GOP to Release Their Budget Proposal

[HuskyCaucasian]

To be fair, I thought I'd use a "Fair and Balanced" source for the lead:

House Republicans are calling for the economic stimulus package passed in February to be rescinded starting in 2010 as part of their alternative to President Obama's budget blueprint.

 

After being criticized last week for lacking specifics in their budget rebuttal. the Republicans said Wednesday they also want a freeze on non-defense spending and a moratorium on earmarks for Congress.

 

"This is a budget with real policies and real numbers," said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. "We're going into an ocean of red ink in this country. There will be a time when others won't buy our bonds."

 

The GOP plan also proposes major changes to the tax code. It would allow taxpayers to either file under the current system or choose a simpler option: Individuals earning $50,000 or less, and couples earning $100,000 or less, would be taxed at 10 percent. The rate for income above $100,000 would be 25 percent.

 

GOP Budget Would Privatize Medicare By 2021

Republicans have released a budget that would privatize Medicare, one of the most efficient and popular health care programs for American seniors. From Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:

We pre

s

erve the exi

s

ting Medicare program for all tho

s

e 55 or older; and then, to ma

k

e the program

s

u

s

tainable and dependable, tho

s

e 54 and younger will enter a Medicare program reformed to wor

k

li

k

e the health plan member

s

of Congre

s

s

and federal employee

s

now enjoy.

S

tarting in 2021,

s

enior

s

would receive a premium

s

upport payment equal to 100% of the Medicare benefit on average. Thi

s

would be income related,

s

o low-income

s

enior

s

receive extra

s

upport, and high-income

s

enior

s

receive

s

upport relative to their income

s

—

along the

s

ame line

s

a

s

the pre

s

ident

’

s

Medicare Part D propo

s

al.

Republicans are taking seniors out of Medicare and leaving them in the hands of private insurers. Americans under 54 would chose a new private insurance plan that provides a standard Medicare benefits package or some other managed care option.

 

GOP Budget Plan Similar To McCain Plan, But Worse

The new GOP Budget plan is no longer a blueprint with pictures of circles and windmills. It's now fortified with a lot of numerals, and claims, and "math-like substances." But mainly, this plan seems to be brought to us by the number five.

 

See, remember back when John McCain was running to be President, and then briefly not-running for President, and then running for President again? During one of those three periods of time, he issued his grand fix for the ailing economy: a one-year freeze on discretionary spending. A dose of economic enervation at a time when stimulus was needed? This sounded deeply stupid to me! And a majority of Americans agreed. But that didn't stop this zombie idea in its tracks. No, no! The spending freeze was again touted as a solution this past month. What did people think about the idea? Well, liberal economist Paul Krugman pointed out, "That's not a retrogression to Herbert Hoover; even Hoover knew better than that." But, for balance, I'll include the opinion of David Brooks, who merely thought the idea was "insane."

 

Charles Grassley wouldn't let it go, and proposed a three-year spending freeze so that the greater economy could commit seppuku alongside certain AIG executives. And that brings us to today and the number five, because the NEW NEW IDEA is, uhm...the McCain spending freeze -- only QUINTUPLED. Sweet fancy Moses! These people have tried nothing and yet they're all out of ideas!

 

"If you expected a GOP alternative to the failed policies of the past that got our country into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, then I have two words for you: April Fool's," said Kenneth Baer, OMB communications director.

 

Another administration official added on background: "We read the Ryan budget alternative -- or what we know of it -- in the Wall Street Journal. It appears that this is more of the same failed policies that got us into this mess."

 

Meanwhile, Austan Goolsbee, an economic adviser to the president and increasingly active administration spokesman, told MSNBC: "Well, look, I thought it was most appropriate that this thing came out on April Fools' Day because this thing is the biggest April Fools' Joke and cruelest that we have had in years. If you look at what they are doing...they are calling for putting in a multi-trillion dollar additional tax cut for the highest income Americans, they are now talking about privatizing Medicare turning it into a voucher so that they can cut it substantially. That's not the reform of an entitlement -- it is the gutting of a program."

 

Ok, so the idea is to massively cut taxes. Book it, a 10 point cut to the rich, while decrease us poor folk to 10% will DRASTICALLY decrease government income. I hope they plan to show exactly what programs they will be cutting. They claim Obama is fiscally irresponsible, so their budget better be 100% balanced or they should be called nothing short of hypocrites.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[lostfan]

They are still talking about a spending freeze? Why? Railing against excessive spending is one thing, but a spending freeze is borderline retarded.

