, while eliminating the safety net that keeps millions of Americans from sinking into poverty.
According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) president Robert Greenstein, under Ryan’s plan the federal government (except for the military) would almost cease to exist by 2050.
That includes everything from veterans’ programs to medical and scientific research, highways, education, nearly all programs for low-income families and individuals… national parks, border patrols, protection of food safety and the water supply, law enforcement, and the like.
That’s beyond extreme and draconian. We need a new word for it.
UPDATE: Robert L. Borosage contrasts Ryan’s insane budget plan with the practical alternative offered by the Congressional Progressive Caucus — “A Budget for All.”
UPDATE: FDL’s David Dayen thinks that Ryan 2.0 might have a tough time on the House floor.
UPDATE: Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) inserted a provision calling for a fire sale of 3.3 million acres of “unneeded” public lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming.
UPDATE: House Passes Ryan Budget 228-191
#1 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2012 - 6:41 pm
Tell me that isn’t our own Jason Chaffetz standing there holding one of this freaks pamphlets.
I hope building gas chambers is in the “defense” budget.
Speaking of new words: a “Fiscy”? How cute.
#2 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2012 - 6:42 pm
Would have been funny to be there watching when Krugman read about this plan.
#3 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2012 - 6:48 pm
Where are the veterans going to get their fancy new legs from?
#4 by brewski on March 21, 2012 - 9:47 pm
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AP037_paulry_G_20120319180907.jpg
Richard,
You’ll have to do better than to link op-ed pieces.
#5 by Larry Bergan on March 21, 2012 - 10:00 pm
brewski:
Please pay attention! Op-ed pieces are the only places you can get the news these days.
You want charts? I got charts:
#6 by brewski on March 22, 2012 - 9:33 am
What does that tell you?
Nixon-Ford: Democratic Congress
Carter: Democratic Congress
Reagan: Democratic Congres
Bush I: Democratic Congress
Clinton: GOP Congress s1995-2001, shut down the government, wouldn’t let Clinton do what he wanted to do
Bush II: Both W and GOP Congress drunk with power and lost their souls. Got tossed out in 2006.
Obama: GOP Congress starting in 2011.
#7 by brewski on March 22, 2012 - 9:42 am
Larry,
Richard quotes numbers from the op-ed pieces which themselves quote the numbers with no attribution. So as far as we know they are just made up.
#8 by Richard Warnick on March 22, 2012 - 10:21 am
brewski–
Bottom line, Ryan’s plan proposes the virtual elimination of the federal government. That’s why I say he’s not serious.
Larry–
Rep. Chaffetz missed the committee vote, and it will be interesting to see whether he votes for Ryan 2.0 when it comes to the House floor.
#9 by brewski on March 22, 2012 - 3:11 pm
CBO calculates that, under the specified paths, federal revenues and spending would evolve as follows:
Revenues-19 percent of GDP in 2050
Expenses-15.75 percent of GDP in 2050
I wouldn’t call that “elimination” of the federal government.
#10 by Richard Warnick on March 22, 2012 - 3:53 pm
No, Rep. Ryan told the CBO to assume that his plan would result in revenues equivalent to 19 percent of GDP. He also instructed them to assume that all federal spending aside from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will fall from 12.5 percent of GDP in 2011 to 3.75 percent of GDP in 2050.
Ezra Klein:
In effect, Ryan has proposed a total and permanent government shutdown except for the Department of Defense.
#11 by brewski on March 22, 2012 - 4:28 pm
You mean the same Ezra Klein who has never held a real job in his life and barely needs to shave?
We should pick a number, let’s say the total US government spending for ALL items can not exceed Bill Clinton’s last budget. So that would be 18.1% of GDP.
Make everything fit around that. No “automatic” or “mandatory” spending. A budget is a budget. Live within it.
#12 by Ronald D. Hunt on March 22, 2012 - 6:20 pm
brewski,
Crap on Ezra Klein all you want, but that fact is Rep. Ryan is inventing arbitrary assumptions that are so far separated from reality that their is no way his numbers can or should be taken at face value.
And no we shouldn’t pick some arbitrary number for the amount of GDP collected in taxes. The government needs the flexibility to change and adapt to the situations that are presented to it. In WW2 we used nearly 23% of GDP, in the future as the baby boomers continue to retire it will likely need to be that high or a little high once again.
And in recessions even if spending stays the same, the percentage of spending to GDP will go up and gross GDP as a dollar amount goes down. Cutting to meet some arbitrary limit is a recipe for disaster. If a million people lose their jobs the answer isn’t to have the government fire another million people and make the problem worse.
With any luck Rep. Ryan will be unemployed next year, would certainly be a just outcome given the crap he believes in. We don’t need his path to poverty plan.
