Here are some highlights from Paul Ryan’s budget, courtesy of Bridget Johnson at PJ Media:
[Paul Ryan] called the escalating debt drama “the most predictable crisis we’ve ever had in this country.”
Ryan’s budget proposes $5.3 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade compared to the president’s budget, slashing the deficit to $797 billion next year as opposed to Obama’s $977 billion deficit projection. It wouldn’t wield the same budgetary ax against the Pentagon, and cuts debt as a share of the economy by 15 percent over the next decade. It repeals Obama’s healthcare law and introduces a competitive-bidding process to determine the growth of government’s financial contribution to Medicare.
It also proposes major tax reform to lower rates and broaden the base: Instead of the current six income tax brackets, the GOP budget whittles the code down to two brackets of 10 percent and 25 percent. The corporate tax rate would be cut to 25 percent. It prevents $1.9 trillion in tax increases that would go into effect under the president’s plan.
Again, I would go farther, but it is in the right direction. Stephen Green (Vodkapundit) is pessimistic, as he should be.
And, the White House’s reaction to Ryan’s budget is predictable.
In a statement this morning, Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer predictably blasted the Republican plan as not abiding by its fairness doctrine.
“The House budget once again fails the test of balance, fairness, and shared responsibility.”
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE F***ING KIDDING ME. I don’t know if I’ve ever heard a more boneheaded statement in my life. I don’t even know where to begin. First of all, terms like “balance,” “fairness,” and “shared responsibility” are essentially meaningless in their subjectivity. From my perspective, the only possible tax that is fair is a flat tax (at a low rate), with no loopholes, tax breaks, or subsidies. The only possible government that is fair is one that exists only to protect its constituents’ natural rights, and doesn’t meddle in the economy and doesn’t subsidize anything. Obviously, Mr. Pfeiffer’s and Mr. Obama’s definition of the word “fair” is almost antonymous to mine. Second of all, Mr. Pfeiffer and the White House are evidently oblivious to “the most predictable crisis” the US has ever faced, which makes them stunningly incompetent. Conservatives are said to be stubborn, but the obstinacy of this administration is beyond comprehension. It is almost enough to make one think they, perhaps, have an ulterior motive, or something. Either that, or they are just really, really stupid.
Now for the more substantive points Mr. Pfeiffer brings up.
“It would shower the wealthiest few Americans with an average tax cut of at least $150,000.”
Good. They might be able to use that extra money to create some jobs.
“while preserving taxpayer giveaways to oil companies and breaks for Wall Street hedge fund managers.”
Did I say his points were substantive? This statement’s ambiguity essentially renders it meaningless (to a leftist, any not-disproportionately high tax rate levied upon oil companies and hedge fund managers is likely a “taxpayer giveaway”). Meanwhile, someone should remind Mr. Pfeiffer about all the taxpayer giveways to unions and other friends of the Obama administration, as well as the 47% of Americans that don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes.
“What’s worse is that all of these tax breaks would be paid for by undermining Medicare”
Pot calling the kettle black, throwing stones from inside glass houses, et cetera. Undermining Medicare is exactly what the Obama administration is doing with its inaction, and exactly the antithesis of what Paul Ryan’s budget would do.
and the very things we need to grow our economy and the middle class – things like education, basic research, and new sources of energy.
And what would Obama know about the economy? They’ve demonstrated their ignorance on their subject by their issuance of Keynesian policies that historically haven’t worked. As for research and new sources of energy, those are things that the government has neither the right, nor the responsibility, to produce. Ideally, education would be among them.
“And instead of strengthening Medicare, the House budget would end Medicare as we know it, turning the guarantee of retirement security into a voucher that will shift higher and higher costs to seniors over time.”
As opposed to bankrupting Medicare and therefore necessitating that seniors must bear the full cost of their health care. What follows is no longer a quote from Mr. Pfeiffer, but rather Bridget Johnson.
He accused Ryan of reaching for the same “wrong-headed theory” that led to the recession in the first place.
No, the theory that led to the recession in the first place was economic interventionism. And the theory that failed to solve the recession was Keynesianism. Mr. Ryan’s budget is closer to being capitalist, but still doesn’t fit that label. I am not faulting him; I believe this is about as far as he can go (at the moment) with any realistic chance that his budget will be passed (EDIT: Okay, I know his budget isn’t going to be passed. What I meant to say is that he can’t appear too radical, or he will get nowhere whenever he would otherwise have the possibility of having his budget passed).