Thursday, April 14, 2011

Democrats lie about Ryan's plan, and don't even blush

Tonight on Fox I watched a Democrat being interviewed about the lack of specificity in Obama's budget speech, and instead of answering about Obama, he chose to attack Republicans, and even then had no specifics except they want to destroy Medicare. Huh?

Wall Street Journal has unpacked the Democrats' criticism of Ryan's plan, which many people really like, even though he doesn't provide any specific tax cuts. And no, unlike Obama, he doesn't suggest raising taxes during a recession (which technically is over, aren't you glad?)

Here are some highlights, but read the whole editorial.
Federal deficits have increased 259% over the last three years and the Ryan budget starts to repair the damage. It would bring next year's deficit below $1 trillion, down from estimates of roughly $1.6 trillion for 2011. . .

Mr. Ryan proposes smaller deficits for the next 10 years, falling to 1.6% of GDP in 2021 versus 4.9% for the White House. According to CBO, debt held by the public falls to 67.5% of the economy a decade from now from about 69% today, while it rises to 87.4% in Mr. Obama's version. . .

Mr. Ryan's plan [called premium support] is that it offers the true health-care reform that Mr. Obama promised but which vanished in the political drive to put 30 million more Americans on the government rolls. Economists from the center-left to center-right have been recommending premium support for decades, and it was first proposed by Stanford's Alain Enthoven in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1978.

Some version has since been endorsed by everyone from President Clinton's 1999 Medicare commission, chaired by Democrat John Breaux, to Bob Dole and Tom Daschle in 2009. Another iteration was floated this week by a group of Nobel laureates including Ned Phelps, Vernon Smith and George Akerlof.
Heritage says that one of the key provisions of Ryan's plan is eliminating Fannie and Fred.

Ryan's Roadmap
Until recently, Americans were known and admired everywhere for their hopeful determination to assume responsibility for the quality of their own lives; to rely on their own work and initiative; and to improve opportunities for their children to prosper in the future. But over time, Americans have been lured into viewing government – more than themselves, their families, their communities, their faith – as their main source of support; they have been drawn toward depending on the public sector for growing shares of their material and personal well-being. The trend drains individual initiative and personal responsibility. It creates an aversion to risk, sapping the entrepreneurial spirit necessary for growth, innovation, and prosperity. In turn, it subtly and gradually suffocates the creative potential for prosperity.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Lets aim higher; cabinet meetings today are so crowded they serve as photo ops only. Six departments should do: state, defense, treasury, commerce and two new ones, human resources and natural resources. I bet the infighting when the overlapping bureaus are forced to consolidate would almost balance the budget. At least it would be entertaining. This is but one little idea of redefining the government.

Norma said...

Not sure what a human resources dept would look like, but I think there ought to be something for public health.