WaPo: Hey, a Republican budget plan actually cuts the deficit
posted at 3:37 pm on February 5, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
When I agreed to support the call for a regular Question Time between the President and Congress — or at least the opposition — I wrote that the meeting between Barack Obama and the House Republican Caucus provided a win for both sides. Obama got to look presidential and broke away from the Teleprompter, although the ground rules probably made him look better than he otherwise would have. Republicans won too, I argued, because the media was forced to cover their substantive policy proposals, which undermined the whole “Party of No” spin that Democrats sold to the national media outlets.
Today, the Washington Post bears this out by reporting on the substantive budget proposal from Rep. Paul Ryan that actually does what Obama professes to want — cut the deficit (emphasis mine):
Rep. Paul D. Ryan says he is determined to make sure the Republican Party is viewed as “the alternative party, not the opposition party.”
That is a goal President Obama embraced when he visited House Republicans at their policy retreat in Baltimore last week, and he singled out Ryan as someone he would like to work with — even mentioning budget legislation the Wisconsin Republican co-wrote.
Released two days before the unusual back-and-forth session between Obama and the GOP, the bill sponsored by Ryan and five other House members would seek to reduce the deficit and spur economic growth by cutting the tax rate on corporations, shifting future Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to private insurance plans, and both raising the retirement age gradually to 70 and reducing the growth of benefits to make Social Security solvent. Even Democrats have acknowledged that it is one of the few plans offered by a member of either party that would lower the long-term budget deficit.
And how did the White House, in its full deficit-hawk mode, respond to Ryan’s proposals?
In a statement, Orszag called Ryan “a smart and engaging leader. . . . I always enjoy debating and talking with him.” But the budget director expressed disagreement with Ryan’s legislation, which includes a provision that Democrats have long opposed, such as allowing people to invest money they would pay in payroll taxes for Social Security into personal accounts and keeping tax cuts in place for people who earn more than $250,000 a year.
Orszag made that criticism public in hearings on Obama’s budget plan.
Ryan faces an uphill battle to get his proposals into a bill, let alone getting a floor vote. But Ryan, who has been offering alternatives on health-care reform for months (which comes as part of the bill discussed in this article), at least has received some media coverage on those efforts. If the Democrats don’t want to address Republican alternatives, it will be harder for them to excuse themselves by claiming alternatives don’t exist.
That is why a Question Time forum would be valuable to everyone — and probably why we won’t see another one, unless Obama drops so far in the polls that he needs to get another momentary bump.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
About time.
RealMc on February 5, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Ryan / Palin 2012!
UltimateBob on February 5, 2010 at 3:41 PM
Paul Ryan for President.
The more I see and hear, the more I like.
Knucklehead on February 5, 2010 at 3:41 PM
Now as long as Paul Ryan stays out of IL, he will do just fine. Being a “Ryan” in IL never seems to work out.
WashJeff on February 5, 2010 at 3:42 PM
All good, but The Washington Post is ONE news outlet.
HotAir is ONE blog.
Will this reach into living rooms across America???
bridgetown on February 5, 2010 at 3:42 PM
I think there could be some ‘push back’ from the 50 and above crowd here~maybe, if you are 50 as of a certain, you stay on the system stated now~if you are 50 and below, you start working under the ‘new and improved’ system.
As for people like Warren Buffet, and other millionaires~do we dare say THEY are no eligible for medicare/social security. I know they pay in, but come on…..
HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 3:43 PM
I would like him to be GOV of WI first. Being GOV of a state is the best experience one can get before being President.
WashJeff on February 5, 2010 at 3:43 PM
I like the sound of this plan.
rbj on February 5, 2010 at 3:43 PM
Every Kenyan in Washington will be against this.
cntrlfrk on February 5, 2010 at 3:43 PM
That would cost 2.5M on Sunday.
WashJeff on February 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Paul Ryan: Showing leadership.
Keep doing that.
ted c on February 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Take away the Dems narrative of “They don’t offer any solutions”.
portlandon on February 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM
It took all of two posts to see calls for his candidacy. Is that a record. May he can run against Feingold instead of TT.
