New at WSJ: Paul Ryan announces that GOP’s 2012 budget would cut $6.2 trillion in spending over 10 years

posted at 8:37 pm on April 4, 2011 by Allahpundit

It’ll be big news all day tomorrow after they formally roll it out on the Hill so familiarize yourself with the broad strokes now. Paul Ryan was coy yesterday when Chris Wallace pressed him for a firm number, but here it is: $4.4 trillion less in spending over 10 years if we’re going by CBO’s numbers or, if you prefer to use Obama’s cynical, unserious, catastrophic budget proposal as the baseline, it’s $6.2 trillion over the next decade. Just a few hours ago, the Treasury Department warned that the U.S. will hit the debt ceiling no later than May 16, with a do-or-die date of July 8 if the first deadline is missed and Treasury has to use “extraordinary measures” to extend it. So at long, long, long, long last, we’re finally going to have that “adult conversation” on entitlements that both parties have been promising us for decades — with a federal default bearing down on us, no less.

How long do you suppose the tenor of the conversation will stay “adult”? Over/under is 36 hours.

The president’s recent budget proposal would accelerate America’s descent into a debt crisis. It doubles debt held by the public by the end of his first term and triples it by 2021. It imposes $1.5 trillion in new taxes, with spending that never falls below 23% of the economy. His budget permanently enlarges the size of government. It offers no reforms to save government health and retirement programs, and no leadership.

Our budget, which we call The Path to Prosperity, is very different. For starters, it 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. Our proposal brings federal spending to below 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), consistent with the postwar average, and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion.

A study just released by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to Prosperity will help create nearly one million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade. It spurs economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade. According to Heritage’s analysis, it would result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year…

This budget would focus on growth by reforming the nation’s outdated tax code, consolidating brackets, lowering tax rates, and assuming top individual and corporate rates of 25%. It maintains a revenue-neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of deductions and loopholes that distort economic activity and leave some corporations paying no income taxes at all.

Read it all. Everything is on the table: Medicare, Social Security, even “Defense Secretary Robert Gates’s plan to target inefficiencies at the Pentagon.” Peter Robinson calls it “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.” TPM calls it, well, you can guess. I keep hoping against hope that The One will gradually realize that signing on to this plan, or some version of it, is actually in his interest politically. There’s literally nothing he could do to alienate the left to the point where they won’t vote for him — most of them trust his judgment more than they trust their own, an unforeseen side effect of Hopenchange messianism — so he could win over independents by coopting Ryan’s plan and have nothing to fear about losing liberals in the general election. There’d be nothing much to fear from seniors, either: I think Ryan and Boehner are so sincere about tackling this problem that they’ll give O whatever bipartisan cover he needs to get this done. (Boehner has promised as much.) And needless to say, whoever the GOP nominee ends up being, there’ll be no complaints from him/her that Obama and the GOP have cut too much. Take the deal, champ.

Via Breitbart and Right Vid, here’s Rush Limbaugh not trying to contain his excitement about the proposal.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Comment pages: 1 2

I ♥ Paul Ryan.

publiuspen on April 4, 2011 at 10:42 PM

Wait, crr6 is a girl?

……is she hot?

pix plz

Vyce on April 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Wait, crr6 is a girl?

……is she hot?

pix plz

Vyce on April 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Here ya go.

crr6 on April 4, 2011 at 10:58 PM

How long do you suppose the tenor of the conversation will stay “adult”? Over/under is 36 hours.

Jeebus. Seriously, Allah? More like 36 minutes. The Dems are slobbering over the opportunity to cast Ryan (and pretty much by extension all Fiscal Cons) as innumerates of the lowest order. Oh, and we’re soooo looking forward to shoving grandma into the dog kennel….

nukemhill on April 4, 2011 at 11:04 PM

The former ombudsman of the NYT on crr6′s hero:

Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.

To quote Iowahawk (who truly took Krugman to the woodshed), “No sh*t Sherlock.”

Erich66 on April 4, 2011 at 11:06 PM

good stuff angryed

motionview on April 4, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Rice, beans and ammo?

sharrukin

Even if you could make it rhyme, it doesn’t sound like a good campaign slogan.

(hmm, “Typical rice & beans, and ammo too”?)

chimney sweep on April 4, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Here ya go.

crr6 on April 4, 2011 at 10:58 PM

*yawn*

Come on, man. Rebecca Black-rolling is the way to go.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 4, 2011 at 11:48 PM

Can’t wait for Krugman to take Ryan out to the woodshed over this….

crr6 on April 4, 2011 at 9:01 PM

Ryan, a mensch, Krugman a mephisto.

