« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The ‘GOP Path to Prosperity:’ first reaction.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  April 4th, 2011 at 09:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Three things immediately leap out at me regarding this first look at the GOP’s long-term budget proposal:

  • As Hot Air put it, everything’s apparently on the table.  Everything.  6.2 trillion cut in spending over the next ten years*; 4.4 trillion cut from the deficit. Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security reform. An implicit promise of an end to ethanol subsidies.  Defense cuts.  Ending the bailout mindset.  Top tax rates reduced, coupled with wholesale simplification of the tax code.  A reduction of spending to 20% of GDP.  In other words, pretty much every third rail of American politics that exists.

The other two points are related, and they have to do with how likely it is that the Democrats will go along with this deal.

  • Given that this represents probably a one-time-only and completely undeserved chance for the Democrats to escape the sole-responsibility-for-the-economic-meltdown trap that they have dug for themselves, a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton – heck, a hypothetical President John Kerry – would have been smart enough and experienced enough to accept this deal essentially as-is.
  • The actual President Barack Obama is neither.

Moe Lane

*Let’s get this out of the way, right now.  The minimum time period for any sort of meaningful entitlement reform will be ten years, for a very simple reason: 55-65 year old people vote; and telling, say, a 59 year old that he now has only six years to rewrite his entire retirement strategy is roughly equivalent to telling a pilot on final approach that, oh, by the way, the runway is now on fire.  The 59 year old will not be happy, in other words.  True, neither will, say, a 51 year old, but he’ll have eight more years to work out something else.

Hey, I’m telling you what is.  What should be is another issue, and it’s not getting a vote.  Deal with it.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • reddog53

    That we should get behind and support!

  • izoneguy

    Not very – that is why democrats must be defeated on a nationwide basis.
    Those stubborn blue states that keep electing democrats will understand (or maybe they won’t) that the federal government’s piggy bank to the states will be closed. I am 52 and I am not looking for the government to help me after I retire. I just want to keeo what I have now. People my age and older MUST understand that the democrats will say anything to stay in power but they will steal your money given the chance.

  • Thomas_Hauber

    You will see the Dems pick out a few items and blast the Republicans for it. They have used this strategy in the past and it worked for them.

    Why should this time be any different?

  • altexas

    Facts of reality must prevail. Perhaps it was fitting that the greatest generation, the one that won two wars was cared for. Both my parents still live and my mother still works on her feet 8 hours a day. (mostly to get away from my dad. :} }

    Socialism fails every time it is tried. It is theft, it is evil, it is based on coveting what others have. I do not wish to be sustained by it at the expense of younger folks trying to raise a family.

    Balance the budget NOW!

  • jaykali

    Since everyone’s ox is going to get gored. I can’t wait to see how this works out. Obviously Democrats will scream bloody murder and tell you that people will be dying in the streets without offering any sort of real alternative (similar to their claims against the GOP during the healthcare debate). And so will American’s take the bait? In the past they have but if old people think that this will only affect the younger generation and the young people figure ‘something is better than nothing’ which is kind of what we expect at the moment – who knows?

    It’s possible that the GOP could change the debate, instead of the Dems setting their terms of how much we need to spend on the next big ‘jobs package’ the Republicans could change to debate into how much we’re going to cut. We shall see, bc entitlements are the hardest thing to cut. Cynics would put their money on the status quo and say that nothing will change until we hit crisis level.

    The polls will let us know. If ppl believe the Democrats message of ‘we just dont tax rich corporations enough’ then that would be a huge setback for the GOP. If ppl have finally woken up to the debt crisis then maybe things could change. I won’t pretend to know what will happen. Maybe the best predictor will be what the economic conditions are next November. If the economy still sucks ppl will say GOP here’s the keys, “hope” didn’t work out. If things improve ppl might say lets tap the breaks on cutting entitlements.

  • phenry

    What pains me the most is that I see a vision of the prosperity of the 90′s… and then I see Obama and the Senate Dems mangling this thing up so bad that by the time they’re through with it we get the 70′s instead.

  • izoneguy

    the 30′s…..

  • wimom

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qeyrp-V3Jvc

  • writeblock

    The left will do all it can to demagogue the issue. It has no other option–except a huge defeat.

    The Republicans have a good plan–but they need to defend against demagoguery from the left. The best antidote would be to nominate a presidential candidate who is well-known, trusted, articulate, and with convincing reform credentials. The days of nominating a good ol’ boy are over–or should be. IA and SC and NH should not be deciding the fate of the nation. We need our strongest, most articulate, most convincing candidate–one who appeals to the rest of the nation, not only the early primary states. Ideology isn’t everything. Electability is everything. Unless we win in the general, everything else is lost.