Goldenavatar on February 5, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Almost any plan that has this type of stuff in it:
Is going to be sweet,
WashJeff on February 5, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Reverse that and I’m on board. That would certainly be the youngest and best-looking Presidential ticket in history.
BTW, Ryan’s budget(or one similar to it) may become a reality a year from now if the GOP retakes the House.
Doughboy on February 5, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Now this is what Willis was talkin’ about.
SouthernGent on February 5, 2010 at 3:45 PM
I’m glad to see that making a comeback. I may actually have something of value from the program when I retire if this comes to pass.
Vashta.Nerada on February 5, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Ignorance is not fixed overnight, Port. They will still say it.
HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 3:46 PM
Frank/Weiner 2012!
txag92 on February 5, 2010 at 3:47 PM
As long as AnninCA gets hers, you do not matter. ;-)
WashJeff on February 5, 2010 at 3:48 PM
Nah. It won’t. Those 2 or 3 viewers that watch msnbc will never know, there were alternative ideas. ;)
capejasmine on February 5, 2010 at 3:48 PM
ROFLMAO!!!
capejasmine on February 5, 2010 at 3:49 PM
Hhhmmmmm…
Letting people keep more of the money THEY earned and not turning it over to government.
I can hear the squealing, screeching, and gnashing of teeth from the Democrats now…
Seven Percent Solution on February 5, 2010 at 3:49 PM
The great thing about having Obama as president is that guys like this, Marco Rubio, Brown and a yet to be determined group of others are getting lifted up. The only coattails obama has is forpse conservatives.
ted c on February 5, 2010 at 3:50 PM
I’ve heard Rush use HotAir, and have heard him read articles Ed has written. Send this to him, and Hannity. They reach millions.
capejasmine on February 5, 2010 at 3:51 PM
Tom Coburn (a medical doctor) had a health care proposed bill last May! That didn’t stop the press from calling Republicans the party of no. Don’t think Ryan’s proposal will get any better reception from the LSM.
Christian Conservative on February 5, 2010 at 3:51 PM
You/Me 2012!
uknowmorethanme on February 5, 2010 at 3:52 PM
The only coattails obama has is forpse conservatives.
ted c on February 5, 2010 at 3:50 PM
___________________
Brilliant.
uknowmorethanme on February 5, 2010 at 3:53 PM
The Democrats are The Party of No!
They say no to anything that might come across as logical, sensible and actually accomplishes something other than tax & spend.
joedoe on February 5, 2010 at 3:53 PM
OT: Does anyone know if Allahpundit has quit Twitter?
d1carter on February 5, 2010 at 3:56 PM
=(
I’ll stop blowing up balloons and hanging up the streamers.
portlandon on February 5, 2010 at 3:57 PM
You can ask him. He’s over in the Todd Palin thread stirring the pot.
portlandon on February 5, 2010 at 3:57 PM
Private investment in SS would have made this crash even worse.
Try again.
AnninCA on February 5, 2010 at 3:59 PM
The devil is in the details.
How many people are willing to accept this? A couple months ago we were discussing cuts to Medicare and SS and “conservatives” were furious that they wouldn’t get their turn at socialist medicine when they go older.
2010 is going to be a bang up year for Republicans. 2012 likely will be as well. When the time comes that WE have super majorities in Congress, we need to actually implement stuff like this. You can’t say you’re for conservative principles and policies and then get squeamish when people try to privatize health insurance and what not for seniors. The government doesn’t belong in that business. And young people like myself don’t want to pay for your largess.
Trent1289 on February 5, 2010 at 3:59 PM
No, Port. The November 2010 party is still on.
I’ll bring the Jager and popcorn!
HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 4:04 PM
So will every Keynesian.
ICBM on February 5, 2010 at 4:06 PM
I am 56 and I would be okay with being allowed to keep my current health insurance even though it is really expensive. And I wouldn’t mind putting off drawing my social security if I was allowed to put money away tax free that would allow me to decide when I could quit and live off my savings.
