Paul Ryan’s Budget: The Path to Prosperity?
Guiding Principle 2: Does the budget plan put everything on the table, or are we still creating special exceptions for politically favored programs?
Certainly, unlike other lawmakers, Chairman Ryan has the courage to address Medicare and Medicaid. Yet, the plan barely addresses overspending on defense. Security spending under this plan is the same as under the president’s budget, meaning that Chairman Ryan is accepting the cuts proposed by Defense Secretary Gates. Still, the cuts are only cuts in the increase in spending rather that actual cuts and do not reduce the bloated Defense budget.
Also, the chairman’s plan fails to address the Social Security program — another big autopilot program.
Guiding Principle 3: Does the plan address accounting tricks and budget gimmicks?
At this point, it is hard to say. For instance, at this point I cannot tell if the plan addresses the many budget gimmicks that have allowed lawmakers to spend beyond their means for years by abusing procedures like emergency spending. However, the plan does propose some budget-process reforms — including what looks like strict caps on spending — to make sure government only spends and taxes what “it needs to fulfill its constitutionally prescribed roles.” If these rules are biting and unavoidable, then it will be a step in the right direction to control government spending.
Could the plan have been better? Certainly. Could it have been worse? Most definitely. As far as I can tell, Chairman Ryan’s plan is a good step in the right direction and at the very least a signal that someone in Congress is serious about taking the leap towards addressing the nation’s spending problem.
No doubt Mr. Ryan has done the best he could under prevailing assumptions. But I yearn to hear someone get up on the floor of Congress and ask questions such as “Which clause of Article I, Section 8 grants us the power to spend on this?” — and then go through the litany of entitlements and transfers that have so very nearly bankrupted America.
The Ryan plan lowers taxes for the rich and corporations while doing away with popular entitlement programs and Pell grants and arguably raises taxes on the middle class – all without balancing the budget for 50+ years or longer.
This plan has about a zero chance of ever being made into law, and it opens Republicans up to significant electoral risk and campaign commercials that practically write themselves. Why do people think the GOP will be any more successful selling this, than they were selling SS reform (and then they held the presidency and both chambers)?
A serious plan would have included revenue rises in the form of higher taxation. When your country is at its’ lowest levels of taxation in 50 years or more, arguments that ‘taxes are too high’ are simply ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by anyone. A plan that modestly raised taxes to Clinton-era rates – for everyone – while retaining the cost-cutting provisions would balance the budget 10 times as quickly and provide a significant amount of cover for politicians, who could easily claim that ‘everyone is being asked to sacrifice.’
As it stands this current attempt is a joke; red meat for a hungry base, ignoring the circling wolves beyond the firelight.
Since all Federal taxes are immoral, and we have one of the highest capital gains taxes of any industrial nation, why should we believe that lowering them would be bad?
The Federal government spends about three trillion dollars A YEAR on things it has no moral legitimacy spending money on, most of which are unconstitutional.
Raise taxes? Absurd. Unnecessary, counter-productive, and immoral.
We will see how his proposal to abolish Medicare Medicare goes over with the average oxygen tank carrying, diabetic teabagger (whose treatments and care are Medicare sponsored).
The Republicans are using a temporary budget crisis and the need to slow the rate of Medicare costs over long run simply to abolish the program. That’s a bait and switch. It’s the medical side equivalent of the “private accounts” bamboozle that President Bush used in 2005 to try to phase out Social Security.
Medicare is a federally-backed health insurance program for seniors. Why seniors? Because seniors as a group are just too sick for the private health care insurance sector to adequately provide coverage for. To rein in costs you can reduce benefits that the program provides or place more cost containment measures in place. Real pain is involved in both. But that’s a legitimate area for debate. Medicare is a long term budget problem, unlike Social Security which isn’t.
Or you can decide just to abolish the program altogether. Just eliminate Medicare in its entirety. This is what Rep. Ryan (R-WI) calls “fixing” Medicare, i.e., getting rid of it. Getting rid of it means abolishing the program and pushing seniors back into the private health insurance system and providing a subsidy to help pay the costs of your average 75 year old’s health care. If costs go up? Well, start saving now. Not to mention the administrative costs that private insurers skim off the top (that covers the spa vacations for the CEO and his latest squeeze).
This is called abolishing Medicare. Keep bending over teabaggers, keep bending over. After all your doing it for your children and your grandchildren. Ha! LOL!
I guess Medicaid cuts would really hurt, it wouldn’t be fair right? The difference is Medicare has been contributed to by the people expecting to get coverage. Medicaid is welfare used often by people that are so dumb they don’t know that they and afford children and therefor should not breed. Medicaid also provides care for the children of illegal aliens children that have been born here, remember these people broke the law and USUALLY co not contribute to the system. Why they have too many relatives to support in the country they call hope.
My Medicare? Just give my money back plus interest compounded over the last 40+ years and I’ll move on. I don’t think that can be done because the government has WASTED the money on Medicaid.
Everyone seems go combine the two programs when they are very different. Medicare is paid for by the recipients. Medicaid is welfare paid for by tax payer.
Want to save money? Eliminate Congressional pensions and health care. The same for the President. Let them pay into a 403b or 401k just like us peasants.
