Following up on yesterday's coverage, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has released his caucus' new budget plan, and there's no shortage of wonky analyses to check out. Ezra Klein had a good piece this morning, for example, noting that the GOP vision punishes the poor severely, while Jonathan Cohn details the brutal effect Ryan's cuts would have on Americans' health care.
But folks also shouldn't miss the analysis from the CBPP's Robert Greenstein, whose reaction to the Republican plan was simply devastating.
The new Ryan budget is a remarkable document -- one that, for most of the past half-century, would have been outside the bounds of mainstream discussion due to its extreme nature. In essence, this budget is Robin Hood in reverse -- on steroids. It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation's history). [...]
Chairman Ryan says these changes in domestic programs are necessary due to the nation's severe fiscal straits. The nation's fiscal straits, however, surely do not justify massive new tax cuts for its wealthiest people alongside budget cuts that would cast tens of millions of less fortunate Americans into the ranks of the uninsured, take food from poor children, make it harder for low-income students to get a college degree, and squeeze funding for research, education, and infrastructure. Under Chairman Ryan's budget, our nation would be a very different one -- less fair and less generous, with an even wider gap between the very well-off and everyone else (especially between rich and poor) -- and our society would be a coarser one.
It need not be this way. In 1990, 1993, and 1997, policymakers enacted major deficit reduction packages that reduced deficits in a more balanced way, without increasing poverty. Deficit reduction does not require the Scrooge-like, Gilded-Age policies that the Ryan plan embodies.
It's worth noting that Greenstein is not a wild-eyed ideologue or partisan bomb-thrower; he's one of Washington's most respected budget experts. He's not prone to hyperbole or rhetorical excesses, so when Greenstein uses language like this, it's only because of the unusual extremism of the policy agenda itself.
I'd note just one other angle to keep in mind. For three years, we've heard incessant talk from the right, accusing President Obama of pursuing a radical socialist agenda that would turn the United States into a country most of us wouldn't recognize. It's always been ridiculous -- love Obama or hate him, his vision is entirely mainstream -- but the Paul Ryan plan reminds us how ironic the charges are, too.
There's only one group of people in Washington who are eager to overhaul the nature of the American experience. They're called House Republicans.
Leave a Comment:
Reading the Ryan Budget Plan reminds me of the brain dead fiscal policy of the Royal Court of late 18th century France. How did that work out for Marie Antionette and her husband?
The Ryan Budget is an open invitation to riots in the streets. It is utterly irresponsible.
but the increase in military spending will allow a crack group of riot police.
So Ron, you read the Ryan Budget?
Did you also read the budgets proposed by any other Washington officials?
On the second question I'm betting NO because for over 1000 days Washington has run with out a budget being passed or even proposed by the dems. Good job Dems.
The Ryan Budget could possibly cause riots in the streets just like in Greece. Why did that happen, because the government spent themselves into oblivion just as our government is doing to us.
For you uninformed, we don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem, I know you dems don't understand but there is a difference.
chemmd - good luck reducing the debt by only cutting spending, or by cutting both spending AND revenue, like some are talking about. Brilliant economic minds at work there.
even if the democrats were to put a budget on the table the republicans would shoot it down, just like they have everything for the past 4 years. I'm sick of the pissing contest. ALL parties included.... Just fix the problem. put people back to work, make the wealthy pay the same percentage the poor pay in taxes, tax the hell out of those companies that outsource work to other contries that could be done right here. I'm so freaking tired of greedy, fat cat, deep pocket, criminals..... and yes i say criminals. To me... it's criminal to sufficate the average people who stuggle day to day, just to pay for groceries inorder to make another buck on top of their already over abundance of wealth. America is supposed to be a family. All American's are in this together, and a family takes care of their own.
Oh, how silly of me. I thought we were taking in less money than we're spending, when it turns out we're actually spending more money than we're taking in!
Of course that is a huge difference and totally not exactly the same thing.