[HuskyCaucasian]

borderline retarded

^^^^GOP

 

As many of you know, i am an independent (raised Republican), and I really do want some policies of the GOP to succeed (not their budget though)... but the more they open their mouths, the harder and harder it is for me to root for them.

[StrangeSox]

They are still talking about a spending freeze? Why? Railing against excessive spending is one thing, but a spending freeze is borderline retarded.

 

Maybe this makes sense in a roundabout way. They know it'll never pass, so they're proposing something polar-opposite to the Democrats' plans. Then, in 2010, when the economy is still stumbling, they can say "see, we told you! we didn't want to go along with their bad ideas!"

[lostfan]

Maybe this makes sense in a roundabout way. They know it'll never pass, so they're proposing something polar-opposite to the Democrats' plans. Then, in 2010, when the economy is still stumbling, they can say "see, we told you! we didn't want to go along with their bad ideas!"

Yeah, I said this in another thread a couple weeks ago. It's like an elaborate marketing ploy. It's nothing like what they'd actually do if they were in power, they know they can't really do anything. It's a make-or-break strategy though.

[kapkomet]

The problem is (like I said in another thread this morning) is you HAVE to have growth in GDP with this enormous printing of money that we're doing. You won't see a corresponding decrease in unemployment, though. The media will scream GROWTH and it will hit right about fall of 2010.

 

The GOP is too damn busy talking about policy and not actual issues. They might as well pull the trigger and splat their brains against the wall if they can't deal with real issues.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Maybe this makes sense in a roundabout way. They know it'll never pass, so they're proposing something polar-opposite to the Democrats' plans. Then, in 2010, when the economy is still stumbling, they can say "see, we told you! we didn't want to go along with their bad ideas!"

It can also be turned on them and assuming the economy is on the rebound by the middle of next year, the DNC can say "See these Senators and Representatives... they wanted to repeal the Stimulus plan that rebuild this country. They wanted to do to Madicare what Bush wanted to do to social security... privatization. Do you really believe in THEIR vision for America? Tax cuts for the wealth, no plans to rebuild America, more offshore drilling. We didnt think so. This ______, vote for Democrat ______, and we'll rebuild America."

[HuskyCaucasian]

Crazy Fuzzy Math: GOP Budget Plan Assumes Americans Would Choose Higher Tax Rate

The Republican plan unveiled today by ranking budget committee Republican Paul Ryan (Wisc.) clears the bar they set for themselves in two ways. First, it sets the 10 percent rate for families making $100,000 or less and for individuals at $50,000, thus more than doubling taxes on individuals making between $50,000 and $100,000 -- at least as compared as to the original offer.

 

But the real way that Republicans offer the tax cut without factoring it into the budget's revenue is to suggest that Americans won't actually take advantage of the lower rates. Instead, the GOP budget permanently extends President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. A Republican budget committee aid said that the revenues assumed in the GOP budget are based on the current tax structure that resulted from those cuts.

 

In other words, Republicans are assuming that given the choice between a higher rate and a lower rate, Americans will choose the higher rate. During the presidential campaign, Republicans slammed Joe Biden for suggested that paying taxes was a patriotic act in a time of economic crisis.

 

Under the current tax code, an individual making more than $160,850 pays a 33 percent rate; under the Republican plan, that taxpayer could choose to pay 25 percent instead. (For a family, the income threshold is $195,850.) For a family earning more than $349,700, the rate rises to 35 percent, but filers could still choose the 25 percent rate.

 

If taxpayers did decide to pay the lower rate, government revenue would plummet by roughly $300 billion per year, said economist Dean Baker of the liberal-leaning Center for Economic Policy Research.

[lostfan]

If you give someone a choice, who the hell is going to choose the higher tax rate? Sheesh. I pay taxes because they make me pay taxes, but you'd best believe I look for every deduction I can. Just like everyone else.

[kapkomet]

I think some of this is getting cherry picked and not reported correctly.

 

[lostfan]

I think some of this is getting cherry picked and not reported correctly.

Well it's the Huffington Post, not CNN.

 

However, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that was correct, because budget gimmicks are just a fact of life.

Edited April 1, 2009 by lostfan

[HuskyCaucasian]

I think some of this is getting cherry picked and not reported correctly.