I wasn’t talking about Medicaid, I was talking about Medicare. And you are correct regarding the difference between the two programs. One (Medicaid) is based on need, or welfare as you call it, and the other (Medicare) is an entitlement because you paid into the system and are entitled to it when you meet the age requirement (or become permanently disabled). Although I doubt Ryan’s plan for Medicare will ever see the light of day, if I were a senior citizen I would be pretty mad that he plans on balancing the budget on my back. Medicare is a program that works. It has it’s problems but I believe, as do others, that those problems can be worked out without destroying the program, which is essentially what the Ryan plan does.
But it’s okay to bankrupt the country on our children’s backs?
Sheesh.
It isn’t unreasonable for people to expect that a system that they have paid into will pay them their benefit when their time to retire comes. The GOP proposal amounts to a conservative ideological manifesto showing that Republicans intend to cut benefits and programs for the nation’s retirees and neediest citizens while protecting corporate America and the wealthiest people from paying their share of taxes. Democrats will be certain to challenge their budget plan and make its bold efforts to reshape Medicare and Medicaid — the health care programs for older Americans and the poor — a theme of their political argument to regain control of the House and hold the White House in 2012. The only bankrupting going on is tax give aways to corporations, unfunded wars, and welfare for big oil, etc. It’s time they all paid their fair share. As a country we need to have this discussion and I am more than certain, if recent events in Wisconsin indicate (all eight will be recalled), which side the American people will side with.
I’d love to abolish socialized retirement, as Praetorian laments is the plan here. Sadly, that does not seem to be what Ryan is proposing at all.
During the debate over the Affordable Care Act, Ryan latched onto the bill’s cuts — which targeted the inefficient and unnecessary private insurance-administered Medicare Advantage program — and repeatedly attacked reformers for supposedly cutting or raiding Medicare. But don’t take my word for it, see for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYBnieDxGTA&feature=player_embedded
We should give some credit to Ryan, however. He’s not just “cutting” Medicare, or “raiding” it, like he criticized Obama and the Dems for. No half measures for him. He’s going whole hog and abolishing it. Republicans hate Medicare, which means they want old people to die because they cost too much money, money that can be used for tax cuts for the super rich.
It is my understanding that anyone over 55 will not be affected by these changes in entitlements.
You’re onto something with your comment about Medicare, Forgotten Man. Same with SS. People paid into it. If that money had been left alone and allowed to grow, even at a modest rate of interest, it would be solvent. I recall reading years ago that most people would only ever collect about 1/3 of what they paid into SS by the time they died. But Congresscritters of every stripe plundered that honey pot. They robbed everyone.
401k is the way to go. Everyone’s retirement account should stay in private hands. Look to our model in Australia. Our superannuation accounts are individually held. Employers tip in 9% of your gross income. You can defer extra $$ yourself from the top end of your salary, and it will only be taxed at the bottom rate (15%). We have a total population today of 22 million. At least 5-6 million are children. So between say 17 million adults, we collectively have over $1 Trillion in savings. You should transition everyone to private accounts, but cover the needs of those retirees who paid into SS in good faith. There must be many ways to spread the costs around using a series of discounts, vouchers, etc.
Also, look to our health system. We have a two-tiered payment system. At the base is the universal medicare plan. Everyone with an income above $14,000 contributes 1.5% of income to medicare. (Keep in mind the minimum wage in Australia is about $530/week.) There is a 1% surcharge for higher income earners, unless they also have private insurance. One major difference here that keeps costs reasonable is that most of the major hospitals are public. Therefore, they are run as cost centers, not profit centers. There are private hospitals, but they are smaller and less-well equipped. We have excellent quality of healthcare. People come to us from England for cutting-edge procedures.
For visits to your doctor, fees vary, but the medicare reimbursement is the same. You pay difference out of your pocket. If you are on a low income and have a govt-issued concession card, the doctor must accept the medicare reimbursement as payment in full. When I go to the doctor, I pay in full at the time, the doctor forwards the details to medicare on the spot, and the reimbursement is in my bank account within 48 hours. Also, many Rx meds are subsidised, eg. a course of antibiotics costs about $15-20.
Yes, our system has problems. Yes, you sometimes have to wait if your problem is not urgent. If you want immediate treatment, use your private insurance at a private facility. You can also use your private insurance at a public hospital if you want a private room, etc. If it’s later determined that the medicare levy needs to go up to %2 or even 3%, I’d still consider that a bargain, having experienced the US system first-hand. And not having the stress of increasingly unaffordable healthcare is beyond price.
There’s nothing wrong with having a national pool of $$ to share the risks. It’s the same as private insurance, without the expensive offices and high overheads. It’s not a slide into socialism, but rather a prudent investment. You just have to remember that it’s YOUR money. The government is only being entrusted to administer it, not to squander it for partisan purposes. Hold them ALL accountable. Insist on systems that benefit everyone and to which everyone contributes, even if only a little. Remember, the government has NO money. We the people have the money. They are just the clerks. Keep firing them until you get honest ones.
Yes, we should keep screwing our kids over with trillons of debt. Good plan dipshit.