@chemmd,
Please tell me that you and your family & friends are NOT going to collect social security, that you have enough money to pay for your medical needs in retirement, and that you've socked away enough money to provide for your "old age"! Since that's probably not the case, let US take a look at economics 101: 1) two sets of tax cuts targeted to the top 1% of Americans - oh by the way that wasn't "paid for", 2) two needless unnecessary wars to further enrich the top 1% of Americans - again not paid for, 3) a bloated Defense budget that's done nothing except to gift money to the Military-Industrial-Complex, 4)billions gifted to already profitable industries OIL/GAS/PHarMa - none of this has been "paid for" for the last decade!
Second, you have obviously been drinking the FAUX NOISE kool-aid, which you should stop immediately! We here in this nation need a bit of "nation-building" - you know roads, schools, bridges, public transportation, upgrades to our energy grid, et.al! There are endless ideas of nation building within Americas shores - all we need are people that are concerned about this nation more than they are about "ideology" especially a failed ideology that hasn't worked in the 30+ years that it's been shoved down our collective throats!
Catherine ... BOTH parties aren't responsible for the gridlock in Congress. Most of the fault lies with the Republicans, who refuse to compromise or work in good faith toward legitimate solutions.
It isn't that the Dems don't bear a very minor share of the responsibility, but there isn't an equivalence between the two. Most of the time, when the Democrats are being recalcitrant about something, it's in an effort to protect the middle and lower classes by stopping some extreme proposal advanced by the GOP.
@ Zora
Thank you!!!!!!
@mpguy
Sweeheart, i am from the sticks your gonna have to dumb that down a little for me, but i get it and totally agree. right now, me and my mom are having that same argument. She is a fox news watcher and when i do watch i watch everthing fox included, but i agree.
@ Grant
Yeah, we are spending alot of money. There are alot of people right now that are out of work, on medicaid, medicare, social security, food stamps, ect. WHY??? There has got to be a better way to fix the problem without forcing average ppl who don't make above 20,000 a year to suffer more. Those ppl.... are the backbone of this country. Without them, these corporations would not be able to run.
Sigh w/ this again. Do people not realize that government spending can't exist unless a budget is passed? Seriously?
@Mouzer
Of course...lol, i have to have a budget within my own hosehold. I agree, there does have to be a budget, but we have to budget responsibly. I wouldn't not pay my house payment because i'd rather spend it on getting my hair and nails done. There needs to be some priorities. My future and my family's future just happens to be in my list of priorities though.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
@Grant, nice play on words, but it means you missed the point.
When someone spends more than he takes in, there are 2 solutions. a) Earn more money and b) spend less money. People who want to raise taxes on the 1% think the answer is to "earn" more money. Ryan (& you) think the answer for America is to spend less money. That is a huge difference.
BTW Ryan really wants to earn less and spend less at the same time. I have seen figures that the amounts are just about the same. So how does that balance to budget? It doesn't. It is all an excuse to do what he wants to do anyway!
BTW again, this nation has one of the highest percapita GDPs that any nation has ever had. It is awash in money. Repubs claim it is broke meaning out of money. How can the richest country of all time be broke? We Dems answer that, by saying that for the last 30 years all the additional income (adjusted for population growth and inflation) has been sucked up by the 1% and their tax rates have gone down. So the gov. is not taxing that income as it should. It apears broke because it has left tax money laying on the table.
I say go back to the tax rates and to the tax brackets (adjusted for inflation) that we had when this country was sitting on top of the world. That is when Eisenhower was President.
@steve
That was well put and exactly the way i feel. why is it soooo hard for republican minded ppl to see that. the excuse i keep hearing is that the 1% are the employers and if you tax them more then they wont hire more ppl and unemployment will grow.... how do you difuse that responce?
The short answer is that the 1% use the money to build large/huge new factories overseas not here. So the jobs created are overseas. They can do this because US trade policy, alone in the world, keeps import duties way too low and therefore can't build stuff here for our market even. For 200 years we had a protective tariff and it worked. The rest of the world still does. Ideology drives the Repubs.
In the short run jobs are created here when demand is high enough that small businessmen have to hire more staff to keep up with it. So, the gov. needs to take money from the 1% and spend it so the 99% get it, so they can spend it and create demand. In the long run we need a proper trade policy that allow businessmen to build things here at least for our market.
Thank you, Rachel ! ! !
Anyone remember the days when the Republicans controlled both congress and the presidency- and slashed spending, balanced the budget, eliminated the debt?