This is the EXACT wording from the plan:

It offers taxpayers the option of paying their income taxes through a simplified code with just two brackets and a generous standard deduction and personal exemption.

 

From page 32:

Offers Taxpayers a Choice. The proposal allows individual income taxpayers to make their own choices about how best to pay their taxes. Within 10 years of enactment of this legislation, individuals would choose one of the two tax systems. But individuals are allowed one additional changeover between the two tax systems over the course of their lifetimes. Individuals are also allowed to change tax systems when a major life event (death, divorce, or marriage) alters their tax filing status.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[kapkomet]

This is the EXACT wording from the plan:

Got it.

 

It doesn't guarantee a loss of money, though. It depends on several things.

 

[lostfan]

Got it.

 

It doesn't guarantee a loss of money, though. It depends on several things.

It does in the short term, but assuming it stimulates growth, you'd eventually have to raise them back. I think there is a sweet spot somewhere that maximizes revenue, nobody knows where it is though.

[kapkomet]

It does in the short term, but assuming it stimulates growth, you'd eventually have to raise them back. I think there is a sweet spot somewhere that maximizes revenue, nobody knows where it is though.

Right, and the way they did that was calculating it based on a set of assumptions that would nearly equal out.

 

 

[Cknolls]

I think some of this is getting cherry picked and not reported correctly.

 

 

 

By the HUFF POST? Come on Kap you cynic.

[HuskyCaucasian]

It doesn't guarantee a loss of money, though. It depends on several things.

I see it as a bait and switch... "Look, you get all these great tax cuts, we fix the budget, and grow america... but wait, what we forgot to tell you is that you have to opt into those tax cuts, and out entire budget is based on you not doing that... so dont. but look, we gave you the option, how nice of us!"

[kapkomet]

I see it as a bait and switch... "Look, you get all these great tax cuts, we fix the budget, and grow america... but wait, what we forgot to tell you is that you have to opt into those tax cuts, and out entire budget is based on you not doing that... so dont. but look, we gave you the option, how nice of us!"

And what Obama is doing is not a bait and switch? Hmmmm.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

And what Obama is doing is not a bait and switch? Hmmmm.

He's doing a LOT of exactly what he promise dont he campaign trail. He said we'd need to spend a lot of money in the short term to save int he long term. He NEVER said he'd balance the budget.

[HuskyCaucasian]

FWIW:

MSNBC just confirmed that Sen. McCain is working on an alternative budget in the senate. I'd be curious to see that.

[bmags]

let me guess, his will be centered aroudn no ear marks. That'll balance the budget.

[EvilMonkey]

How about giving all the workers over age 55 $1,000,000 tax free on the stipulation that they quit their jobs and either buy a house or a new American car. That would free up jobs for the unemployed and help the over 55 crowd who are getting their IRA's creamed in this downturn. If they can't live for 10 years on a million bucks, even after buying a car of a house, until social security kicks in, then f*** em.

[Balta1701]

How about giving all the workers over age 55 $1,000,000 tax free on the stipulation that they quit their jobs and either buy a house or a new American car. That would free up jobs for the unemployed and help the over 55 crowd who are getting their IRA's creamed in this downturn. If they can't live for 10 years on a million bucks, even after buying a car of a house, until social security kicks in, then f*** em.

The problem is that it's an ineffective rapid stimulus. It'd be difficult for most people to spend that much money rapidly, it'd literally take most 10-20 years under any circumstances, and most of it would be saved. Thus, most of the stimulus impact of it is pushed off down the road, if it is spent at all (much might just be saved permanently and then passed on to children, without being taxed because it's significantly under the estate tax limits).

 

Of course, compared to lighting money on fire giving money to the banks...that's not a bad idea.

[NorthSideSox72]

let me guess, his will be centered aroudn no ear marks. That'll balance the budget.

Won't balance the budget, but would be an excellent achievement on multiple levels, if they could actually do it (which they won't).

 

[Balta1701]

Won't balance the budget, but would be an excellent achievement on multiple levels, if they could actually do it (which they won't).

Even McCain dropped the earmark pledge repeatedly last summer when it was pointed out by some intrepid folks that things like all U.S. aid to Israel are funded via earmarks, and no, McCain was not in favor of eliminating all U.S. aid to Israel. Didn't get called on it much down the stretch, but every time someone asked him about an obviously good earmark he backtracked.