“skim off the top”???
go back to your hovel creep
the entire federal budget exists for your statist idols to skim off the top
social security— ponzi scheme to fund, in perpetuity, the statist takeover
medicare– devolved from “healthcare for seniors” to include every tom, dick, and harry that has a hangnail
and, nincompoop, the tea baggers are fighting to ensure your survival as well however undeserving you are
praetorians = gestapo
|
|—-> who’s your emperor praetorian? Obama? makes sense
The operating cost for Medicare are 4% of it’s budget. The operating costs for the average private plan is 12% of it’s budget. Private insurers also have to turn a profit. Medicare does not. Medicare recipients are more satisfied with the quality of care they receive while others are not. Medicare works and the Republicans just hate it.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/early/2002/10/09/hlthaff.w2.311.short
Praetorian – As you probably know, the comparison between Medicare and private insurers is not a ‘fixed truth’ but is open to debate.
Krugman, who is hardly an objective analyist, does indeed say that Medicare costs are lower than private. But, the Heritage Fdtn report disagrees and their data base is extremely strong.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/06/Medicare-Administrative-Costs-Are-Higher-Not-Lower-Than-for-Private-Insurance
Therefore, your claim that Medicare is ‘cheaper’ is not factual.
Furthermore, I think that your insults (teabagger) devalue the seriousness of your approach and your argument. You know, people who disagree with your perspective merit some respect – not insults.
Did you say the Heritage Foundation? LOL.
‘Praetorian – As you probably know, the comparison between Medicare and private insurers is not a ‘fixed truth’ but is open to debate. ‘
Do not assume he knows anything beyond what he avidly consumes as dogmatic truth in the circles he usually runs in. Especially do not assume that he is capable of integrating any information that conflicts with what he’s told. He is capable of googling all the self-referential support that agrees with what he’s been told to think, but that is not thinking independently. The independent and well documented type of counterpoint that the Heritage Foundation can offer is only going to get a blankeyed LOL response.
but obama loves medicare?
is that why he is taking 300 billion from medicare to fund obama care?
—–
im praying that the government shuts down; everyone can then see for himself how unecessary 99.9% of it is
i have no problem reforming private insurance but ill start listening only when one of the main problems: litigious slip and fall cretins is seriously addressed
and why do libs react to “profits” the way dracula responds to holy water?
Add in the fixed costs that private companies have to cover, versus the costs absorbed by taxpayers.
Play stupid somewhere else, statist dolt.
In all your political wisdom you failed to recognize the millions and millions of [non] old “teabagger” Americans who profit from medicare and medicaid. The millions upon millions of able bodied Americans who game the system for ALL the socialist programs and Social Security.
Contrary to your inferred beliefs, about the only thing not qualifying for federal social handouts is stinky fart syndrom. Check out the list of social security disability qualifiers that in return triggers qualification for medicare, medicaid, SSI, food stamps, housing assistance, etc., for millions of able minded and bodied Americans willing to game the system that was originally for the ‘legitimate’ disabled, blind and aged population of [legal] citizens.
Be really great if folks would invest the time to learn the facts regardless of ones ideological position!
That said, all the socialist handout programs, including social security, should be transitioned out of a government system with caution given to those who are legitmately qualified under the intent of the original legislation. I have NO problems with a strict means test among those aged recipients being implemented during such a transition to non government systems. I also have no problems with a government backed insurance system for a new non government social system, similar to FDIC for non government banks.
Working hard to defend the naked emperor, eh, “Praetorian”? You get paid, or is lying and hatred your hobby?
The people you disgustingly dismiss as “teabaggers” would likely put more effort into the matter than you have. Current and near-future recipients wouldn’t see any change to their benefits.
Actually he is not abolishing any of the entitlement programs. He is proposing a redesign, to get them to stop being a drain on the finances of the federal government. Just look around and see what’s happening, the dollars value is dropping like a stone, soon the governemnt will not be able to borrow any more money because the dollar will be almost worthless. We are headed into a financial abyss, and you want to keep driving there full speed.
I am saving now so I can fly to a country I need to get the treatment I need when I need it.
We should all be saving now.
Q1. Barely scratches the surface.
Q2. 2a. No. 2B. Yes
Q3. No. They were ALL invented by the government or government entities who passed them into law, directed them by fiat, or . . . see Q2b, above.
Prediction, we will not fix this ourselves. An external event, force, or entity will bring down the whole house of cards. The 2008 election, this administration, and the 111th congress have been the perfect storm. It is about to wash up on shore.
Q1. Barely scratches the surface.
Q2. 2a. No. 2B. Yes
Q3. No. They were ALL invented by the government or government entities who passed them into law, directed them by fiat, or . . . see Q2b, above.
Prediction, we will not fix this ourselves. An external event, force, or entity will bring down the whole house of cards. The 2008 election, this administration, and the 111th congress have been the perfect storm. It is about to wash up on shore. Prosperity is a long, long way off.
The nation has a spending problem and it must be brought under control if the citizens are to prosper.
But this is just one prong in a two pronged attack on a government run amok. The second prong may be the more important one and that is government regulation and the web of laws that entangle and throttle us. The out of control budget cannot go on forever, the growth of laws and regulations can.
