AN ACTUAL POLICY DISCUSSION! Klein on Ryan budget

[Deleted]

I'll jump into the discussion in a bit with some thoughts, but look, it's SUBSTANTIVE POLICY DISCUSSION!

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/29/everything-you-know-about-paul-ryans-budget-is-probably-wrong/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

Wednesday night is going to be Paul Ryan night. Which means it’s going to be Paul Ryan budget night. Which means it’s a good time to remind you that, if you’re like most people, pretty much everything you think you know about Ryan’s budget is probably wrong.

Here’s what you probably think of Ryan’s budget: It lowers taxes, cuts the deficit and pays for all that by cutting deep into Medicare. Right? Wrong.

Don’t take my word for it. Take Ryan’s word for it. This graph shows what he told the Congressional Budget Office his budget would do by 2030.



What you’re seeing is different categories of federal spending in Ryan’s budget compared to those categories if we just keep going on the path we’re on.

First thing you should notice: The difference on Medicare isn’t that large. It’s 0.75 percent of GDP. And note that the spending path Ryan wants to hold Medicare to — GDP+0.5% — is the exact same spending path that Obama wants to hold Medicare to.

The difference for Medicaid and other health programs for the poor is much larger. In fact, it’s almost twice as large as the cut to Medicare. So that’s the first thing you need to know: Ryan’s main cut isn’t to health care for old people. It’s to health care for poor people.

Ryan’s budget punts on Social Security, so there’s no change there.

But the biggest category of cuts isn’t to Medicaid or Medicare. It’s to everything else, which includes defense spending, infrastructure, education and training, farm subsidies, income supports, veteran’s benefits, retraining, basic research, the federal workforce and much, much more. And this category of spending takes a bigger cut than Medicaid and Medicare combined.

The thing about these cuts is that they’re not really thought through. Ryan hasn’t said which programs they’ll hit. And he doesn’t have some theory about how we can spend less and get more, as he does for Medicare with his voucher plan. He’s just slashing things to make his numbers add up. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ran the numbers and said two-thirds of Ryan’s cuts will end up falling on programs for the poor.

The reason he’s got to do that is that Ryan doesn’t raise taxes. But here’s the magic trick of Ryan’s budget, and this is really important. Ryan extends all the Bush tax cuts, and then he adds a bunch of new tax cuts costing more than $4.5 trillion. So how does he pay for them?

He doesn’t. But he told Congress’s budget guys to assume he’d figure out how to pay for them later. To pay for those, you’d need to eliminate almost everything else in the tax code — the home mortgage interest deduction, the Child Tax Credit, the deduction for state and local taxes, most all of it. Ryan hasn’t named one that he’d eliminate. So there’s a mystery $4.5 trillion in tax increases sitting at the center of Ryan’s budget promises.

So every time you see anyone say that Ryan’s budget reduces the debt, they’re assuming he really will find some way to pay for his tax cuts. If he doesn’t, then his plan blows a multitrillion dollar hole in the budget, even after cutting all that spending.

[ladybrettashley]

I've read Ryan's budget. This article explains the thing that struck me: He just makes assertions that he will cut the deficit but does not explain how. I don't even know how you can evaluate that. For the life of me I cannot understand how people still think of him as "fiscally conservative." To me, fiscally conservative means being fiscally responsible. Can we just all quit pretending he cares about anything other than tax cuts? Someone help me out here; what am I missing?

[ttt]

Why do people think this is a great plan, again? Everything in here sounds awful to me.

[amberlyrose]

I'm actually doing a presentation on the Ryan plan for class and this article is very interesting (and helpful).
It is very surprising the number of friends I talk to who don't realize what this plan actually entails.

[sunterp]

Can someone explain why Social Security cannot be touched? At the Isakson meeting he touched on the budget but was sure to point out that Social Security was not on the table, which every gray haired person clapped and nodded their heads. I admit that I rolled my eyes because I feel everything needs to be on the table. Senator Isakson said he felt it was a contract that could not be broken but why is that the contract we have to keep in tact with no amendments while in the past we have broken contracts. I guess I also wondered why education and other areas are not contracts? Sorry if this sounds silly but like I said I am really trying to get a better understanding.

[Deleted]

Aug 29, 2012 15:28:50 GMT -5 sunterp said:

Can someone explain why Social Security cannot be touched?

AARP is one of the strongest lobbies in the country. You don't win elections by saying you're going to do away with or reform Social Security. W tried to push an effort to privatize Social Security in 2005, and it went over like a lead balloon.

I really would like more details on what Ryan wants to cut from everything else. I particularly want to know whether defense would face any of the cuts.

