« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Paul Ryan is Not Jesus, But His Path To Prosperity Gospel is Really Good

Today you are going to hear a lot about Paul Ryan and his budget deal. He has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal previewing it. You can read that here.

The budget proposal is a solid proposal of solid reform. I like what I see. But I also foresee real problems with it as a result.

Let me first say the number you are going to hear batted about today is that Paul Ryan‘s budget cuts $6.2 trillion. Please keep in mind that following that number is this language: “from the president’s budget over the next 10 years.” That is different from actually cutting $6.2 trillion. These are cuts placed in juxtaposition to the President’s proposed cuts. We will find out later today what the real cuts are.

Before continuing, let me also say that I am annoyed with a lot of conservatives today. Over the past 24 hours, many conservatives have raced to the nearest TV show, blog, and opinion page to praise Paul Ryan as if he is some sort of savior. There are calls for Ryan to run for President. One pundit called his budget plan “the most important domestic proposal of our lifetimes” and “the first concerted, credible effort to shrink the federal government since the birth of the welfare state seven decades ago.”

Hyperbole much?

I get tired of the left investing in the cult of personality with Barack Obama, but sadly the right is not immune. Many conservatives desperate for the second coming of Reagan and Jesus have poured out their hopes, dreams, and ambitions into Paul Ryan as if he is some sort of empty vessel to be filled with the desires of conservatives.

Paul Ryan is a very decent guy, but he is just a man. He supported No Child Left Behind, the medicare prescription drug benefit, TARP, the auto bailout, the arguably unconstitutional AIG bonus tax, and capping CEO pay among other things. He is not infallible. Please, conservatives, try not to sound too enraptured.

Paul Ryan is, bar none, the best and most articulate Republican when it comes to talking budget, numbers, and reform. But that does not equate with infallibility and being a strategic mastermind.

That said, Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” is really good. Again though, that it is a good plan is also its significant downfall. Let me tell you why.

Paul Ryan’s plan defunds Obamacare, reforms medicare and medicaid, restructures the budget process, simplifies the tax code, and balances the budget in 26 years.

In those 26 years, Congresses and Presidents not bound by Paul Ryan’s vision may or may not adhere to Paul Ryan’s vision.

In those 26 years, the American Republic will still add to the deficit each year.

In those 26 years, calculations can and will change, the economy can and will change, and the projections for a balanced budget after 26 years may or may not continue.

Worse, Paul Ryan’s budget balances in 26 years if and only if the Democrats agree to it. That will never happen. In other words, in the best case scenario Paul Ryan has proposed a budget that may or may not balance in 26 years. That is important not just because Democrats must go along with it, but also because the people projecting all the savings must be right. In the history of our grand Republic, those prognosticators are typically more wrong than right.

So don’t actually believe the budget will balance in 26 years. History is against that. The Democrats are against it too.

Ryan started out with a plan that we can and should all praise. But it is a plan with which we should end up after negotiations with Democrats, not with which we should begin negotiations with Democrats who will only drive up the number of years in which we balance the budget, drive up spending, and drive down overall budget cuts. At least, and thank God for this, the budget plan scraps the subsidization of green jobs by the government.

There is one additional and major caveat to Paul Ryan’s plan we must be aware of. The plan does, praise Paul Ryan, defund Obamacare. According to the Wall Street Journal, “the Obama health care law would be repealed, which the plan says will save $1.5 trillion, according to documents distributed to some aides on Capitol Hill.”

If the plan “cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president’s budget over the next 10 years, reduces the debt as a percentage of the economy, and puts the nation on a path to actually pay off our national debt,” to quote Congressman Ryan, then $1.5 trillion of the cuts come from Obamacare.

Is the Congressman prepared to fight to the death, or at least the shutdown, to defund Obamacare, on which $1.5 trillion of his $6.2 trillion in cuts is premised? Tea Party activists will expect him to. But will he? And will he lead the GOP into that fight? Because to obtain those cuts and obtain defunding of Obamacare, we are going to have to draw a line in the sand and shut down the government. Obama will not otherwise concede to it.

The Ryan “Path to Prosperity” is a good plan. But it is, again, the plan we should end up with after negotiations, not the plan we should start with for negotiations. It will be moved left by virtue of the necessary compromises with Democrats to get it enacted into law. What those compromises are will determine conservatives’ ultimate support.

In the meantime, I hope a few members of the Budget Committee might force the Republicans to up the ante on cuts and savings and start the GOP off from a position further right as the inevitable compromise to the left begins.

COMMENTS

  • Diogenes314

    1) The path is just the starting point.

    You are probably right that 6.2 trillion will come down when it is initially passed. So what? This is where we begin to cut spending, the focus must be on taking back the Senate and White House next year in order to add to the cuts that end up in the final 2012 budget.

    2) More important than the dollar amounts are the policy changes.