    Big big bucks will inevitably be spent on both sides. Obama will be prepared to spend a billion. This is going to be a monumental fight for the soul of America. It’s either socialism or freedom. A good ground plan is essential. We should be gearing up for it as of now–but my fear is that for a good many of our leaders it’s still business-as-usual.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    I will shut you down if you try.

  • charliesalmanack

    #1: The explicit repeal of Obamacare’s spending will put a spotlight on the fact that the Adminstration continues to mislead the American people abut the actual costs of this health care debacle. That’s a critical point the GOP can now spend the entire year trying to hammer home with the American public…further depressing support and laying the groundwork for repeal.

    #2: The impact this could have on Obama’s re-election. We all know Obama was going to spending the next 19 months consolidating the gains from his first 2 terms, all the while painting centrist themese that Americans could expect from him if re-elected. But when Obama now having to spend the next year defending the status quo and rejecting the compromises involved in this budget (and rest assured that, transformational leftist that he is, Obama WILL reject them), it will allow the eventual GOP Presidential nominee to truthfully declare that if Obama were the true centrist he claims to be, that he would have compromised with the GOP to save the very entitlement programs so many Americans rely on.

    My (modest) suggestion is on messaging: the MSM will constantly ask GOP members why they’re proposing repeal of Obamacare’s spending when they know the President will never sign it. I think every reply should incorporate the pending Constitutional challenge.

    One example of a potential answer: “Well Kaitie, I’m completely convinced Obamacare is unconstitutional, and fully expect the Supreme Court will declare it so. There’s just no way the individual mandate is constitutional…and of course the President explicitly ran against the idea of a mandate when he was running for President. But even though I expect SCOTUS to strike down Obamacare, we can’t rely on that outcome. We have to do everything we can to repeal the massive spending associated with this new entitlement…because the fact that President Obama added a new entitlement, when we already have Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid all insolvent, is both deeply immoral and fiscally insane.”

  • Diogenes314

    …modify the language to prevent any funds from being spent prior to the SC ruling the bill Constitutional.

    It is unlikely to happen and even if it did, we would have shut it down until and reignited it as an issue for the 2012 campaign.

  • charliesalmanack

    …..basically the argument should be, “We’re convinced Obamacare is Unconstitutional, and believe the Supreme Court is going to knock it down. If we’re wrong about that, we can always fund it after the fact. But given how tight government finances are, it’s insane for us to be funding a bill we believe is unconstitional and on the verge of getting voided. No, we’re not going to fund Obamacare until after the Supreme Court weighs in….”

  • Diogenes314

    These guys are shutting down the government over a bill they implicitly acknowledge to be unconstitutional?

    Glad to know that we are the ‘extremists’.

  • averagevoterdotcom

    too idealistc and naive. They will be forced to defend every cut. It may work but I have seen this movie before.

  • uncledan

    I wonder what the Republicans are thinking. They can’t get the Democrats to go along with much more than $6 billion in cuts right now. So they decide that somehow they can get the Democrats to go along with $6.2 trillion? And from what I understand, this doesn’t bring us into the black, it continues to leave us going into the red every year, but not as bad.

  • uncledan

    Good God, this isn’t rocket science. How miserable is our Republican leadership that they can’t get their PR team to explain to the country the following:

    What has Obama done for us so far?
    - Wrecked the economy
    - Ruined our foreign policy
    - Left his own Democrat Party in shambles with a 700 seat loss
    - Taken us to War #3

  • Diogenes314

    But unlike the current budget distraction, this will be on the agenda right in the middle of the election cycle with not only the White House at stake, but 22 Democrats running for re-election in the Senate.

  • Adjoran

    If the proposals’ specifics directly affect large segments of the electorate who are normally independent or swing voters, it’s dead in the water.

    The Medicare change I’ve heard about – essentially subsidizing private insurance – could be sold. If the Social Security changes involve incremental advances in the retirement date, it could be sold.

  • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

    The drastic ways in which this administration and Democrat-led Congresses over the last 4 (prior to last November) have increased spending and the deficit will require drastic measures to make us solvent once again.

    Oh, while I know Dems will never go for it and that Obama would veto it, I see no harm in bringing it to the floor for a vote. Again, if necessary. And again!

  • 20jan2013

    to the current nominating process to select the strongest, most articulate, most convincing candidate? My secondary question is what’s so bad with the current crop? I’ll take the liberty of answering the second one and waiting for your answer to the 1st (and 2nd of course): Compared to Obama, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the current crop, and the citizenry of Iowa, SC, and NH won’t give us a lemon this time around. How do I know? Because of the results of the congressional and state legislature elections in November 2010.

  • 20jan2013

    to the current nominating process to select the strongest, most articulate, most convincing candidate? My secondary question is what’s so bad with the current crop? I’ll take the liberty of answering the second one and waiting for your answer to the 1st (and 2nd of course): Compared to Obama, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the current crop, and the citizenry of Iowa, SC, and NH won’t give us a lemon this time around. How do I know? Because of the results of the congressional and state legislature elections in November 2010.