I also have a question about Ryan's Medicare plan, but I have no idea whether anyone has an answer. I hear a lot of people say that right now, our healthcare system is inefficient because people are too disconnected from the costs and don't care what things cost due to insurance. I guess I'm a little confused as to how having the government (3rd party #1) pay for an insurer (3rd party #2) to cover the individual will bring costs down. Doesn't the problem of the consumer being disconnected from the costs still exist? I'm also wondering if the level of care will go down. Medicare recipients use more healthcare than anyone else in the country. Why would an insurer want to take on a group of only Medicare patients without taking on a correspondingly large group of younger individuals?

[bqbride]

Careful, now. We're coming dangerously close to insulting the GOP again. As we have all heard repeatedly, this is an attack on every conservative on this board and it cannot be allowed.

[marie427]

Sunterp - "a contract that could not be broken" is just a talking point to appease old people, who like to vote a lot. Because if you think about it, the government will be breaking that contract with us young'uns who may not see a dime of SS but will continue to pay into it for years to come. But we don't vote enough.

[druidp]

Aug 29, 2012 15:28:50 GMT -5 sunterp said:

Can someone explain why Social Security cannot be touched? At the Isakson meeting he touched on the budget but was sure to point out that Social Security was not on the table, which every gray haired person clapped and nodded their heads. I admit that I rolled my eyes because I feel everything needs to be on the table. Senator Isakson said he felt it was a contract that could not be broken but why is that the contract we have to keep in tact with no amendments while in the past we have broken contracts. I guess I also wondered why education and other areas are not contracts? Sorry if this sounds silly but like I said I am really trying to get a better understanding.

I think you'll find we're all on board with tackling SS. It isn't viable and won't last if someone doesn't do something with it - but generally elderly people are of the mentality of "well, it's here now so I want mine, so don't you touch it!"

IIOY can expound on the elderly, I believe.

ETA: I'm of the mind that deep cuts are needed, but I also think raising some taxes needs to go in hand with that - it has to be a conjunctive effort so we can get our deficit under control, or start to. So I am not supportive of his lack of raising taxes. He'll need to expound on his actual plan in further detail.

[wawa]

Aug 29, 2012 15:35:24 GMT -5 @bqbride said:

Careful, now. We're coming dangerously close to insulting the GOP again. As we have all heard repeatedly, this is an attack on every conservative on this board and it cannot be allowed.

Oh shut up.

I agree with you half the time and you still grate on my last damn nerve. Except for the fact that you will actually come back to respond, you are the liberal version of sis/lys.

[ladybrettashley]

Aug 29, 2012 15:33:34 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

I also have a question about Ryan's Medicare plan, but I have no idea whether anyone has an answer. I hear a lot of people say that right now, our healthcare system is inefficient because people are too disconnected from the costs and don't care what things cost due to insurance. I guess I'm a little confused as to how having the government (3rd party #1) pay for an insurer (3rd party #2) to cover the individual will bring costs down. Doesn't the problem of the consumer being disconnected from the costs still exist? I'm also wondering if the level of care will go down. Medicare recipients use more healthcare than anyone else in the country. Why would an insurer want to take on a group of only Medicare patients without taking on a correspondingly large group of younger individuals?

I don't think people being disconnected from the real cost of healthcare is the problem. If that were the problem, then countries with UHC would have the same problem - there is generally not a sticker price attached to services, and people often don't have options to shop around when they are injured/sick. It seems to be an argument made by free-market proponents, but I haven't seen much evidence to support.

And using private insurers for Medicare will not make the cost go down. This has already been shown with Medicare Advantage. The private insurers can cherry pick the healthiest seniors and still charge them the rates of traditional Medicare.

[wawa]

Aug 29, 2012 15:36:42 GMT -5 druidp said:

Aug 29, 2012 15:28:50 GMT -5 sunterp said:

Can someone explain why Social Security cannot be touched? At the Isakson meeting he touched on the budget but was sure to point out that Social Security was not on the table, which every gray haired person clapped and nodded their heads. I admit that I rolled my eyes because I feel everything needs to be on the table. Senator Isakson said he felt it was a contract that could not be broken but why is that the contract we have to keep in tact with no amendments while in the past we have broken contracts. I guess I also wondered why education and other areas are not contracts? Sorry if this sounds silly but like I said I am really trying to get a better understanding.

I think you'll find we're all on board with tackling SS. It isn't viable and won't last if someone doesn't do something with it - but generally elderly people are of the mentality of "well, it's here now so I want mine, so don't you touch it!"

IIOY can expound on the elderly, I believe.

ETA: I'm of the mind that deep cuts are needed, but I also think raising some taxes needs to go in hand with that - it has to be a conjunctive effort so we can get our deficit under control, or start to. So I am not supportive of his lack of raising taxes. He'll need to expound on his actual plan in further detail.

