Precise News Ticker

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal is "Gutsy" Newt is Wrong and a Bonehead

Paul Ryan may NOT be the Strongest, Most Consistent Conservative Republican that we have in the House of Representatives but he's Not a Moderate Rino. Paul Ryan is Not the Worst either. He has made mistakes and he has done some really great things as well. 
My Point is, At Least Paul Ryan Worked Many Long Hard Hours on a Budget Proposal that is actually Good. Rather than just talking in Vague sound bites of what could be done or needs to be done in the hypothetical world.  Many Politicians and Bureaucrats are not even doing that much. 
So Ryan takes a shot at it and really hits a Home Run Ball right out of the box. 

What Ryan is proposing to do with his budget proposal is Great when You look at it "By the Numbers" written April 5, 2011 10:50 A.M. By Andrew Stiles of National Review Online. 
And here's what the Numbers say Representative Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal does IF Accepted:

Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget, “The Path to Prosperity,” is an impressive document aimed at fostering economic growth and sustainable government. Here are some of the numbers that jump out:

$6.2 trillion — Amount of spending cuts proposed relative to President Obama’s 2012 budget request.

$5.8 trillion — Amount of spending cuts proposed relative to the current CBO baseline.

2008 — Ryan’s plan would bring non-security discretionary spending to below 2008 levels (pre-stimulus, pre-bailout, pre-Obama).

20 percent — Target spending levels (as a percentage of GDP).

$4.4 trillion — Total deficit reduction over 10 years called for under the plan, compared to $4 trillion under Bowles-Simpson and just $1.1 trillion under Obama’s 2012 budget.

$4.7 trillion — Total debt reduction relative to Obama’s budget.

$178 billion — Amount of saving achieved in the Defense Department budget, per the recommendations of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, $100 billion of which would be reinvested, the rest used to reduce the deficit.

$750 billion — Total savings achieved through Medicaid reform, in the form of block grants to states, giving governors greater flexibility in their budgets.

2022 — Year that proposed Medicare reforms would take effect.

25 percent — The top tax rate proposed for both individuals and companies.

18-19 percent — Target revenue levels (as a percentage of GDP), in keeping with historic average levels.

$800 billion — Total amount of tax increases eliminated by repealing Obamacare.

1 million — Private-sector jobs created over the next year.

4 percent — Projected unemployment rate by 2015.

$1.5 trillion — Projected growth in real GDP over the next decade.

$1.1 trillion — Estimate increase in wages over 10 years, yielding an average increase in income of $1,000 per year for each American family.

10 percent — Proposed reduction to the federal workforce over the next three years.

$120 trillion — Total debt reduction by 2050 relative to Obama’s budget.

If that doesn't impress you, This is what Representative Paul Ryan had to say in defense of his own proposal:

"Congress is currently embroiled in a funding fight over how much to spend on less than one-fifth of the federal budget for the next six months. Whether we cut $33 billion or $61 billion—that is, whether we shave 2% or 4% off of this year's deficit—is important. It's a sign that the election did in fact change the debate in Washington from how much we should spend to how much spending we should cut.

Steve Moore has the details on Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to cut spending.

But this morning the new House Republican majority will introduce a budget that moves the debate from billions in spending cuts to trillions. America is facing a defining moment. The threat posed by our monumental debt will damage our country in profound ways, unless we act.

No one person or party is responsible for the looming crisis. Yet the facts are clear: Since President Obama took office, our problems have gotten worse. Major spending increases have failed to deliver promised jobs. The safety net for the poor is coming apart at the seams. Government health and retirement programs are growing at unsustainable rates. The new health-care law is a fiscal train wreck. And a complex, inefficient tax code is holding back American families and businesses.

The president's recent budget proposal would accelerate America's descent into a debt crisis. It doubles debt held by the public by the end of his first term and triples it by 2021. It imposes $1.5 trillion in new taxes, with spending that never falls below 23% of the economy. His budget permanently enlarges the size of government. It offers no reforms to save government health and retirement programs, and no leadership.