    By reforming Welfare, Medicare, Social Security, Budgetary policy and Taxation we will be changing the structure of appropriations for Congresses to come.

    3) The Dems are going to politicize and block the plan.

    Of course. And they will do so in the middle of a Presidential race and a Senatorial race where they have 22 members up for election. Unlike now when they can just hide in the weeds behind newly re-elected Reid and that buffoon Schumer, they will be immediately answerable for their rhetoric and votes.

  • The_Gadfly

    1) Given the difficulty of getting even Ryan’s plan through, I think it will be the last attempt. We were told Reagan’s proposals were only starts too, but most of them mark the high points of reducing regulation and lowering taxes, with no movement at all on the spending front.

    2) And as such are more likely to be the first items modified back at the behest of Dems when the economy begins to improve and we can “afford it.”

    3) Yes they are. With a practiced, well oiled machine and a activist MSM cheering them on. More distressingly, the Republicans have no plan of counterattack, as was clearly visible in Ryan’s interview with Chris Wallace on Fox (Rubio flubbed this one too). Mr. Wallace repeated the obvious lie that failure to raise the debt limit equals the government defaulting on our debts. Ryan (and Rubio) waffled that Republicans aren’t trying to shut government down. The correct counter response was: “No, if it fails the debt payments need to be prioritized first and it becomes an immediate spending cut. Which is why it is important for Democrats to work with us establish a less radical reduction of spending NOW.”

    I wish it WERE just a starting point. Really and truly I do. But I’ve been smelling the freezer burn for quite some time now.

  • jackhammer

    I sort of like the idea of the government shutdown, because that must save quite a bit of money everyday…..I figure if we get a nice 2 month government shutdown, we should be able to cut the whole budget by a good 7-10%.

    Either that or we should just pull a reagan, and let the left go crazy with their appropriations until all creditworthiness is shot, and no one lends the government money anymore,a nd then it is not a question of political will, but absolute necessity with no alternative, to shut down all subsidies and payments.

    I don’t think either the republicans or democrats have the political will to pull off any cuts, so I would rather feed the beast until he dies…..

  • Diogenes314

    1) It’s only an opening salvo precisely because we currently only control a working majority in the House. With the odds being good of taking back the Senate and hopefully the White House, we should be able to keep the ball rolling in 2013. Especially if Ryan stays on as budget chairman. And circumstances are manifestly more dire than they were in the 80s (when Reagan never controlled Congress, BTW), and everyone knows it.

    2) Once we control Congress, we can alter the voting requirements for tampering with the structural changes, as well as expand them.

    3) Valid point. A concise and sustained defense of budgetary seriousness will have to be promulgated. We have a year and a half to get the job done.

  • dajeeps

    Spending beyond our means has to stop or we will never dig out of the hole. Any proposal that continues to run a defecit year after year will not shrink the debt. It has nothing to do with whether Democrats agree, it’s just simple math. 2+2=4 not 2+2=273. Even if they did agree to everything, the logic does not change.

    The facts are that we currently borrow beyond 40 cents of every dollar spent, and we have $65T in unfunded liabilities to be realized in the next two decades which means that even cutting $6T (if it rises that high) out of the President’s budget leaves us severely in the hole. And of course in 26 years, most of the boomers will be gone and the spike in entitlement spending will subside. It kind of reminds me of the global warming scam where they make up a catastrophy, pretend to do something about it and when the earth doen’t turn into a desert, they say look what we did for YOU!

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I happen to be quite weary of the politicians selling the Emperor’s new clothes as some kind of holy graile. And if you ask me, Paul Ryan is nothing special in that regard. Real change requires real change, and no amount of stuff being shoveled out of DC that requires hip boots just to trudge through rises to that level.

  • ohtimtim

    true reductions in government spending and growth is to refuse to raise the debt limit. It requires no” compromising with the devil”. The Republicans have the power to unilaterally cause this to happen. Then if they stick to their principles, a lot of the socialism that has been foisted on the American people over the years, will have to disappear-we simply can’t afford it. Any other plan, including the one Ryan is currently promoting will still require borrowing.

  • JackWayne

    but you’re wrong about this being a “good plan”. It’s a “good plan” is your intent is to bankrupt the country. I have no patience with anyone who says this thing is even worth bringing to the floor of Congress. You know the kabuki. Once they put in a 10-year plan (assuming they can get ti—BIG IF!) they will say the country is saved and they need to relax and build up energy for another “tough fight” later down the road. Erick, we are bankrupt NOW! Not next year, not 10 years from now. All Ryan does is give bi-partisan cover to the Democrats to point out that BOTH prties are totally responsible for the bankruptcy. Small government partisans MUST stand up and say NO. No to Ryan, No to Obama, No to deficits, No to a rise in the debt limit, No to Ben Bernanke and No to the lefties. And there are a LOT of Republicans that are lefties including the compassionate socialist George Bush.