Cindy Munford on February 5, 2010 at 4:06 PM
I hear you can’t just “quit Twitter”. There’s like a 14-step program or something.
SouthernGent on February 5, 2010 at 4:07 PM
I think it was Ace that pointed out that HA is reaching more people than Olberdouche daily.
GnuBreed on February 5, 2010 at 4:07 PM
How?
ThePrez on February 5, 2010 at 4:09 PM
The republicans started losing congress when they started thinking like democrat lites in that the public wanted their vote to be bought. People understand what spending too much means, particularly after 2008/09.
Stick with a strong fiscal program and we easily take back congress.
jukin on February 5, 2010 at 4:09 PM
annica: i am not smart enough to know the effects of private investment in lieu of standard SS payments on the economy/recession/recovery etc.
but i do know this: the government is taking money from me.
kelley in virginia on February 5, 2010 at 4:09 PM
God forbid that someone in congress actually submitted a plan that would cut the deficit. Heads will roll. Of course this is a republican who doesn’t understand the finer points of tax and spend.
duff65 on February 5, 2010 at 4:11 PM
You little twerp, you ain’t payin’ me for nothin’.
I’ve payed into this SS scam for more years than you been around. I wrote here a long time ago that I’d be willing to forego all that I payed in so the young people could get out from underneath this atrocity, but don’t you for one minute think you are paying me for anything.
You didn’t hear many in this forum complain about losing socialism. And if someone was complaining, they aren’t conservative. So you just take your whiny Gen-whatev @$$ somewhere else and snivel.
davidk on February 5, 2010 at 4:12 PM
Social Security is already in the red now, with no hope of it EVER coming out of it. So how could it have been worse? I know I’d rather do my own finances, and take my own risks, as opposed to letting politicians have it, and muck it up. God knows how much they’ve skimmed off of it, to pay back political favors over the years. At least when YOU do it yourself, you won’t rob from yourself.
capejasmine on February 5, 2010 at 4:12 PM
Paul Ryan…correct again. A rising star.
visions on February 5, 2010 at 4:12 PM
His proposal matches what the states are doing. In CA, public employees have to work longer to get pensions and health when they leave. That’s the only fair way to do it–unless you want to find part-time jobs for lots of 65-year-olds.
PattyJ on February 5, 2010 at 4:12 PM
It would also be nice to point out that Obama et al said there is tons of waste in Medicare. Somewhere in the billions. Something we here know has been there for eons. The Dems said they were willing to go after the waste. Snort. Along with getting Ryan’s proposal out there, could we couple his message along with getting rid of the fraud and waste? The Dems have done nothing about the waste to date. Who is the party of “No” now?
It would be nice if we could be specific when speaking on the economy. Numbers is not something everyone can wrap their minds around when you begin talking in terms of billions and trillions. Whoever goes out there to put GOP ideas forward, use lots of simple examples on what your plan details.
freeus on February 5, 2010 at 4:14 PM
Private investment in SS would have made this crash even worse.
Try again.
AnninCA on February 5, 2010 at 3:59 PM
————–
Really? How can anything be worse than zero?
Ever hear of the bond market? Geez you’re dumb.
fossten on February 5, 2010 at 4:17 PM
Your brain farted, Ann.
Try again.
SS is in trouble~do you know the definition of insanity?
Of course you do.
HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 4:17 PM
We (the country) has to address the problem with SS just like large private employers had to with corporate retirement plans. They were forced to go from defined benefit to defined contribution plans. We have no choice and the sooner we address the issue the better it will be but make no mistake it will happen one way or the other.
whbates on February 5, 2010 at 4:19 PM
You’re a good woman, Cindy. And, I hear you make great brownies.
But, I figure the democrats will beat down the doors to say that the republicans are going to make seniors take out their own gall bladders with a spork and eat dog food.
HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 4:19 PM
Forget it, Ryan. You’d be better off demagoging it, and America would be too. These people aren’t going to play with you, except maybe to play you for a patsy.
rrpjr on February 5, 2010 at 4:19 PM
Privatize Medicare/Medicaid.
Privatize Social Security.
Get government out of the insurance and retirement business once and for all.
Daggett on February 5, 2010 at 4:19 PM
I thought you were leaving. Since you’re here, explain how this would worsen the “crash”. Regale us with your wisdom (urp).
AubieJon on February 5, 2010 at 4:20 PM
This is never going to turn around, Ann. Accept it.
ladyingray on February 5, 2010 at 4:20 PM
Sorry, that is bull Ann. Yes, depending on when someone was taking out cash, the crash would have hurt. But compare the market now with say, 10 years ago. We are talking about long term investement here
JusDreamin on February 5, 2010 at 4:21 PM
I’d rather keep the insurance I have as well. And I don’t plan on there being any social security for me to draw – and I’m only a decade behind you.
ladyingray on February 5, 2010 at 4:21 PM
Your understanding of the market sucks. It would have softened it, because cash in the market doesn’t crash, the value of what is being traded crashes. You never lose money in the market unless you take it out at less than what you paid. The crash only truly affected people that are taking money out to live on, not investing long term.
I would have LOVED to have my money going into a spider whent he market was under 6K, because it would now be worth 60% more. The market is a long term thing, and for huge portions of the population crashes are a good thing! It means your money is buying stocks at a bargain!
At some point as you near retirement it should be moved into fixed interest assets, but even Bush’s proposals in 2005 were for private investment ONLY for people not close to retirement, so, long term.
Go to US Debt Clock and tell me if our current model isn’t “worse”.
SS/MC for elderly under the poverty line only. Get rid of this idea that you are paying into it for retirement, because it won’t be there in 25 years when I retire unless it’s changed drastically or people start having large families again to fill their McMansions.
Obama’s deficits will crush our dollar, send inflation soaring and perhaps collapse our entire financial system. Then see how much of what you paid into SS will be collected by you . ..
PastorJon on February 5, 2010 at 4:22 PM
Ryan’s plan would have the federal government assume responsibility for health care. The Federal Government would regulate and define the marketplace. The Federal Government would send citizens a tax credit to purchase the product. This is still a massive intervention by the Federal Government into the American economy. It is being adopted for partisan, political considerations–the Republican Party seems incapable of selling capitalism and wants in on the “socially responsible government” hustle.
By declaring the Federal Government has the duty to provide for maximum coverage, and responsibility for payment, Ryan’s plan would shift the debate to how much more the Federal Government needs to interfere and spend to solve the problem. There is no way that $2300 per person will suffice. There is just as little chance that the plan will help the deficit as with Medicare.
Chris_Balsz on February 5, 2010 at 4:25 PM
I think the GOP has done a really good job of keeping it’s members in line(mostly, bear with me) for the past year. Voters elected Democrats to a position of absolute power. Republicans have, by and large, allowed the voters to see the results of that choice. Every piece of legislation passed in the last year has been a party-line vote.
Think of it like this: Your old man catches you smoking when you are 12. What does he do? He goes and buys a big fat cigar and sits with you at the table while you smoke the whole thing. You, of course, get sick and puke. You do, however learn a valuable lesson.
Mord on February 5, 2010 at 4:26 PM
You exploded Ann’s only brain cell, Pastor.
HornetSting on February 5, 2010 at 4:27 PM
Ryan’s not perfect; he supported a punitive tax against AIG, then claimed he didn’t know what he was voting for.
But he’s at least trying to come up with solutions, instead of just engaging in empty rhetorical bomb-tossing.
Now if he’d just articulate why the Progressive growth of government is an ill-fated boondoggle, he could really get somewhere.
hawksruleva on February 5, 2010 at 4:33 PM
How so? One would assume that prudent SS investors would have bought stable investments, like state/municipal bonds. Couldn’t we use a massive injection of funds in that area?