Our budget, which we call The Path to Prosperity, is very different. For starters, it cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president's budget over the next 10 years, reduces the debt as a percentage of the economy, and puts the nation on a path to actually pay off our national debt. Our proposal brings federal spending to below 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), consistent with the postwar average, and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion.

A study just released by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to Prosperity will help create nearly one million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade. It spurs economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade. According to Heritage's analysis, it would result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year.

Here are its major components:

• Reducing spending: This budget proposes to bring spending on domestic government agencies to below 2008 levels, and it freezes this category of spending for five years. The savings proposals are numerous, and include reforming agricultural subsidies, shrinking the federal work force through a sensible attrition policy, and accepting Defense Secretary Robert Gates's plan to target inefficiencies at the Pentagon.

• Welfare reform: This budget will build upon the historic welfare reforms of the late 1990s by converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant that lets states create a range of options and gives Medicaid patients access to better care. It proposes similar reforms to the food-stamp program, ending the flawed incentive structure that rewards states for adding to the rolls. Finally, this budget recognizes that the best welfare program is one that ends with a job—it consolidates dozens of duplicative job-training programs into more accessible, accountable career scholarships that will better serve people looking for work.

As we strengthen and improve welfare programs for those who need them, we eliminate welfare for those who don't. Our budget targets corporate welfare, starting by ending the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that is costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. It gets rid of the permanent Wall Street bailout authority that Congress created last year. And it rolls back expensive handouts for uncompetitive sources of energy, calling instead for a free and open marketplace for energy development, innovation and exploration.

• Health and retirement security: This budget's reforms will protect health and retirement security. This starts with saving Medicare. The open-ended, blank-check nature of the Medicare subsidy threatens the solvency of this critical program and creates inexcusable levels of waste. This budget takes action where others have ducked. But because government should not force people to reorganize their lives, its reforms will not affect those in or near retirement in any way.

Starting in 2022, new Medicare beneficiaries will be enrolled in the same kind of health-care program that members of Congress enjoy. Future Medicare recipients will be able to choose a plan that works best for them from a list of guaranteed coverage options. This is not a voucher program but rather a premium-support model. A Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare, to the plan chosen by the beneficiary, subsidizing its cost.

In addition, Medicare will provide increased assistance for lower-­income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks. Reform that empowers individuals—with more help for the poor and the sick—will guarantee that Medicare can fulfill the promise of health security for America's seniors.

We must also reform Social Security to prevent severe cuts to future benefits. This budget forces policy makers to work together to enact common-sense reforms. The goal of this proposal is to save Social Security for current retirees and strengthen it for future generations by building upon ideas offered by the president's bipartisan fiscal commission.

• Budget enforcement: This budget recognizes that it is not enough to change how much government spends. We must also change how government spends. It proposes budget-process reforms—including real, enforceable caps on spending—to make sure government spends and taxes only as much as it needs to fulfill its constitutionally prescribed roles.

• Tax reform: This budget would focus on growth by reforming the nation's outdated tax code, consolidating brackets, lowering tax rates, and assuming top individual and corporate rates of 25%. It maintains a revenue-neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of deductions and loopholes that distort economic activity and leave some corporations paying no income taxes at all.

This is America's moment to advance a plan for prosperity. Our budget offers the nation a model of government that is guided by the timeless principles of the American idea: free-market democracy, open competition, a robust private sector bound by rules of honesty and fairness, a secure safety net, and equal opportunity for all under a limited constitutional government of popular consent.

We can reform government so that people don't have to reorient their lives for less. We can grow our economy, promote opportunity, and encourage upward mobility. This budget is the new House majority's answer to history's call. It is now up to all of us to keep America exceptional."

Mr. Ryan, a Republican, represents Wisconsin's first congressional district and serves as chairman of the House Budget Committee.
This was written by Paul D. Ryan on April 5th, 2011 in the Wall Street Journal.  Please see the original Posting at:

Ignore the critics and pundits.  Look over Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal Yourself.  Then decide if it's a step in the right direction or not.  The very least that it is, is a Great Start!  I don't think anyone or everyone thinks this Budget Proposal is Perfect or the End-All, Be-All Fix America Needs but that doesn't mean it's Not any Good.  These same critics, skeptics and pundits that are knocking, knit-picking and lamenting over how this budget proposal isn't good enough or the cuts are big/deep enough.  They're just wrong.  They couldn't be More Wrong. 