The time has come for American Revolution 2.0. The budget cannot be ignored, but neither can the other more dangerous threat to our freedom – we are overly regulated and living by legal proscription. Our existence and our life is being defined more and more by the state. Enough.
Absolutely 100% correct. Those are the facts. Everything else here, including the column itself, is just waffling, rationalization, and noise. We’ve little time left to fix it ourselves.
Hey, Praetorian — it would help an adult conversation if you’d avoid the sexual slurs. Or aren’t you interested in that?
Regarding Medicare changes: my folks are 62, so are grandfathered in. However, they are dealing with my great-grandparents’ care needs, and *very few providers will accept medicare clients* around here. They’re worried about being *locked in* to medicare when they retire; I think they’d jump at the chance for a $15k subsidy to purchase *regular* major medical insurance. And if it costs even more than that, such that they can’t afford it on their own, it’s my responsibility to assist them — not yours and not the taxpayer.
But what you’re missing is WE (as a country) DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY to pay fulfill these open-ended unlimited promises in the face of spiraling costs. It isn’t there. We can take 100% of the income of millionaires and above. We can double the tax rate on the entire middle class.
And we STILL WON’T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY to pay for all the current promises — much less Teh Won’s new promises! Things that can’t go on forever…won’t. We have to engineer a soft landing BEFORE the whole house of cards crashes down, and that’s going to involve painful cuts in spending; tax hikes, besides killing economic growth, simply can’t cover the spread.
But go ahead, just bury your head in the sand and yell “Teabagger” while we adults get on with it.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Most medical costs are incurred towards the end. Have you any idea what those costs are, a day in intensive care after a TIA (transient ischemic stroke)? You say you will take care of what ever is above and beyond what the insurance will pay. You are living in a fantasy land!
Basically, what’s going to happen under the Ryan plan for Medicare is that you will be left in the unenviable position of having to tell your parents to consider an early death (the real death panels). Convince your elderly parents and grandparents that dropping dead is their patriotic duty because we just don’t have the money. So go ahead and tell granny that you’re gonna have to cut her oxygen because the money simply ran out.
Praetorian….If only you knew what you’re talking about. I’m betting you don’t even know the factual ratio of dollars spent through the medicare/medicaid system on those who are NOT 62 years of age and those who are 62 + years of age.
The ‘real’ problem of health care costs today is the lack of open competiveness in the health care industry. Insurance, labor unions and the government drive the cost factors of health care! The ‘people’ have no say or influence on any matters of health care costs.
There used to be a time when there were NO health care insurance companies and no government health care systems and folks drove the competitiveness of health care costs. And guess what! Americans across the board received health care evenly whether you had money or no money. Rural communities had NO shortages of doctors and every county seat at the least, had a fourishing hospital.
It sure does help to be a bit informed when challenging issues!
The only real solution is to go to a system of individual health care rather than an employer based health care system and limit any government subsidy to those ‘legitimate’ disabled persons with recurring medical protocols. The only government health care subsidized system should be the veterans system and that should be means tested for all but disabled veterans.
Unless the ‘people’ drive the competiveness of health care like any other industry it will eventually fail due to economic unsustainablity like all other socialist programs.
Or we could pay massive sums to enable the government to break the same news to people (we don’t have the money granny), aka the REAL death panels, only now we have a Moody’s rating of B-, and our smartest, richest people will disembark to other locales outside the USA.
‘You have no idea what you are talking about…You say you will take care of what ever is above and beyond what the insurance will pay.’
Actually, you don’t. Not very good reading comprehension either. What BobinFL said was that if the 15k wasn’t sufficient to cover the cost of major medical insurance, in which case his folks could not afford it on their own – it was his responsibility to make up the difference. Difference in the insurance, not in what the insurance should pay. The meaning was immediately obvious to the casual reader, assuming that reader was reasonably well versed in reading comprehension.
‘Basically, what’s going to happen under the Ryan plan for Medicare is that you will be left in the unenviable position of having to tell your parents to consider an early death (the real death panels)…you’re gonna have to cut her oxygen because the money simply ran out.’
Not being someone who has yet been in the position of having to subsidize any part of their life via their own efforts – weaned from some figurative nanny’s teat, whether Mom’s or the state’s – you have no idea that 15K a year buys a good deal of insurance. Since there are certain high cost coverages that would not apply and need not be part of a health insurance policy at that stage of life – obstetrics for an easy example. And once the market depth is there, insurance companies will service the demand. Money to be made and all. What a great country, huh?
So you see, quite honestly I think you pulled your predictions it out of your a$$. Your opinion is uninformed, shallow, and reflects no understanding of how the real world works – the world outside the subsidized cocoon that’s been your comfort zone all your short life.
And quite honestly, I think you aren’t very smart to begin with.
I have a question: even assuming the legitimacy of Medicaid, why should it be free? Charge premiums of $5-10 per month in order to underwrite some of the cost. That won’t do much, but it’ll do something.
If you don’t fix the ‘system’ and the systems processes you can hardly fix the problems the failed system creates!
The ‘problem’ is NOT the federal governments spending!