#13 by Larry Bergan on March 22, 2012 - 8:29 pm
brewski said:
Thanks for that admission. The truth always makes for a better discussion. I’m sure you know by now that even Reagan raised taxes after he realized his advisers were idiots.
As I remember it, not a single Republican voted for the Clinton budget which only passed by one vote and actually got us in the black before Bush II stole office.
I think you missed the point of my chart though. It illustrates the fact that Obama hasn’t taken the country into debt ruin which is the bumper sticker talking point of the liars who caused the problems.
Think Grover Norquist and the myriad of fake organizations which have conspired to mislead the American public with positive sounding programs, bills and, organizations which were conceived only to enrich the already rich and their spoiled progeny for decades to come.
Sorry, but some of us have to work!
#14 by Larry Bergan on March 22, 2012 - 8:39 pm
Have you noticed that more and more politicians tell us how hard their fathers or grandfathers worked in the coal mines but never themselves.
At least Clinton came up the hard way and that’s why they tried to define him as a hippie, draft dodger.
If you can remember the list of “Chicken Hawks”, it included every single member of the Bush II administration and everybody in it’s orbit except for Rumsfeld who probably held a desk job and retains all of his limbs.
#15 by Larry Bergan on March 22, 2012 - 8:41 pm
What is Ryan’a hard past story?
#16 by brewski on March 22, 2012 - 8:49 pm
When you say Reagan raised taxes, I think you mean Tip O’Neil raised taxes and Reagan compromised.
You are thinking of the Clinton budgets before the GOP landslide in 1994. Many Democrats such as Bob Kerrey wanted to vote against the Clinton budget since it was so full of pork shit, but they didn’t want to be responsible for bringing down the President of their own party. So they voted for it with their noses plugged.
#17 by brewski on March 22, 2012 - 8:58 pm
What hard work did Clinton ever do? He went to a private school (St John’s Catholic Elementary). He went to Georgetown U (private). He was in a fraternity. Then he went to Oxford, then Yale Law School. Then he was a professor and Attorney General. Not exactly what one would compare to working in the coal mines. He spent his whole life working for the government.
He was a hippie and a draft dodger. Those are facts.
#18 by Larry Bergan on March 22, 2012 - 9:06 pm
Compromised isn’t a bad word, is it brewski? Bush I also compromised on taxes in an age when America used to care about it’s people, but Bush I was unwilling to attack his own son for the ignorance of his entire staff and his idiot advisory except for once. Of course the media reported it once and moved on to missing white women.
#19 by brewski on March 22, 2012 - 9:11 pm
In related news:
http://www.rttnews.com/1845494/german-government-approves-plans-to-balance-budget-by-2014.aspx?type=msgn&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=sitemap
#20 by Larry Bergan on March 22, 2012 - 9:13 pm
brewski said:
There’s only one way to describe it. Clinton was the Elvis of politics. You – yourself – laid out his exemplary accomplishments in school, law, and politics.
Americans LOVE it when somebody goes from rags to riches, and Clinton did it in style.
So has Obama!
#21 by Larry Bergan on March 22, 2012 - 9:47 pm
brewski:
Related news/unrelated news: same thing I guess. *cross-eyed emoticon*
#22 by brewski on March 22, 2012 - 9:51 pm
Obama isn’t even close to accomplishments of Clinton. Clinton was a 2 term governor and AG.
Obama hadn’t done squat.
#23 by Larry Bergan on March 22, 2012 - 10:28 pm
brewski:
Got you to praise Bill Clinton. Quite an accomplishment!
Obama had to work much harder to achieve his status for obvious reasons. If he looked like a white – even though we all know he could have if a couple of genes were switched – it would have been much easier, but maybe you don’t believe in science.
#24 by Larry Bergan on March 22, 2012 - 10:33 pm
If I had my druthers, I would replace Joe Biden with Howard Dean, but I don’t know if there’s any precedent for replacing a white minder.
#25 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2012 - 8:51 am
I honestly don’t know why discussions devolve into personalities. Can’t we just stipulate that there are almost no politicians with admirable character? Then we can talk about their policy proposals instead of who was a draft dodger.
#26 by brewski on March 23, 2012 - 9:42 am
Yes, Clinton is a smart guy. But he didn’t work in the coal mines or anything. He never had a job not working for the government. He also takes credit for things the GOP forced on him. So I laugh whenever I hear him take credit for the balanced budgets and welfare reform. His first 2 years were a disaster, that’s how the GOP swept in. Just like Obama and Pelosi’s disaster caused the GOP sweep in 2010.
Bill Clinton’s opinion of Obama:
#27 by Richard Warnick on March 23, 2012 - 12:20 pm
I’ll bet Willard (“Mitt”) Romney knows a guy who owns a coal mine (or two).
#28 by Richard Warnick on March 29, 2012 - 4:50 pm
UPDATE: House Passes Ryan Budget 228-191.