I may think that Paul Ryan's proposed budget is absurd, but at least he's presenting his plan to the public. Chris Cilliza and Aaron Blake's piece in the Washington Post posits that Republican political operatives are angry at Ryan for offering a budget at all, writing that "by offering one, all Ryan is doing is giving Democrats something to shoot at, politically speaking."
That may be true, but at least it's unmasking the ideology guiding the Republican party, at least the wing of it that controls the House of Representatives. Michael Hirsh at the Atlantic argues that Ryan's budget, which has proven unpopular with establishment Democrats and Republicans alike, proves that influence of "the Tea Partiers are not going to fade away."
The Republican alternative to Obama's proposed budget has been released by Paul Ryan's office today. Republican wunderkind Paul Ryan has done it again. His plan is courageous and bold, except towards any constituency that votes. Ezra Klein summarizes it well:
Changes for seniors don't begin for a decade, the tax breaks Ryan will close to pay for his tax cuts go unnamed, and, of course, there are no tax increases at all. When such choices need to be made for programs that the poor depend on, however, Ryan is considerably more specific, and considerably more willing to inflict real budgetary pain on current beneficiaries.
Travis Waldren, at ThinkProgress, finds the few specific tax provisions elaborated inequitable:
Ryan's tax plan shrinks the number of income tax brackets from six to two, with marginal tax rates set at 10 percent and 25 percent. He repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), slices the top corporate tax rate to 25 percent, and repeals all of the health care taxes contained in the Affordable Care Act. It also repeals the repatriation tax on profits corporations earn overseas then bring back to the United States.
So not only are tax breaks mostly unnamed, but the tax cuts that are included would amount to a $3 trillion dollar tax break for the richest Americans.
Why is eliminating our budget deficit so difficult? It isn't for lack of cutting spending, it's the underlying demographic shifts. Baby boomers are going to be retiring and that's going to make government into a tool of the old. For the next couple of years, with the phasing out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the deficit will be reduced naturally. But, as the demographics shift in ten years, our deficits will begin to increase again along with the population.
Ryan's budget plan doesn't touch the major entitlements to meet those changing demographics. Kevin Drum's take:
If we cut spending to 19%, it means that the entire budget outside of Social Security, Medicare, and Defense (which Ryan also doesn't want to cut much) has to be cut by half or more. Ryan will do his best to cover this up, but there's no way around the numbers. The country is aging. We're going to spend more on the elderly. If we cut spending levels at the same time, everything non-elderly gets whacked hard. That's the basic story. It's not a path to prosperity, it's a path to penury.
A responsible budget addresses the reality of an aging population without bankrupting everyone else. That demands serious cuts to our defense budget. Enough military Keynesianism. Let's start spending money on the things that will actually push us forward.
If that ideology doesn't meet the smell test, then at least voters get to know that before an election, even if Larry Summers may not like tax policy being put to voters.
The Tea Party intransigence that derailed the budget talks last year has returned with a vengeance. Only this time it'll happen during an election year.