The problem is the constitution has been ignored and or corrupted and a large out of control socialist centralized government system that drives spending. A simple ‘reduced funding’ strategic approach is simply moronic as is clearly shown with a divided House, Senate and Executive. The Minority Party simply will not make any headway, much less win.
The GOP and the Tea Party are lost when it comes to formulating a cohesive national government reform strategy. Their SOLE platform and strategy should be centric to returning to a constitutional government and all that entails…nothing more….nothing less!
Their first strategic component should be a constitutional amendment of Article I, Section 8 Commerce Clause, re-wording it to reinstate the recorded intent of the Founders….unabated free inter-state commerce and regulating foreign trade with congressionally declared enemy States (new) and fair economic trade policies. Nothing more…nothing less!
Then, and only then, can you begin to dismantle the unconstitutional federal governments growth and powers that drives the unsustainable spending it gives to itself. The unconstitutional growth and powers of the federal government comes 99.999% exclusively through interpretation abuses of the constitutions commerce clause. Fix that and you can then formulate a transition strategy returning the constitutional powers back to the States and its people and removing the federal government as access for centralized socialist reforms.
Likewise, the GOP governors who have legislative majorities, have made a moronic mistake taking on the labor unions in the way they have. They should have gone for constitutional amendments first to make their States ‘Right-To-Work’ States and restricting labor union powers consistant with the U.S. Constitution….hmmmmm! I think the constitution is more about granting ‘individual’ rights than collective rights and it certainly does NOT grant any person or groups of persons the legal exemption to threaten or extort or otherwise economically damage another party for and kind(s) of individual or collective gain. At any rate, the populist dialog should have been strategically designed to be between the constitution and the ‘desires’ of the labor unions…NOT some construed delusional constitutional ‘rights’ of the labor unions.
“Likewise, the GOP governors who have legislative majorities, have made a moronic mistake taking on the labor unions in the way they have.”
Run for office. Your obvious charm and intelligence would make a sure-thing.
Then you can lecture the people who are actually accomplishing something.
Rob Crawford…..you stated: “Then you can lecture the people who are actually accomplishing something.”
What accomplishments are you referring to? If you’re trying to reference the GOP/Tea Party, I’m not aware of ANY signficant accomplishments having been made other than perhaps winning a majority in the U.S. House….and who have had NO successes in getting any signficant reform bills past the Democrat majority Senate. Have I missed something?
At 82 and having served my country for 32 years in uniform I think I have done my part.
Actually, the Constitution enshrines the individual’s God-given rights and creates a government whose sole purpose is the protection of those rights. This includes the protection from all those who would attempt to infringe upon those rights including — or perhaps especially — government.
Uh no it doesn’t. Absolutely no mention of God in the Constitution. You’re thinking the declaration of independence or just making it up.
The comments in this thread are frustrating. It has taken nearly 70 years for our economy to reach these dire straights and far too many people on the right seem to believe that instantly rolling back every bit of that spending creep will fly.
Ryan has a collossal challenge in front of him and he’s making big gains against a massive headwind, yet he’s somehow not doing enough for some. It’s time to grow up, folks. Half the country opposes our ideas. This requires POLITICS to persuade them into supporting these plans.
Simply smashing the opposition aside, when we don’t have control of anything more than the House is no option at all. If our approach at limited spending and smaller government is correct, it shouldn’t take a great deal of convincing to get a large majority on board with that decision, if they can be shown the predictions of disaster from the radical democrats are nothing but lies. And even if we did control the whole show, forcing our preferred policy on half the country when they don’t want it is the worst example of a failed argument that can be produced.
You’re right on point! There are far better and lasting reform strategies than that the GOP/Tea Party are embarking upon. Maybe the constutionality of the over grown and over reaching federal government? I try to keep people thinking about curing the disease rather than the symptoms but it fall on deaf ears. Government spending is NOT the problem! Congress, the Executive and Judicial branches ignoring the constitution for decades is the root problem! FIX that and the governments ability to over spend becomes a moot issue. Then there is always the constitutional means of the governors or the people convening a constitutional convention to force the government back into a constitutional government by amendments.
The GOP House approach is akin to the town drunk (congress). Jail will keep him in line today but….tomorrow right back to being the town drunk. That approach is NOT an appropriate solution for reforming an out of control and unconstitutional government.
A federal government that is bankrupt with several trillions of dollars being printed and or planned for printing added to bankrupt States, principal debt and interest on the debt, combined with all the real and vast economic problems of a jobless recovery into the distant future, should indicate to folks that the problem and solution is much larger and demanding than the GOP proposal of approximately $700 billion in annual government spending cuts over ten years.
Cleaning up this government with the constitution is the only appropriate solution and there would then be no debate on what gets cut and what spending is constitutionally allowed in the future. If the congress is unwilling then the governors or the people should begin a constitutional convention to get the job done….or at least identify how many States people want America to continue as is and fall.
