Streams

Paul Ryan's Budgets: Roadmap vs. Path

Thursday, August 16, 2012

Marc Goldwein, Senior Policy Director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, discusses the difference between the first Ryan budget  plan - the "Roadmap for America" - and the more recent "Path to Prosperity."

CRFB's Ryan Comparison Table Blueprint Path to Prosperity Final 3192012

Guests:

Marc Goldwein

Comments [25]

john from New Jersey

I don't understand why so little is made of the fact that you can only learn about a politician, and most people, not by what they say but by what motivates them, who influences them and who is giving them money. With our current political system, the groups with the most money are the groups that exert the most influence on politicians. Romney and Ryan can't really empathize with average citizens and their concerns because they were both born with silver spoons and they appeal to people in the same position. They don't really care about health care insurance or social security because they already have enough money to pay for health care and retirement security. You have to look carefully behind a politician, not his/her word.

Aug. 16 2012 03:05 PM
jawbone

Brian! Derelection of duty to not inform you listeners of this guy's ties to Pete Peterson! It should be in the intro. Why isn't it there?

Stunning.

Aug. 16 2012 11:03 AM
jawbone

LBF from uws -- The whole point of the Republican's long, long fight against SocSec (since before it was enacted, of course) is to destroy it.

The whole point of Republican attacks on Medicare, again since long before it was enacted and is of a piece with their fight against any government role in healthcare, and this Ryan voucher is to get the camel's nose into the the tent to weaken it. Secondarily, the goal is to get those without wealth to Just Hurry Up and Die. Or...live miserably until they Just Die.

Alas, I can find no reason to trust Obama on these issues, but I do know more clearly what the R's are after. Obama? Does he want to be more "transformational" that St. Ronnie? Please his corporate paymasters? Be the Trojan Horse which destroys the Democratic Party? Even now, when jobs are are near the top of the public's concerns, Obama continues to speak in vague generalities with no concrete plans or even hopes!

I don't really know what Obama's objectives are, and I'm pretty sure the general public doesn't understand Obama and his objectives. I do know he can barely stand to state he is a Democrat and he sure is not a Democrat from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. He's extended and cemented Bush/Cheney's move to massively increae the executive powers of that "Unitary Executive," he's just as warlike but much more secretive about his wars (altho' he does claim credit for the assassination of some American citizens without benefit of trial or even indictment), and he's actually worse when it comes to protecting civil liberties especially for government whistleblowers. Environment? The economy? Jobs? Not much to show in those areas, unless it's his actions to protect banksters and aid corporate powers.

We are not doing very well in chosing our leaders for the two main parties. That may be because WE don't have the ability to do much choosing; the UberWealthy do it for us, whether through controlling what the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) deigns to tell us or just outright buying the pols.

It's high time for a party which represents the people, not the wealthy and the powerful. Watch for increased control of the internet to make that become more difficult.

Aug. 16 2012 10:59 AM

There's another thing that's left out of the who SS/Medicare debate: the fact that that money is SPENT by it's users and FLOWS INTO the economy. Get rid of these programs or massively cut them and you take that money out of the economy. Seniors will spend less at private enterprises like restaurants and movie theaters and food markets, tax paying doctors will have less clients and will have to lay off nurses and support staff, and rents and mortgages will go unpaid leading to increased foreclosures. Using the Herbert Hoover plan of cutting our way out of the Depression didn't work, I don't know why that seems to be the platform of the Republican party right now.

Aug. 16 2012 10:57 AM
Henry Makovec from Coeur dAlene, ID

There is a lot of talk about medicare and social security being a huge drag on the budget. Why not just eliminate the caps on both for high income earners, raise the minimum age from 65 to 67, and means test? Seems to me that would save them both.

Aug. 16 2012 10:43 AM
Ed from Larchmont

And the HHA health insurance I'm told will pay for abortion, but some don't pay for childbirth.

Aug. 16 2012 10:41 AM

Gary, it's not the 1970's, you need to stop crying wolf with the "liberal media" victimhood line. FOX news has more than double the viewers of any of the other channels, and Rupert has a massive newspaper reach as well. CNBC takes a decidedly anti-Obama stance in it's financial reporting. The largest radio station owner, Clear Channel, is politically to the right, as is Salem. (As are the majority of the nonsense talk show radio shows). Etc etc.

Railing against "the liberal mainstream media" by mainstream conservative media outlets has become a new national past-time.

Aug. 16 2012 10:38 AM

Yikes! Our goal is not to cut benefits (that will happen on its own if we do nothing) but to preserve the programs in a meaningful way. Since these are INSURANCE programs, we simply need to collect more premium. That is, raise the FICA cut-off to five or ten times median income. OR we need to change our experience...Healthy eating and lifestyles...less screen time...no smoking so that the burden of healthcare isn't so out of whack here in the U.S.A.

What has politicians frightened is the day when the SSA starts cashing in on the $2T in US bonds. Where does the money for that come from? Anyone...Anyone...

Aug. 16 2012 10:36 AM
sophia

What's the difference between a patient "paying more first dollar", but covering catastropic coverage and continuing to simply use the Emergency Room?

The fact that this alleged "centrist" deficit hawk, doesn't seem to have considered simply removing the utterly wasteful insurace company profits and using the bargaining power of the govt to drive down costs while covering everyone like EVERY OTHER ADVANCED COUNTRY, proves how right-wing these alleged centrists really are.