Even if folks had bet all their money on risky stocks, stocks have bounced back quite a bit. So people would be not broke, then broke, then not broke again. Instead, entitlement programs are sliding inexorably toward the abyss.
hawksruleva on February 5, 2010 at 4:36 PM
I wish Ryan hadn’t taken his name out of the 2012 race, though I guess we can hope he’s VP.
cpaulus on February 5, 2010 at 4:40 PM
Awesome…this will begin to show the people that the real party of dissent is the dems.
The dems answer will be, “Yeah but our bill is better, but it raises the debt to an unmanageable limit”.
right2bright on February 5, 2010 at 4:41 PM
I hate coming on here and seeing a bunch of responses to that idiot, Anninca. Please. You people are too good for that.
Lets move on to something more important: Paul Ryan is a nice looking man, don’t you think?
anniekc on February 5, 2010 at 4:42 PM
d1carter on February 5, 2010 at 4:42 PM
How long before Ann just comes out and says that people are much too stupid to manage their own money for retirement and that the gov’t does such a better job…….that’s what Dems think but don’t have the courage to say.
search4truth on February 5, 2010 at 4:45 PM
*LOL
ladyingray on February 5, 2010 at 4:45 PM
I am a little iffy on it surviving also. When I find my next job I hope to slam my IRA. I am actually still in positive territory on mine.
Cindy Munford on February 5, 2010 at 4:55 PM
Well if we are going to talk substance, Marco Rubio is easy on the eyes.
Cindy Munford on February 5, 2010 at 4:58 PM
If Paul Ryan is from Wisconsin, why doesn’t he challenge Feingold for the Senate?
Steve Z on February 5, 2010 at 5:08 PM
As a matter of fact, he is. I say we make good looks as much a pre-requisite as fiscal conservatism. Can we name one Dem that fits both? I didn’t think so.
anniekc on February 5, 2010 at 5:09 PM
Rep. Paul Ryan should send this plan to Michael Steele and whoever is running the NRCC, and let every Republican House member and challenger against a Democrat House member run on this as a platform, with the promise:
“If Republicans get the majority in the 2010 elections, we will pass this through the House.”
Sure, it might get watered down or defeated in the Senate. But then Republicans could blame that on Democrats in 2012.
Michael Steele, are you listening? Here’s a good idea to make the “party of no” into the “party of go”!
Steve Z on February 5, 2010 at 5:17 PM
The more I see and hear, the more I like.
Knucklehead on February 5, 2010 at 3:41 PM
Ditto.
Not sure if I could go as far as Prez just yet, not shooting him down mind you, let’s see if can use this to propel himself into the dialogue. It is one thing to gain center stage in the moment, it is another entirely to command the spot light and have the “presence” to keep it there.
We’ll see.
Archimedes on February 5, 2010 at 5:30 PM
looks like AnninCA made another ignorant idiotic comment…i read the posts and think she is some times coming around…but then some times i see the incredibly dumb ill thought out comments she makes…that comment she made…my gosh…just shows how very very little she knows
my gosh woman…think before you speak!…or try again
dirksilver on February 5, 2010 at 5:44 PM
The Democrats don’t give a rat’s ass about reducing the deficit. They want total control. Screw your freedom of choice.
GarandFan on February 5, 2010 at 5:45 PM
I was just telling a buddy last night that Paul Ryan will be President someday. The dude continues to impress.
Metro on February 5, 2010 at 6:18 PM
I like Ryan,DeMint,Pence,Tom Price and others who are excellent reps and senators with good values and ideas but in time they must realize that there is only one Leader with no self serving interests and willing to lead the Country to constitutional sanity. SARAH PALIN can get us back on course.No Washington games.The Tea Party will follow her because they will know she can do it.We all should realize that her path is the Constitutional solution to the past 50 years of congress spending our future away.
tim c on February 5, 2010 at 6:28 PM
I agree… sorta. People need to stop being Republican vs. Democrat. The Progressive agenda is controll, using either party is fine with them.
demotheses on February 5, 2010 at 6:30 PM
Who the “H” wants to retire at 70? Sheesh!!!!!!
ultracon on February 5, 2010 at 7:04 PM
Maybe somebody in the Republican party has started drinking Tea afterall.