Want to save money? Reduce contributions to the UN to the level of most other countries, from around 22% down to say 3%. Stop all foreign aid until all programs are reviewed. If it does not directly help the US cancel the program. Include food and medicine in this, there is no reason to feed enemies. Eliminate the Dept. of Education let the states have back thier right to take care if education. Return Food Stamps to stamps from the current card, or make the card day glow orange. Food Stamps are a welfare program and you are not entitled to price when you are on the dole, after all what are you doing to be proud of? Stop all elected officials pensions and health care. The should or could use the same health care as the VA or federal employees. Let them pay into a 403b or 401k. They get a pension after 6 years. Eliminate illegal aliens from all programs, period. This included all public education and health care. You want to help illegal aliens? Buy them a ticket home.
Those are all good suggestions. Did you know that American Muslims are four times more likely to receive assistance than all other groups. Many are not monagamous and many of the checks are sent overseas?
I don’t point this out because I hate Muslims but that our federal entitlement programs are so out of control that we are literally blowing money like an 18 year old in Tijuana!
Paul ryan’s bill is just the start, not the final document to fix all of the problems.
Many Caucasian males are not monogamous. Does that make you less American?
@MTLassen – “And even if we did control the whole show, forcing our preferred policy on half the country when they don’t want it is the worst example of a failed argument that can be produced.” You mean like nobama care??? Gee what a fine idea that was, and how they really worked with all of us who don’t believe in it to get it passed (never forgive, never forget!). Forcing spending cuts must be done by the party in power. The only party that will make those cuts is repub/tea/conservative. So cut we will, and every one of us will feel the pain. HOWEVER, they don’t need to begin with SS/Medicare cuts – cut wasteful government spending, triplicate bureaus and programs (guess what they’ve already been identified), cut the obvious. Now. And get rid of the IRS, put in a national consumption tax, and put all those IRS nazis to work cleaning up social program fraud. Don’t tell me we can’t find any of that!
@TLin KS
The process the Democrats used to force-feed Obamacare onto an unwilling public was a corruption of our Constitutional process and a PERFECT example of the wrong way to enact policy. The result of that breach of public trust was a landslide election that went our way – remember that part?
What you propose is doing the exact same thing, only this time it’ll be better, because it’s our idea, right? Wrong. Pissing off half the electorate is a Democrat strategy that we should all be 100% against. You’re strategy, particularly given the FACT that we only hold the House is a failure on wheels, that would do fatal harm to our position in the short run.
To make change stick requires we do it methodically, reasonably and with the full support of the public. In principle, I agree with much of what you say is where we ought to be. That’s going to take time to achieve and demanding it happens overnight with no control over the Senate or the Whitehouse is a counter-productive wet dream.
Alienation and exposing your side to the obvious and predictable attacks questioning the sanity of wholesale change in basic government function overnight is a dynamite way to get punted back to the minority on a permanent basis. Ron Paul ain’t gonna win, chief. Wish it were so, but it ain’t. Wake up and smell the political reality.
I am an idiot with no good solution. I am sexually frustrated, short and over feed and the love of my life ditched me in high school 40 years ago and I still have not got over it.
The fact that I am not educated is not my fault. BSU was too stupid to see my brilliance.
But Obama is cool.
Recent Change We Have To Believe In
Candidate Barack Hussein Obama’s ambiguous, slick campaign promise of “Change We Can Believe In” had as much substance as George W. Bush’s “Compassionate Conservatism,” Bill Clinton’s “Putting People First,” and Al Gore’s “Prosperity and Progress.”
Of course, slogans are just slogans. Precious little that was compassionate or conservative resulted from Bush’s Democrat-light economic policies, the only people Clinton ever put first were Monica and his other girlfriends, and Gore fortunately never got a chance to strut his version of progress to the American people.
To his credit, Obama has brought change to Washington, more and more radical change than all but his most ardent supporters could have anticipated. Still, he would have been more honest had he campaigned on his socialistic slip of the lip made to Joe the Plumber. He would not have won with the slogan ”Share the Wealth!” but he would have shown some integrity.
Many changes are in progess, though. Reports that food stamp participation on his watch has balooned by 50% certainly prove he is fulfilling that pledge to his constituency.
Obamian foreign policy changes have dominated the news of late principally with regard to Libya where we are now engaged in our third Mideast war which is not really a war but what the White House in a marvel of linguistic distortion terms “a kinetic military action” and not a war.
One more change.
Another dubious but noteworthy change is apparent in America’s Afghanistan real war: Our military has lost 858 soldiers or 60.13 of the total fatalities there since Obama took office twenty six months ago: http://bit.ly/eCLfTG
Maybe he’s actually trying to win that war? Don’t bet on it. Keep in mind, this is Obama.
Something and someone else to keep in mind in this brief look at recent changes in D.C. is the conversion of the Department of Justice under Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder into an agency dedicated and committed to getting even for the long-dead evil of slavery. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4070)
In any Western democracy (where representatives are elected by the people) these kind of budget/deficit reduction plans can’t be adopted. Whether it is Greece, Ireland, or the US these plans are pie in the sky dreams. You want such cuts, get a dictatorship to adopt it and implemented.
That’s the truth, but I think we can’t handle it.
In the above note, a correction: “…adopt it (the plan) and get it implemented.”
And one more point: No economy can withstand the ten-year contraction in economic activity envisioned by such a plan.