I Don't Respect or Honor Most of these Critics,Skeptics or Pundits anyways because as Much as they Knock it, Knit-Pick and Lament over Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal, they Fail to offer or produce a Budget Proposal themselves.  Or worse yet, they offer even worse plans that literally have a chance at going absolutely Nowhere with no support.  Ryan's Plan was voted on and supported by All Republicans in the House except for Four Representatives.  Big deal.  That is still a overwhelmingly large majority who agrees with Paul Ryan's plan.

The attacks on Paul Ryan's Voting Record in the House of Representatives is unacceptable.  These Nobody hacks want to shoot spit wads at Paul Ryan from the back of the room all the while not doing or trying to add something positive or workable to counter Ryan's Plan. 
Some of Ryan's Biggest critics are Libertarians who don't think his plan goes far enough or cuts deep enough. 
Where's the Proposal from the Libertarians? What Federal Budget have they submitted?
I'd argue that they don’t' have one or the one Libertarians Propose is too extreme/radical.  It simply would Not be considered at all. Conservatives are Realistic and learn from history.  Budget Proposals have to be Practical, make sense and be Reasonable or They‘ll Never be Passed.
This Budget Proposal Might Not be Perfect and has room for improvements but at least it's on the table and being considered. The American People can look at it and start talking about what they like and don't like about it.  It's a Great Start and should be regarded as a Good try even if it also ends up failing to get passed. Ryan took a shot and I think it is a Good one.

This is an example of a “Hit piece” Against Paul Ryan is directed at the wrong person at the wrong time.

At least Paul Ryan put this kind of budget proposal together and out to the public. Now it’s out there in the media, in DC and being discussed by interested parties everywhere.

Meanwhile, Where’s Mark Hinkle’s Brave and Courageous Fiscally Solid Budget Proposal that we could compare it with? It doesn’t exist? There isn’t one available? How can this be? Certainly Mark Hinkle wouldn’t speak ill of another Patriot’s Honest attempt to get America in a Better Direction without having a More Perfected Model to compare to?

This is the Problem! Libertarians always attack the wrong people at the wrong times. They’re unbalanced and unreliable. They claim to be “Constitutionalists” only to twist and pervert the Constitution to be what it Should be to them Not how it really is and was intended by the Founding Fathers.

The Founding Fathers were Not Libertarians. Not even close. The Framers of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were Conservatives. That’s a Fact! Libertarians go too far in their quest to Isolate America in Foreign Policy and would Grant Far Too Many Personal Freedoms that are Not Moral such as Prostitution, Gambling, Drugs, Gay marriage and Abortion. Libertarians think it’s ok and just swell for an individual to destroy themselves with Drugs, Prostitution, Gambling, Marry whoever You like and have Abortions on demand. They feel the Federal Government has No Right to Interfere or Limit such activity. Conservatives disagree. Conservatives believe in the Rule of Law, a Limited Government, Moral Order and a Civil Society.

There are plenty of Solid, Quality, Consistent Conservatives in America Who Admire and Respect the effort Paul Ryan has made with this Budget Plan.  Among them are Mark Levin, the Heritage Foundation and Most of the Republicans in the House & Senate Who have gone on the Record in Support. 

I find myself in agreement with them and challenge the critics, skeptics and pundits to offer a better plan that is reasonable and practical enough to win over the approval of Congress or more Importantly, the American People.  That's it.  That's My Argument and Challenge to them.  Take it or leave it. 

In the Meantime, Related Links to this Topic I Googled:

Ten Myths of Ryan’s House Budget Plan  Published on May 13, 2011 by Brian Riedl , Robert Moffit, Ph.D. and Romina Boccia 

G.O.P. Blueprint Would Remake Health Policy
By ROBERT PEAR  Published: April 4, 2011
WASHINGTON — The proposal to be unveiled by House Republicans on Tuesday to rein in the long-term costs of Medicaid and Medicare represents a fundamental rethinking of how the two programs work, an ambitious effort by conservatives to address the nation’s fiscal challenges, and a huge political risk.

