I’m certainly willing to admit that the Republicans’ ideas would eliminate our deficit, eventually. There are only two problems:
- I don’t really think we can wait 50 to 60 years to balance the budget.
- Even if it does balance the budget, is it really worth it if we have to destroy Social Security and Medicare
Well, it turns out the shadow budget won’t reduce the deficit — not even over 50 years. Here’s the thing. When he asked the Congressional Budget Office to score his proposal, Ryan made what could charitably be called a major assumption: He asked the CBO to assume that revenue under the plan would stay exactly the same as it is now. But an analysis by the non-partisan tax policy center shows that’s not even close to reality:
Federal revenues under the Roadmap would decline substantially as a percentage of GDP. Assuming taxpayers choose their preferred tax system, revenue would average 16.1 percent of GDP between fiscal years 2011 and 2015, rising to 16.6 percent by 2020, compared with 20.2 percent under CBO’s January 2010 baseline.
A plan that would have taken 50 years to balance the budget assuming revenues were 20 percent of GDP will lead to major deficits with revenues at only 16 percent of GDP. And in exchange for large deficits, Ryan’s plan will privatize social security and slowly eliminate Medicare.
So if it’s not going to solve our budget problem, why the dramatic overhaul of our budget? Well, for the same reason Republicans always propose things like this: To give as much money as possible to the rich.
After-tax income would rise by 1.5 percent for households in the bottom quintile (the 20 percent with the lowest incomes) but change little for the next two quintiles and go up just 0.6 percent for the fourth quintile. In sharp contrast, the top quintile would see their after-tax income jump 11 percent. Within that group, the top 1 percent would gain an average of 26 percent and the top 0.1 percent a whopping 36 percent. The share of total taxes paid by the bottom 80 percent would rise from 35 percent to 42 percent, while the share paid by the top 1 percent would fall by nearly half from 25 percent to 13.5 percent. [Tax Policy Center]
So in reality, it turns out that Ryan’s plan is simply a vehicle for ending Medicare and depositing that money directly in the bank accounts of the richest 1 percent. I don’t know about you, but I’m not on board.
[via Talking Points Memo]
Jeff:
Just curious. Why do you support the Democrat plan then?
after all it does have $500 billion in Medicare cuts.
It only achieves it’s budget deficit reduction in part by moving a medicare doctor fee in another bill. If CBO had scored that fix with the heath care bill it would’ve added to the deficit as some reporters show.
So if you want to be honest (something which you don’t want to be apparently) the Democrat bill does exactly what you accuse Ryan of.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Please learn to write. Your poor syntax and grammar make it impossible to read your muddled writings.
Also, please qualify the term “some reporters show”. Thank you in advance.
You raise some valid points. While reducing federal revenues to 16% of GDP, in my opinion, is not a bad thing, Ryan’s budget needs to use accurate assumptions instead of wishful thinking. I would love to see the federal budget reduced to 16% of GDP, even if my overal tax bill remained constant. That is, if it effectively shifted the taxes I pay to being controlled inside the beltway to beign controlling in St. Paul. As much as I critique our MN DFL legislators, I trust them many times more than I do Pelosi and other DC Dems.
With that said you keep leaving out one word when you write these phrases. It is very, very important, not trivial, as it is an operative word critical to making an accurate statememnts.
You say more than one that the GOP plans would: “give as much money as possible to the rich”.
You should say: “give as much money as possible back to the rich”
Let’s debate how much taxes should be extracted from the rich. But let’s at least acknowledge it was theirs to start with, the the government is asking for it to be given to them. Same with the middle and lower classes. You earn money, you give some of it to Govt to operate. It was never really the Government’s money.
Great point, Dan. Class-warfare mongering liberals operate under the premise that any hard-earned money anybody makes belongs to the government, and the money the government allows us to keep is a gift from the government. It is very difficult to see how their perception is anything but that this is basically a Communist nation. Now I know that is an inflammatory statement, sure to bring a sound rebuke from the libs here, but really ….. the exact wording was “give the money to the rich”. Think, people!
Class-warfare mongering liberals,,,
It’s evidently only class warfare if the parasitic wealthy elites are being asked to pay their bills. When it comes to the unrestrained redistribution of wealthy to parasitic wealthy elites then it’s what, business as usual.
how much taxes should be extracted from the rich
I like Ike levels but right now, anything pre-Criminal Reagan would be fine.
Your rhetoric is laughable, Richard. When 80% of the cost of running our nation’s government operations is borne by just 25% of our population, and then you claim that 25% isn’t “paying” their bills, you make no sense whatsoever. They are paying their bills, and the bills of many who are less fortunate. We should be thanking the top 25%, not criticizing them.
I sense, through your frequent reference of the “parasitic wealthy elite” that you have an inherent distrust in people who have earned money. Is that so?
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
It’s not an inflammatory statement, it is a fucking stupid statement. Communist nation my ass. You need to read some geopolitical history, boy.
Stupid? Really? I’m not saying this is a communist nation …… yet …… but the notion that the government owns all the money that people earn and then “give(s) the money to (the people who earned it)” as it sees fit is a communist one. What exactly is the philosophy that the government owns everything if not a communist one …… boy?