I really don't understand why means testing SS going forward is such a third rail position. Are old people really that stupid? We aren't going to touch YOUR money. Just everybody else's.

Or is it just that even my fellow youngs are that upset by the idea of paying in and not getting anything? Or is means testing not enough to fix it?

[basilosaurus]

Aug 29, 2012 15:42:25 GMT -5 wawa said:

I really don't understand why means testing SS going forward is such a third rail position. Are old people really that stupid? We aren't going to touch YOUR money. Just everybody else's.

Even my die-hard Republican grandfather who has sympathies with tea partiers and racists thinks there should be means testing. If he and I are agreeing on something, you know to look for the pigs out your 20th floor window.

[kadams767]

Ugh. This has been my issue all along. I hate that Ryan/Romney will not put real numbers or facts to their plans to cut the deficit. I feel like they are tiptoeing and tapdancing around it all.

[smock]

I wonder which American politicians find more terrifying: proposing changes to Social Security, or proposing a tax hike.

I personally think we need both, and any plan that doesn't include both will probably not make a huge dent in the deficit.

[sunterp]

That is why I get so mad at this issue. I understand the hold AARP has and the old people voting block but I just do not understand how they cannot see the damage they are leaving behind. Are they just that blind and honestly believe nothing is wrong or do they not care? I remember Bush's plan but not in detail. My H thinks I have major old people hate. I have to admit I laughed at a contract that cannot be broken because the government has been so great at keeping contracts throughout history. What makes old people any different from other American groups that get the short end?

I would also like to see a complete break down of the cuts and how this would work IRL. I want people my age (34) to take this shit seriously and start telling all generations to get real about the future. I will check back later as I have a playdate about to start for my three kids.

[Deleted]

Aug 29, 2012 15:47:44 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

Aug 29, 2012 15:45:55 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Ugh. This has been my issue all along. I hate that Ryan/Romney will not put real numbers or facts to their plans to cut the deficit. I feel like they are tiptoeing and tapdancing around it all.

i wont give them shit for this b/c no one puts out hard numbers during a campaign. i have the campaign book from obama from 2008 - his contract with america or whatever the shit - and it was all fluff and no numbers.

But since Ryan is the chairman of the House Budget Committee, I would expect to see hard numbers. For some reason, I didn't realize he didn't have any. I assumed he did. Is Ezra wrong on this?

[ladybrettashley]

Aug 29, 2012 15:47:44 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

Aug 29, 2012 15:45:55 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Ugh. This has been my issue all along. I hate that Ryan/Romney will not put real numbers or facts to their plans to cut the deficit. I feel like they are tiptoeing and tapdancing around it all.

i wont give them shit for this b/c no one puts out hard numbers during a campaign. i have the campaign book from obama from 2008 - his contract with america or whatever the shit - and it was all fluff and no numbers.

I'll agree that campaigns usually don't dive into details. But this was a budget proposal that was initially proposed two years ago long before Paul Ryan was running for vice president. A budget needs to have numbers to back it up otherwise how can you even evaluate it?

[kadams767]

Aug 29, 2012 15:47:44 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

Aug 29, 2012 15:45:55 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Ugh. This has been my issue all along. I hate that Ryan/Romney will not put real numbers or facts to their plans to cut the deficit. I feel like they are tiptoeing and tapdancing around it all.

i wont give them shit for this b/c no one puts out hard numbers during a campaign. i have the campaign book from obama from 2008 - his contract with america or whatever the shit - and it was all fluff and no numbers.

OH, trust me, I am not claiming that Obama is doing it either. I'm fed up with both sides on this issue. I want someone, ANYONE, to step up with an actual plan and actual numbers and facts that work. I'm chiding Ryan/Romney over it, because they have touted themselves (mostly Ryan, admittedly) as the ones who are hard-core economic issue pressers, bringing the hard solutions to the forefront of the election, but then...not.

[sunterp]

My plan would include tax hikes and cuts. My cuts would look and probably touch everything including medicare, ss, and defense.

[kadams767]

Aug 29, 2012 15:52:06 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

He's a smart enough guy that I think he does have actual numbers somewhere. Its just in the vault with the KFC recipe at this point and we won't see any before Nov, if they win.

I am having trouble getting behind a campaign that has a long history of flip flopping on major issues without seeing the plan though. Speculation that they will do X isn't doing much for me right now.

[wawa]

Aug 29, 2012 15:52:06 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

He's a smart enough guy that I think he does have actual numbers somewhere. Its just in the vault with the KFC recipe at this point and we won't see any before Nov, if they win.

yeah, they can't release that they want to cut funding to x, y and z because then it'll be way too easy for the dems to run attack ads saying, "Oh my geezy! R&R hate american works, roads, children and the american dream!"

it works both ways. so nobody ever says anything real. I hate it.