  • 20jan2013

    if they can’t even cut a few billion dollars right after getting the massive mandate of the Tea Party Revolution of ’10, then this proposal is just a bunch of pablum just to shut us up and go along with the compromise that our establishmentarian leadership is about to shove down our throats. Always the carrot is in front of us, and we never get to eat it. See also “end to abortion on demand.”

  • vishnu

    that’s not the hard part, the hard part is proving the next sentence-
    “We can do better….”

  • Diogenes314

    “to the current nominating process to select the strongest, most articulate, most convincing candidate?”

    Since you asked.

  • http://undo4me.com WmCraig

    It may be excellent. But I am not interested in talking about reforms 10 years from now. Let me explain why.

    It is Ryan, it is Washington.

    In my working life, that goes back to the mid 1960′s I have seen the government “reform” our spending and “reform” social security several times. Each time I paid more so that my retirement should be secure.

    The only” bi-partisan” act the US legislators have ever committed was to EMBEZZLE $2,200 BILLION from the American tax payer over the last fifty years.

    So when the Democrats and the Republicans get together and explain how a little pain now will yield big returns 5,10, 20 years down the road I simply DO NO BELIEVE THEM. A month ago the “head” democrat was telling the people that the social security fund is solvent for a decade or more. It went insolvent in 2010. These people lie.

    Paul Ryan may know the budget, but the problem is politicians.
    Any promise that some future politician will act in a specific way is unrealistc.Congress can only control what it does during it’s session. No more.
    The only solution is to stop spending now and take control over social security funds away from the Congress. You begin by reversing the comingling President LBJ started. You give the money to third parties to manage, and eliminate promises of fixed income tied to the payment of social security.

    Anything else will just be turned into a ponzi scheme by future “bi-partisan” action

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    There *is* no trust fund money to manage. And thanks to the Obama recession, SS’s surplus collapsed.

  • Duke

    As a County Board member I get only a certain number of dollars to work with in each budget cycle. In order to increase funding for one activity, I have to decrease or eliminate funding for something else. It seems as though the state and federal levels of our government don’t find themselves fettered by such restrictions.

    We need to refinance Social Security, Medicare, etc., by eliminating the Dept. of Education, EPA, and many other duplications of state functions. If the people we elect are too corrupt to take these bold steps I’m afraid we’ve lost not only this battle, but the entire war!

  • ohtimtim

    to budget reform is not Ryan’s plan but a Republican refusal to increase the debt ceiling. Then real efforts will have to be made to cut the budget, maybe even gutting unconstitutional departments and programs. If the Defense department has enough cash laying around to start an unprovoked, unnecessary military action in Lybia, then its budget needs to be cut also with more restrictions put on its ability to move money around.

  • Finrod

    It seems like half their caucus can’t tell the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion anyways, so perhaps we can trick them that way, heh.

  • writeblock

    A system that is proportional, closed, and rotated by region. Right now battleground states have no representation in the early primaries. My state, PA, will have no input whatsoever–as usual, though it’s a far more important state than any one of the early states since it’s purple and can go either way. Ditto for OH and FL. It’s an outmoded system that’s wholly ignores electability in a general election.

  • writeblock

    The early small states are atypical. They measure nothing in terms of electability. Even Bush barely squeaked by in the general elections. He won twice because he was blessed with two truly bad opponents–Gore and Kerry. The system gave us Nixon, both Bushes, Dole and McCain–all Democrats lite. It turned down Reagan twice. It’s not kind to fiscal conservatives. It’s a system that obsesses over ethanol and abortion–but little else.

  • writeblock

    They may be high-minded–but are they politically astute? We’ll see. Right now we don’t have a real leader–a candidate for president to rally round. When we do–he’d better be super-articulate and competent. Dummies like Huckabee and blowhards like Newt need not apply.

  • http://www.timelyrenewed.com timelyrenewed

    The GOP budget is a good start, but ultimately it is a retail solution to a wholesale problem. We also need to redress the underlying distortions of the Constitution which have allowed the federal government to expand far beyond its original constitutional powers. This can be accomplished by amending the Constitution to restore the original constitutional structure which limited the federal government’s ability to expand to such a ridiculous size and power.

    However, this is difficult to achieve when Congress holds a monopoly on initiating constitutional amendments. The solution is to start with an “amendment amendment” which gives the States the ability to initiate constitutional amendments without a convention. In this way, grassroots constitutionalists on the state level could enact amendments carefully drafted to achieve the restoration of the original constitutional structure without having to go through Washington. Only this will permanently constrain future federal overreach of the sort rejected by the people last November. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com