  • JackWayne

    but you’re wrong about this being a “good plan”. It’s a “good plan” is your intent is to bankrupt the country. I have no patience with anyone who says this thing is even worth bringing to the floor of Congress. You know the kabuki. Once they put in a 10-year plan (assuming they can get ti—BIG IF!) they will say the country is saved and they need to relax and build up energy for another “tough fight” later down the road. Erick, we are bankrupt NOW! Not next year, not 10 years from now. All Ryan does is give bi-partisan cover to the Democrats to point out that BOTH prties are totally responsible for the bankruptcy. Small government partisans MUST stand up and say NO. No to Ryan, No to Obama, No to deficits, No to a rise in the debt limit, No to Ben Bernanke and No to the lefties. And there are a LOT of Republicans that are lefties including the compassionate socialist George Bush.

  • ag8tor

    Is the plan to start out with a large amount($6.2T) to cut knowing after negotiation with the left that it will be less but still more than a mere $60B? Granted this plan is not a be all end all but it is a starting point to try and get something tangible done. We cannot sustain the pace we are on even though BHO and his minions seem to think we can sustain it and add to it. I commend Ryan for at least coming out with a plan of some sort. It’s obviouos that other repub leaders have no idea what to do other than compromise. Is this a realistic plan given the number of years till it balances? No, but it is a step in the right direction. Now let’s see if the Repubs and Tea Partiers have the guts to fight. I’m betting they don’t!

  • texan4america

    do not need to be “fixed.” If our representatived had left it alone (Pres. Johnson) in its own “fund” the fund would be rolling in dough today. As it is, all Medicare and SS funds go into the “general fund” which can be spent any way they like. PUT IT BACK IN ITS OWN FUND!!!

  • edintexas

    “2) Once we control Congress, we can alter the voting requirements for tampering with the structural changes, as well as expand them.”

    Methinks you have more faith in Republicans than I. I haven’t read the bill, so I’m guessing that these changes (if enacted at all) will be in a budget bill. Republicans, Conservatives and even Democrats (when forced to do so) have a fairly long history of making changes through amendments to the annual budget (e.g. banning a “universal identification number for health care purposes once the public raised cain about it), but never actually passing a statute which makes the change permanent. While a law passed by one Congress can be repealed or altered by another Congress, it isn’t exactly common to repeal or alter (except by spending more money, putting more people on the dole).

    If the “structural changes” are in budget bills, and not actual changes to the appropriate statutes (e.g. sections of Title 42 USC for SSA, Medicare and Medicaid), the changes might last until the Dems and/or RINOs take over the Congress.

  • edintexas

    I agree that it is unlikely to find politicians who have the stones to actually fix the problem before total disaster. But, since you have said you would rather see the entire system crumble, have you considered the attendant problems? You actually are wishing (sort of) for the country to descend into chaos and destruction. Imagine what those dependents the Dems have created over the past almost 80 years will do when they have no means to feed themselves, etc.

    If your “wish” comes true, I hope I have time to build a bunker. Then again, the UN will probably send their mercenaries (NATO) to intervene under the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine we are currently instituting there.

  • eburkedisciple

    26 years to zero the deficit maybe but to stem the red ink.

    We need a hell of a lot more courage than that!

    Face it. We have a lot of problems and we need to set about fixing them more quickly than that. MUCH more quickly.

  • eburkedisciple

    Few of the bloody Republicans will have the will to fight (still sucking up for their jobs rather than doing what is best for America and its citizens) but we have a bunch of newbies who seem ready to fight. I hope. Give them some encouragement.

    The Tea Party is not an entity to be lumped into one category as posters here should know but if my local TP is any indication there is a lot of fight in this tiger.

  • edintexas

    At least if your idea is money kept totally separate from other government funds, there never was a “trust fund”. There are two different SSA “trust funds”, the Old Age and Survivors, and the Disability (plus the Medicare accounts since 1965). Since the first FICA collections in1937, there has always been a deposit of the money to the general treasury account and Treasury would issue special “bonds” to the SSA accounts in the amount expected to be surplus to current expenditures. So ALL the money paid by workers in any given year would not be credited to the “trust funds”, only that amount which was “surplus” to the amount paid out to SSA beneficiaries.

    Because this was a classic Ponzi scheme, using current workers to pay for current beneficiaries (and initially paying only those who won life’s lottery and lived past the average life span’s end), there is no way it could be “…rolling in dough today.” Our life span has increased drastically since the average of between 60 and 62 in 1935 (surely you didn’t wonder why 65 was initially set as the age to pay benefits, did you?). And, due to our prosperity, we are having fewer children. And we have eliminated jobs through increases in mechanization, shipping menial task jobs overseas, etc. = all leaving fewer workers to pay current beneficiaries than there were even a couple of decades ago. No, we’d never have had a fund “…rolling in dough today.” under any circumstances based on the SS Act as passed initially (much less as changed by “Graveyard Lyndon”).