Aug. 16 2012 10:30 AM
Nick from UWS

Paul Ryan is a guy that worships the brutal Ayn Rand six days a week, except Sunday when he's eating the body of Christ. Sounds the recipe for a madman who doesn't know whether he's coming or going to me.

Aug. 16 2012 10:29 AM
leo from queens

Excellent Point Smokey. SS is fixed by raising the level of contribution to ALL income and income above the current of I think $100K

Aug. 16 2012 10:29 AM
Leo from queens

Gary: The Obama admin has proposed a budget for the 3 years it has been in office. It is up to the CONGRESS to pass a budget as they are the ones who constitutionally have to decide where to spend the money. The Obama administration cannot propose, pass and implement its OWN budget on its own.

Also, for the guest here, SS is not out of control - if you want to reinforce it's finances just do the following:
1. Have a Payroll tax on ALL INCOME regardless of how much you make AND
2. Lower the Payroll tax to 5%
This iwill make it cheaper for employers to hire people; it will lower taxes on most workers - especially working on those making less than $100K
and it will increase the money going into the fund since those making over $150K will be paying into it. and we will be taxing INCOME and not taxing WORK

Aug. 16 2012 10:27 AM
Nick from UWS

Yeah....cut medical benefits and social security for tax paying Americans, but continue to dump money down the toilet of the military and 100% uneccessary and illegal foreign wars. Yeah, that's real real smart. What a bunch of morally bankrupt morons. What thugs, criminals.

Aug. 16 2012 10:26 AM
LBF from uws

Re cost of health insurance with "voucher"
There is no such insurance now (65+), so how does anyone (including democrats) know how much it would cost?

Also, what about pre-existing conditions at age 65? Almost all have something!

Aug. 16 2012 10:26 AM

Ryan's plan is just a gimmick and a lie. Lower tax rates now and in return we'll get rid of loopholes and deductions.
10 years ago we got lower rates, and ya know what, spending still rose and tax expenditures (deductions) remained and rose.

The plan gives his Tea Party masters what they always love hearing: lower taxes; but shows no courage on dealing with the deductions, like IRA's (very popular), mortgage interest (if phased out immediately would cause further foreclosures), employer provided health insurance (very popular), and even Medicare (where he simply kicks the can 10 years down the road - the endless politicians game).

His plan is a path to create a feudal society with one rich group owning everything and a strong military to keep them in control of the world, and to cut everything else.

Aug. 16 2012 10:25 AM
Mike from Inwood

Countries with single-payer health care consume roughly 12% of their GDP in health care with better over-all outcomes. The US consumes roughly 17% of GDP in health care. Romney, Ryan and the GOP fight single-payer health insurance tooth and nail. The budget is NOT their primary concern; keeping the spigot of taxes flowing to their friends is the real concern.

Aug. 16 2012 10:25 AM

Why wasn't this Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget properly identified as a Pete Peterson entity. Why no mention of the real danger - 30 + years of steady trade deficits?

Aug. 16 2012 10:25 AM
Aaron from Queens

Brian, the low capital gains rate is often defended (despite being regressive)on the grounds that it encourages investment.

Has anyone looked at whether this is true,and evaluated whether any benefit justifies a regressive tax code?

this is an important question, because the "Randian" argument is that the successful should keep there rightfully earned money- but should they keep more of it than the middle class?

Aug. 16 2012 10:25 AM

It's unfair to keep lumping problems with Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. Social Security is so easy to fix - just raise the level at which contributions kick out. Then Social Security is fixed!

Aug. 16 2012 10:23 AM
Tom Pinch

Gary, not doing anything is a form of governing that republicans do more than democrats. what's your point?

Aug. 16 2012 10:19 AM
gary from queens

Obama-Democrat thuggery school of politics is working.

The strategy was to abstain from issuing a budget for 3 years (in violation of Constitution). And offer no reform to save medicaid or SS.

And that will force the pro liberal media to focus on the Dem criticism of the republican plan.

Brian is showing that the strategy works. Did Brian ever do a show critical of Democrats for foresaking their responsibilty to govern? no.

Aug. 16 2012 10:15 AM
Ed from Larchmont

The bottom line seems to be that there aren't enough young people paying into the system. And we have't gotten medical costs down. And there's no painless way to make up for the young people.

Aug. 16 2012 10:15 AM
Edward from NJ

Why are all of these dramatic program changes rolled into something called a "budget". Budgets are typically annual documents, so how can you restructure a program ten-years-out in a budget? Couldn't it all be undone in the next budget?

Aug. 16 2012 10:15 AM
John from NYC

It might help us take this program seriously if at some time we got equal time to present "The Obama Plan."

Or might that make our president not look good? (Which is of course the objective of this segment regarding Ryan.)

Aug. 16 2012 10:13 AM
MARTIN CHUZZLEWIT from Manhattan

"Roadmap","Path"...whatever. Ryan is just following Cowperthwaite's strategy -

“The world’s most effective anti-poverty program is a free market.”
Sir John Cowperthwaite – overseer of Hong Kong’s economic rise from 1960 -1996

“I did very little. All I did was try to prevent some of the things that they might do to undo it.”
Cowperthwaite, 1996

“If Cowperthwaite had a credo, surely it was the opposite of “You didn’t build that.”
William McGurn (WSJ 8-14-2012)


Aug. 16 2012 09:54 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

The Morning Brief

Enter your email address and we’ll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.