In short, it’s either irrresponsible political posturing by a political neophyte, or an implicit call for drastic change to our Constitution and Republic. I wouldn’t mind the latter. It could possibly take care of certain other socio-political ills as well, as a side show.
i nominate the root ’83 as dictator for a week
Yeah, so we shouldn’t even try.
I wonder how much money could be saved if the delivery of all those entitlement programs followed the principles of ‘best practice’. Together with the eradication of duplicate programs it must be a tidy sum ….
Conservatives will be very foolish to diss this plan, since it is the only thing close to fiscal conservatism that we have seen, ever, and it probably is the absolute furthest that anybody will be willing to go.
It seems to hit two very important elements: 1) holding overall spending to a percentage of GDP that has been tolerable in the past, and 2) turning the country-killing unbounded Medicare program into a program with at least some boundaries on future costs.
I would prefer to see at least four other key elements: a) the Christie approach of forcing the criminals to rejustify their thievery annually, b) a balanced budget amendment, c) eliminating defined benefit government pensions, d) accounting standards that aren’t magic and lies.
But if Ryan can get even 25% of what he wants, he will be the greatest American political hero since Reagan.
proreason…I always admire your commitment for whatever you define as conservatism. However, what kind of resolve do you have when it can simply be reversed as a result of any given election outcome in congress?
I remain hopeful that Americans will come to understand that reforming what has become our federal government will require doing so through the constitution. Anything short of that is spitting into the wind and subject to whose ‘ideology’ gets elected into congress as a majority party at any given time.
The GOP has, for the last 50 years systemically abandoned its platform enabling the socialsts to put America in a corner of fight…or flight. I’m of the opinion that the majority are to securly conditioned by the ‘candyman’ that they will not fight him in the end. I hope I’m wrong but small examples such as WI don’t give me much hope. Everybody wants somebody else to sacrifice their candy and not their own.
Reform through the constitution would allow two critical things. 1) Give permanentcy and 2) A means of 2 or 3 decades to systematical transition from the candyman addictions.
Well then.
The only thing to do is give up. Clearly, the situation is hopeless.
They won. We should just bend over and take it.
Proreason…..Its not about giving up! Its about the ‘people’ coming together and demanding that what congress does to reform the government is a plan that is mission centric to cutting the size and authority of the government and….. substantially attacking the critical economic health of the government…..with permanency! Does not one component drive the other? What logical sense is there in doing something that can be totally reversed by a different congressional demographic in 2012, 2014, 2016, etc.?
Again, it is NOT spending that is the real problem! Its the size and imbedded socialist ideology of the government driving the spending…. that is the real problem! How long will it take for folks to wake up and understnad that the spending crisis is only a symptom perpetuated by the real problem?
The current GOP/Tea party strategic approach, especially in the areas of entitlements is only going to get their heads chopped off in the 2012 and 2014 election cycles! The smarter strategy for reforing entitlement costs would be to reform entitlement eligiblity in the [shorter term] making certain that impoverished kids, the ‘legitimate’ physically and mentally disabled and impoverished elderly remain on the rolls of entitlements. This would put the socialist democrats in a real box with most Americans being able to agree with such a ‘humanitarian’ plan in these times of real economic crisis. This alone would achieve the ten year savings being proposed. Add to this a longer term reform plan of constitutionally cutting the size and authority of the federal government over the next two decades of economic recovery.
As it is now, the GOP/Tea Party plan is giving the socialist democrats boatloads of fodder to swing the emotions of Americans against them and their plan.
To further reform out of control health care costs nationally, the GOP/Tea Party should be advancing proposed legislation citing ‘individual’ responsbility/choice to purchase health care insurance, eliminating employer based insurance benefits. This would return the ‘people’ driving the competiveness of health care costs and not labor union, insurance companies and government bureaucrats. Think about this! The people would be in the drivers seat for once.
Anyway, there are far better strategies than what the GOP/Tea Party are coming up with and giving the socialist democrats plenty of fodder to manipulate milions and millions of people….who vote.
I can think of many many cuts in the services provided for congress people. All cars, curtailed retirement payments as well as health insurance and perks such as the junkets to various parts of the world. Why does each president need a library? Eliminate them unless privately funded. Extensive travel, taking along numerous flunkies should be gone as should travel for families. Our government should have to live the same waya the people they serve do. Everything a congress person receives, down to the value of his/her franking privilege should be printed in national and hometown papers.
All that probably doesn’t amount to a fortune but it would make a lot of people feel better.
Also, when people are on the public psyroll, they should should be expected to work a full day, not come in after lunch and work 3 days a week. Since many of us have to give several weeks notice if vacation days will be used, congress should have to do the same.
I’m not going to diss the plan – I’m going to admit that I’m no economist or expert in large complex budgets. I hope to God this or something better growing out of it can be implemented. Have the greatest respect for Ryan, a courageous man.
The sad truth is that we are scared, which makes us emotional over things we don’t clearly see. The potential collapse of the USA tends to interfere with levelheaded thought. Thinking coolly takes a bit of effort.
If there is ever a time for conservatives to hold together, despite our disagreements, this may be it. It isn’t going to accomplish much to nitpick it to death. We all want our elected reps to DO SOMETHING NOW, but the sad truth is that something this big and this messed up is going to be a difficult fix.