Me neither.
nope. as i recall.... bush cut the taxes on the wealthy. if they would pay their fair share, i bet that would knock a hole in the deficiet....
There is a big difference between a small-government conservative and a fiscal conservation. There is nothing fiscally conservative about Chairman Ryan or his policy choices.
In about 10 years, the tea baggers will finally realize what they voted for - when they are trying to get by on reduced social security and medicare coupons.
I'm sad to say, my parents are some of them, but your right... they will find out.
In that same time frame of GOP rule, Disney or Universal will have opened Freedomland. A nostalgic look at the lost dreams of mainstream America.
Ok, here is a question....
A man, dirty from working all day, walks into the store to buy a soda, with what change he has found in his pockets and in the floor board of his beat-up truck, because he is thirsty. He brings home a small parcheck a week in order to feed his family. He pays $1.07 for his bottle of soda. Then, a man wearing a business suit comes in the store and buys the same soda, after he has been working all day. He doesn't have to worry about how much the soda cost. He makes enough money to not worry about his bills. He pays $.50 for that soda. Now can someone tell me..... how fair is that? I'm soooo tired of the average person getting their legs cut out from underneath them, while the wealthy get deals and get took care of. I'm pulling the bull-sh!t card. This is BULLSH!T!!!!!!
If the voters are ever stupid enough to allow the Ryan budget to happen, the resulting economic dislocation would assure a Dem Congress for decades to come.
unfortunately, it's not the voters casting ballots, it's the congressmen and senators.... they don't really give a crap what the voters think. lol, messed up huh?
If the voters put Republicans in office and that bill become law, then voters are responsible. Herbert Hoover, Nixon and George Bush created Dem landslides in elections? But Ryan would go down in history as the person who killed the Republican party.
I wouldn't mind that..., lol
Don't be silly. All the voters will hear is that it's the fault of the Socialists, and that as bad as it is things will be much worse if they ever get into office again.
Republican Reps in swing states will be hard pressed to vote for this budget in an election year. The Senate will most assuredly reject it. Not much to worry about here. This budget does illustrate the lengths to which the Republican party has been highjacked by its fringe. Unfortunately the fringe is now considered mainstream. This will take some time but it may cause the repubs to go through through a massive reorganization. I think they should just call it the Tea party and stop tarnishing thr republican name. Perhaps the real repubs can revive the party as a 3rd party.
This is very true. This budget plan is an absolute godsend to the Democrats either way. The Republicans will be slitting their own throats if they do anything other than let it die immediately, and even then they've already given the Dems a wealth (no pun intended) of material to push back on. Thanks, Rep. Ryan! You've done the Democratic party a great service.
(Now let's just hope the Democrats don't once again somehow manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.)
But if the Republicans don't vote on it, the Tea Party will make noise.
Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line.
Democratic politicians have contempt for their base; Republican politicians fear theirs.
You're predicting a massive break in Republican party discipline. While there has been some, it's all been the extreme right that's broken from what pass as moderates. The moderates are more afraid of being "primaried" than they are of losing the general election; they don't dare break ranks against their own extremists.
Not least because the extremists are supported by a boatload of billionaires ready and willing to do a little "discipline" of their own.
I'm actually not predicting any such break at all. Believe me, I would be deliriously happy if House Republicans vote on this thing and pass it. It will never pass the Senate or Obama, so I have no fear it will ever be enacted, and it will be a huge black mark on every House Republican. So please, yes, let them vote in lockstep. I couldn't imagine a better outcome. The best thing they can do for themselves is let this thing die on the vine, but they won't. And thank God for that.
"It's worth noting that Greenstein is not a wild-eyed ideologue or partisan bomb-thrower;..."
Not by the time the GOP'ers finish "debunking" him - he'll be a left-wing socialist favoring the Kenyan Marxist with Muslim ties.....
Listen to these people -- they are always talking about themselves. If they fear radical transformation, it's because that is what they really want (and are ashamed to admit). If they can't stop talking about the President's religion, it's because they are fixated on their own religious nonsense.
For a while I've been saying that the USA has been heading for a fundamental policy choice, because Business as Usual isn't sustainable. The choice is between 1933 and 1793.
It's very clear that the Republicans have rejected 1933, and now it's become obvious that they're betting the farm on 1793.