Browncoatone on February 5, 2010 at 7:26 PM
I think the personal accounts for SS is a great idea, to late for me but having contol over your own money even if you can’t touch it until a certain age you still have control.
THE REASON THE DEMS DON’T LIKE IT IS THEY CAN’T GET THEIR GRUBBY LITTLE HANDS ON IT,AND THAT IS THE ONLY REASON.
concernedsenior on February 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM
Let’s say you work your whole life…50 years. For ease of calculation, let’s say the government takes $50/week from you for Social Security. You retire. You drop dead a week later.
What do you get? $0
What do your heirs get? $0
Now, let’s say you put $50/week into a private retirement savings/investment plan that earns a conservative 5% for those same 50 years. You retire. You drop dead a week later.
What do you get? $0 (sucks, I know)
What do your heirs get? $578,822.79
Someone please tell me how liberals can be so. freaking. stupid.
IrishEi on February 5, 2010 at 8:37 PM
Of course he would — and I, as a putative near-term recipient of social security, would too. The Social Security problem boils down to its pay-as-you-go nature.
There are those of us who paid into social security for years, with not one penny destined for our own retirements, but for the retirements of our “ancestors” — and I put that word into quotes because both of my parents, who dutifully paid into social security themselves, are dead. My father, either thankfully or unthankfully, enjoyed a whopping six months of SS payments before departing this earth — and I do have to admit that the $400 death benefit sure came in handy in paying off a small part of the costs of interment.
So I’m paying money that should have gone for my retirement into an account which pays for current retirees.
Do I expect to get a hunk of that money back? You betcha.
Now, do you really think the Republicans will get us middle aged voters to shut down social security cold turkey, rather than gently pointing the needle from pay-as-you-go to pay-in-advance?
unclesmrgol on February 5, 2010 at 8:56 PM
So how do we do this guys? As tea party members I mean. How do we promote the ‘Republican’ alternative which came out mainly because of pressure from our movement while keeping it clean that WE ARE NOT REPUBLICANS?
I appreciate the gestures of some Republicans… but I don’t necessarily want to keep them in office.
So color me a washed up hick, but it still seems to me that the only viable alternative is a re-revolution… I don’t want to move from Democrats to Republicans… I wanna move back to principles governence based on the Social Contract.
Oh yeah by the way Social Contract theory (the basis of our government) gives government justification based not soley ” on the consent of the governed” per se but only to regulate interaction between entities . Everything else belongs in the realm of Liberty.
/Rant
Any ideas or should I just continue to stockpile?
demotheses on February 5, 2010 at 9:24 PM
Once the Federal Government says “Here is $2300.00 because we think there is a worthy transaction you should engage in, and we want you to buy it so badly we’ll throw money at you”, the debate will not be whether the Federal Government can stop paying the money. The annual debate will be, “Is $2300 enough?” And it will not long be enough. If Uncle Sucker loves private insurance so much he’ll buy it when he doesn’t have to, why go easy on him?
$2300 would be $4600 very soon. It would never go back to $0.
The federal debt has been described as $100,000 per household.
Why would creating an annual federal payout of $5700.00 household, be deficit-friendly? How COULD it be deficit-friendly?
Chris_Balsz on February 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM
Leftocrats “sold” Social Security by claiming that it was a way to save YOUR money for YOUR retirement.
Now when someone proposes that YOUR retirement money go into YOUR retirement account, they scream that YOUR money is somehow being stolen from the GOVERNMENT.
Leftocrats should learn to keep their hands in their own pockets and out of our pockets. They should also be required to take remedial classes in the Tenth Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Covet…), with additional mandatory refreshers every time they demonstrate that they don’t understand the word “Covet” and/or the word “Not”.
landlines on February 6, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Now if only Boehner would step aside…..
patrick neid on February 6, 2010 at 4:34 PM