My feelings on this subject are quite conflicted.
The Libertarian Party has already fired an email blast saying that Ryan’s plan will add an additional $3 Trillion to our National Yoke. Are we even cutting at the rate that the Obamunists are spending? The GOP Establishment talks about how horrible the Bush Era spending was, then hold it up as the standard that they currently aspire toward. I understand that Ryan can cut as much as he likes with Dems owning most of Pennsylvania Avenue, but how can we say that e are reversing course if we are still adding to our Debt Burden?
I like Ryan, but I wonder aloud just how much he is willing to yield to Republican apparatchiks that embody everything that is wrong with DC.
The success of this plan depends on sticking to the formula over the long term. If Democrats regain power at some point, you can be sure they will abandon the restraints, and commence overspending again.
If you look back to 1974, when the Congress was again, dominated by Democrats, they had no budget passed.
This is their modus operandi; To ignore their responsibility to pass a budget, to rape the taxpayers of the United States, and skim and steal however much they can from established offices and programs like the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve, FHA & HUD, Post Office, Social Security, and Medicare.
They have elaborate money laundering schemes nationally and locally to consolidate their power over voting blocks and constituencies.
Their lies have gone on for so many years, they have minority voting blocks convinced that they are their friends.
Democrat solution to any problem is always MORE CASH IN THEIR POCKETS. If and when they are ever out of office, they’ll have enough money to seek asylum in a foreign country and live lavishly off of all they have stolen from the American fools and stashed away in foreign banks.
Why don’t all these Congressional Democrats just go AWOL to Bermuda to escape the voting process like other States’ Congresses do when going AWOL to other states?
Watching Paul Ryan, I realize how hungry I am for a person of integrity, candor and intelligence to get this nation on track, fiscally and every other way.
I don’t care if his budget plan is judged by some as imperfect, whatever.
Ryan represents a sea change in the not so hallowed halls of Washington DC.
It is enough that he have the Right Stuff and is willing to slug it out in that Nest of Vipers known as the current United States federal government.
Now that’s “hope”, baby.
~signed,
there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch
This discussion brings up another serious shortcoming of representative democracy. It can’t deal with long term solutions which large scale problems (such as extremely high debt/deficit levels) require.
This, as # 15 above points out, is in effect a call for drastic political change, which is coming one way (dictatoship of the right) or the other (dictatorship of the left). Given who’s in power today, my guess is that we have already started to transition (not quite smoothly though) into a dictatorship of the left.
The first thing that gives – a sign if you wish – is free elections (example, Washington State (2010), Colorado (2010), Alaska (2010), Minnesota (2008) Senate races, Conn Governor’s race (2010), Wisconsin yesterday. Electoral fraud is a ‘smooth’ way to transition to such dictatorship. Here’s some references available in the press only during the last two days:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/153079-gop-says-5000-non-citizens-voting-in-colorado-a-wake-up-call-for-states
http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/elections-2008/voter-fraud.htm
As for Wisconsin’s race yesterday, I’m sure more will come out in the next few days.
Voter fraud ? You mean like SEIU registering the same individual multiple times,signing up dead people, registering pets ?
You mean the big democrat party push to get as many illegals voting as possible or to change the laws so convicted felons can vote ?
Apparently, they understand that they can only prevail through fraud and deceit.
I read yesterday that dear departed Walter Cronkite (well not so dear to me, but definitely departed) is still on the voter rolls in New York. A good solid democrat vote, let’s keep him around.
I mean ACORN signing up people multiple times etc. prior to 2008 elections.
Shutdowns and Charades in Washington
What passes for a government in Washington is in chaos as lawmakers debate the budget, the deficit, and a possible government shutdown and the president, when he’s in town, takes potshots at Republicans by calling a bill providing for paying the military ”a distraction.”
The GOP House of Representatives passed another continuing resolution on Thursday to keep the government in business–for a week. The Democrat Senate still has to pass it. The president has vowed to veto it. However, since he and the family may be off again to Williamsburg this weekend on their umpteenth vacation trip, who knows?
Things couldn’t be any more farcical in a banana republic.
Are the Dems paying attention?
The budget is stalemated due to the ineptitude and cowardice of former Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid.
They could have and should have passed the 2011 federal budget in the last session of congress when Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and the presidency and it would already be law. Instead, they chose to diddle and dawdle rather than making some hard spending decisions so that Republicans would be saddled with those choices and have the shutdown albatross hung around their necks.
If Democrats haven’t noticed, the country is on the fiscal ropes. We owe $14 trillion to various people, we borrow 40 cents for every dollar we spend, we’re running a $830 billion deficit, ($113 billion more than last year at this time), and Democrats are quibbling over $12 billion in cuts? Then, adding insult to injury, our flip president flips off a citizenry struggling with a recession, unemployment, and gasoline prices well through the roof by advising motorists to “Think about a trade-in”?
May they eat their cake, too?
As far as fiscal sanity is concerned, Democrats haven’t seen nothin’ yet! If they get their panties in a wad over $12 billion, what are they going to say and do when Rep. Paul Ryan (R, WI) presents his proposals for fiscal 2012 and beyond? . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=4095)