  • edintexas

    I forgot to mention that I think SSA, Medicare, Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income (the latter 2 are welfare programs) all need to be fixed.

    Full disclosure: I’m a “senior” drawing SSA benefits. I would be in favor of “means testing” those benefits (take that any way you want: either I don’t need the money, or I know I don’t have the means).

    I have perfectly good health insurance which does not require me to have Medicare, so I turned down Medicare Part B. You can’t refuse Part A, it’s “free”. I’m eligible for VA medical care, but have chosen to leave that expenditure for those who need it. I was eligible for DoD’s Tri-Care until I refused Medicare Part B, but never used it for the same reason as VA. It should be obvious that I am entitled to military retirement pay, and I’ll be danged if I’ll agree to means testing that. I put my “means” in a long time ago, starting when I was paid a gross of $83.00 per month as a PVT E1.

  • jackhammer

    you think they are going to get up and fight?

    I am far too big a believer in the good of people to think that if most government programs disappear that a chaos would ensue that was bigger than what woudl happen after a war.

    I spent a lot of time in Eastern Europe afte the fall of communism, and there was a complete destruction of the entire political system, all social security means went down to 0, unemployment spiked, with most state owned companies laying off 80% of their workforce…..and they survived.

    It wouldn’t be a war, there wouldn’t be any damge to infrastructure, or harm to people, simply a no way out other than 40% social security benefit cuts and other similar things.

    It is not a doomsday scenario at all.

    alcoholics need to hit rock bottom too.

  • YnotNOW

    Conservatives need to keep the pressure on the current representatives, continue to primary and elect more conservatives to replace Dems and Squishes, and stay involved in their Government.

    A Step in the right direction is still a Step. Not a reason to declare victory and go home, and not a reason to complain that we have not complete the entire journey. But a step.

  • YnotNOW

    Conservatives need to keep the pressure on the current representatives, continue to primary and elect more conservatives to replace Dems and Squishes, and stay involved in their Government.

    A Step in the right direction is still a Step. Not a reason to declare victory and go home, and not a reason to complain that we have not complete the entire journey. But a step.

  • The_Gadfly

    If we did, the initial CR would have had $200 billion in cuts instead of a comparative paltry $61-65. And that still would be dwarfed by the Trillion dollar deficit. As for Reagan, yes I know, but that actually reinforces my point. Reagan did it without control of either house of Congress. When Republicans had control of all branches of government there was NO forward movement on any of the unfinished business. And Reagan himself said that being unable to move those agenda items was one of his biggest disappointments when he was in office.

  • The_Gadfly

    Use some dynamic scoring, fix what’s broken in the economy and you can do it in 5.

    I don’t say that because I’m a rosy-eyed optimist (heck if you read my posting history you’ll see my natural response is that the glass is half empty). I say it because we were in the same boat under Carter. Deficits and Inflation and malaise as far as the eye could see. He came in, cut back on government, deregulated the oil markets, took the hit on recession and two years later ignited the longest, biggest, strongest growth our economy has ever seen.

    It’s why I get so frustrated that Republicans won’t show some backbone, and come out and fight the lies and the smears from the Dems. We know what fixes it because we’ve done it before.

  • Diogenes314

    That didn’t happen until 2003. At that point we had a POTUS who was too much of a uniter, not enough of a divider, and a House ‘leadership’ that was put in place out of panic over the 1998 elections. Their entire working philosophy was to be the Anti-Newt, namely place politics over policy.

    And we still had a steadily declining deficit and growing economy, even with obscene spending levels. And they actually did try to do something about Social Security, they just couldn’t overcome Senate obstructionism.

  • The_Gadfly

    happened is: Republicans reverted to standard appropriators instead of leaders. Which means Ryan’s bill will be the high water mark, not a start, just like Reagan’s regulator cutbacks were the high water mark, not the start.

  • Diogenes314

    You seem to be assuming that the GOP leadership will change in midstream once they control all branches of government. Not only is that unfounded, but as long as Ryan is in control of the Budget committee, it is highly unlikely. In fact, if there was a change in the leadership, he would be likely to move up and not out.

  • The_Gadfly

    is an abnormality: our economy and the budget situation are so bad that a bare majority of the country supports trimming it. Take away the so bad part and the politicians return to form: feckless and worried only about the next election. Which in good times is most easily done by doling out goodies to the voters.

  • Diogenes314

    Which would make both him and Cantor not only venal but too stupid to learn from the history they lived through. And ignoring Ryan altogether. If Boehner/Cantor go the ‘keep our jobs instead of doing them’ route, he’s likely to be the next speaker.

    Besides, either way this is the best shot we have. And time is running out.