Proposed federal budget would cut transportation spending by 31 percent
Posted by Steve Hymon in Policy & Funding on April 5, 2011 - 12:37 pm

First Blood (Paul Ryan's budget is a good first step to build on)
National Review ^ 02/08/2011 The Editors
Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2011 8:39:07 AM by SeekAndFind

Washington Post’s Matt Miller says “roadmap doesn't balance the budget until the 2060s and … adds an unthinkable $62 trillion to the national debt between now and then.",0,679456.column

Except in Jeopardy!, questions usually come first, followed by answers. Likewise, when criticizing public policy studies and their underlying methodologies, it typically helps to see the policy study and methodology used before one embarks on criticism.

Today at 8:37 a.m. ET, Matt Yglesias of the Center for American Progress’ Think Progress blog released a critique of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA) econometric analysis of the federal budget for FY 2012 proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). Yglesias’ posting preceded Heritage’s public release of the CDA’s study and the detailed description of how we prepared our analysis. In the interest of answering questions after they were asked (before our study was released), we sat down with Bill Beach, the director of Heritage’s CDA, for some Q&A in response to criticisms and questions concerning our study:

Q: What did CDA use in preparing its analysis of the Ryan budget?
A: We used the same economic model that is employed by leading government agencies (Energy, Treasury, Labor, Office of Management and Budget) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The model is the Global Insight U.S. Macroeconomic Model, which has been in widespread use among government agencies and Fortune 500 companies for over 40 years. Its commercial success is a measure of its award-winning accuracy.

Q: Why should anyone believe the CDA’s estimates on the Ryan budget when CDA predicted job growth from enactment of President Bush’s tax plan in 2001 that did not materialize?
A: For all of its strengths, the Global Insight model is not designed to predict dot-com bubble bursts, terrorist attacks, or foreign wars — and following the CDA estimate of the effect of the Bush plan, the nation had the dot-com bubble burst, the 9/11 attacks, the war against terrorists around the globe, war in Afghanistan, and war in Iraq. None of those events was foreseeable when CDA published its estimates on the Bush economic plan in January 2001. However, the model has a good track record of predicting where the trends of the economy are leading us and how those trends would be affected by policy change. That’s why the CBO and other government agencies, like the Energy Department, use this model.

Q: Is the Ryan budget plan similar to the Bush economic plan of the last decade? Can you compare economic analysis of one with the other?
A: Mr. Yglesias lays part of his argument for not believing Heritage’s analysis of the Ryan plan on the claim that it’s like the Bush plan: a “myriad of tax cuts for the rich….” While President Bush’s plan contained lower taxes for everyone as does the Ryan budget, the similarity ends there. Rep. Ryan advances fiscal responsibility on two fronts: spending cuts and tax reform. The Bush plan did nothing on the spending side. In fact, spending under President Bush increased dramatically and that spending, coupled with accelerated spending and borrowing under President Obama, has contributed to the fiscal imbalance that the Ryan budget is trying to unwind. Thus, our analysis of the Ryan plan differs significantly in scope from work we’ve done in the past on other economic plans.

Q: Won’t just the rich benefit from the Ryan budget plan?
A: As our analysis shows, job creation and income growth will be widely shared under the Ryan plan.

This was the Critic that was Proven Wrong…..Mr. Yglesias of THINK PROGRESS

Here is the Actual CDA’s Study/Economic Analysis:
In Closing, My Main Point and Challenge I'm presenting with this Extremely long and researched blog post is the critics, skeptics and pundits who are attacking Ryan's Budget Plan are Wrong, Misguided, counter-Productive and Self-Serving.  Until I see their Budget proposal they submit to the public for approval.
This will continue to be My Answer to them.  Thank You.

Government According to President Palin

DanRiehl: Government According to President Palin