In my secretly non-cynical heart I like to think that they're actually planning ot propose a bunch of cuts to the defensive budget and know what a fucking cluster that would be in debates and ads, so they're keeping it close to the vest.

[kadams767]

Aug 29, 2012 15:50:19 GMT -5 ladybrettashley said:

Aug 29, 2012 15:47:44 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

i wont give them shit for this b/c no one puts out hard numbers during a campaign. i have the campaign book from obama from 2008 - his contract with america or whatever the shit - and it was all fluff and no numbers.

I'll agree that campaigns usually don't dive into details. But this was a budget proposal that was initially proposed two years ago long before Paul Ryan was running for vice president. A budget needs to have numbers to back it up otherwise how can you even evaluate it?

I may be wrong, but hasn't it been shown several times over that the actual budget Ryan proposed 2 years ago did not work out, mathmatically?

[kadams767]

Aug 29, 2012 15:59:04 GMT -5 @majorwife said:

Aug 29, 2012 15:56:26 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

I am having trouble getting behind a campaign that has a long history of flip flopping on major issues without seeing the plan though. Speculation that they will do X isn't doing much for me right now.

i understand. this is where faith in your party to do what you believe them to do gets you voting for them.

:-( LOL!

[epphd]

Aug 29, 2012 15:52:54 GMT -5 sunterp said:

My plan would include tax hikes and cuts. My cuts would look and probably touch everything including medicare, ss, and defense.

This. And isn't it pretty much all encapsulated in the Simpson-Bowles plan? I never understood why that didn't get much traction. I read it, thought "ouch", then thought that everyone was would feel that same way and it was probably good. No sacred cows - cuts about everywhere and tax code simplification.
ETA: shit - I'd forgotten even Tom Coburn supported it. Why did it not get anywhere?!?

[y4m]

Ryan's budget does have a lot of real numbers in it though--maybe not at a program by program basis, but definitely at a departmental/major program level. It's just that budget bills are a total PITA to read and interpret, because you have to look at some other document to see what last year was to understand what is a cut and how deep.

politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/112/hconres34

[ladybrettashley]

Aug 29, 2012 15:58:30 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

I may be wrong, but hasn't it been shown several times over that the actual budget Ryan proposed 2 years ago did not work out, mathmatically?

Yes. And the 2012 budget proposal looks quite similar (although not quite as ridiculous).

[kadams767]

Aug 29, 2012 16:04:01 GMT -5 y4m said:

Ryan's budget does have a lot of real numbers in it though--maybe not at a program by program basis, but definitely at a departmental/major program level. It's just that budget bills are a total PITA to read and interpret, because you have to look at some other document to see what last year was to understand what is a cut and how deep.

politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/112/hconres34

Thank you for this. But isn't this the same bill which has been refuted as unfeasible?

[pescalita]

Aug 29, 2012 15:42:25 GMT -5 wawa said:

Aug 29, 2012 15:36:42 GMT -5 druidp said:

I think you'll find we're all on board with tackling SS. It isn't viable and won't last if someone doesn't do something with it - but generally elderly people are of the mentality of "well, it's here now so I want mine, so don't you touch it!"

IIOY can expound on the elderly, I believe.

ETA: I'm of the mind that deep cuts are needed, but I also think raising some taxes needs to go in hand with that - it has to be a conjunctive effort so we can get our deficit under control, or start to. So I am not supportive of his lack of raising taxes. He'll need to expound on his actual plan in further detail.

I really don't understand why means testing SS going forward is such a third rail position. Are old people really that stupid? We aren't going to touch YOUR money. Just everybody else's.

Or is it just that even my fellow youngs are that upset by the idea of paying in and not getting anything? Or is means testing not enough to fix it?

Yup, and ditto sunterp. It doesn't make any sense. Old people won't be touched, it's young people who have the options of a) changes or b) nothing. And yet old people won't let us make the changes for ourselves that have no consequences for them. I feel like I'm 12 years old and my mom won't let me shave my legs.

[bqbride]

Aug 29, 2012 15:40:22 GMT -5 wawa said:

Aug 29, 2012 15:35:24 GMT -5 @bqbride said:

Careful, now. We're coming dangerously close to insulting the GOP again. As we have all heard repeatedly, this is an attack on every conservative on this board and it cannot be allowed.

Oh shut up.

I agree with you half the time and you still grate on my last damn nerve. Except for the fact that you will actually come back to respond, you are the liberal version of sis/lys.

Thanks so much for your input. Now go fuck yourself. Mmkay?