You, a tard for not seeing the difference.

Schadenfreude on April 5, 2011 at 12:07 AM

Here ya go.

crr6 on April 4, 2011 at 10:58 PM
*yawn*

Come on, man. Rebecca Black-rolling is the way to go.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 4, 2011 at 11:48 PM

crr6 is a woman.

Schadenfreude on April 5, 2011 at 12:08 AM

can we draft Ryan to be the GOP nominee in 2012? please

MFn G I M P on April 5, 2011 at 1:12 AM

Look out! A plan which pays down our debt and creates jobs! Extreme!

BadgerHawk on April 5, 2011 at 1:25 AM

Look out! A plan which pays down our debt and creates jobs! Extreme!

BadgerHawk on April 5, 2011 at 1:25 AM

?

crr6 on April 5, 2011 at 1:30 AM

Look out! A plan which pays down our debt and creates jobs! Extreme!

BadgerHawk on April 5, 2011 at 1:25 AM

?

crr6 on April 5, 2011 at 1:30 AM

They are a way of making money. Someone pays you in return for doing some work often on a daily basis.

sharrukin on April 5, 2011 at 1:35 AM

crr6: what is your side’s proposal, other than increase spending and tack another $5,000,000,000,000 onto the debt in 3 years?

Khun Joe on April 5, 2011 at 1:50 AM

They are a way of making money. Someone pays you in return for doing some work often on a daily basis.

sharrukin on April 5, 2011 at 1:35 AM

heh. Seriously though, isn’t it a little bit much for you guys to claim this bill will actually create jobs? How exactly does that work?

The one thing I’ve heard from some conservatives is that it will “reduce uncertainty” or something. They usually hope that response sounds smart enough yet is sufficiently vague that people will just accept it and move on without asking follow up questions. But it doesn’t make any f***ing sense. How does it “reduce uncertainty” to engage in unprecedented spending cuts? If you want certainty, wouldn’t you just maintain current spending levels, and avoid attempting to repeal major pieces of legislation like the PPACA and financial reform?

crr6 on April 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM

Seriously though, isn’t it a little bit much for you guys to claim this bill will actually create jobs? How exactly does that work?

Why don’t you ask Obama? He has saved or created millions of them.

How does it “reduce uncertainty” to engage in unprecedented spending cuts?

crr6 on April 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM

You know, its a mystery to me why I even have to explain this.

Lets say you are going to buy a chocolate bar. It creates a lot of uncertainty if you don’t know how much it will cost you when you arrive at the store. That uncertainty only matters if its MORE expensive. If its less expensive then its just gravy. That is why spending cuts (less money taken from the economy) are fine, but unanticipated increases are damaging.

When employers have more money they can spend that money in pursuit of profits. Some of that will be spent on employees as they help the employer to make that profit.

The less money they have at the end of the day, the fewer jobs you will end up with.

sharrukin on April 5, 2011 at 2:09 AM

The one thing I’ve heard from some conservatives is that it will “reduce uncertainty” or something.

crr6 on April 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM

I take it that you were never taught about the “crowding out” effect of government spending in a basic economics course, or about the stimulative effect of low tax rates, or about the Laffer curve/optimal tax rates, etc.

steebo77 on April 5, 2011 at 2:19 AM

If you want certainty, wouldn’t you just maintain current spending levels, and avoid attempting to repeal major pieces of legislation like the PPACA and financial reform?

crr6 on April 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM

Current spending levels are a very recent phenomenon and unprecedented in history (i.e., not the norm). And how do yet-to-be-implemented laws and regulation involving unprecedented interference in the economy increase certainty when nobody even knows what the hell they say or how much it will cost to implement and abide by them?

steebo77 on April 5, 2011 at 2:22 AM

The one thing I’ve heard from some conservatives is that it will “reduce uncertainty” or something.

crr6 on April 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM

Not to mention the stabilizing effect a more balanced budget would have on our currency and future interest rate levels…

steebo77 on April 5, 2011 at 2:23 AM

If you want certainty, wouldn’t you just maintain current spending levels, and avoid attempting to repeal major pieces of legislation like the PPACA and financial reform?

crr6 on April 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM

The only certainty in that is is disaster.

Vince on April 5, 2011 at 2:24 AM

crr6 on April 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM

Jobs are created when someone decides to invest capital to create or expand a business.

If we maintain current spending levels, we’ll have no choice but to massively raise taxes, which will remove the capital neccessary for job creation.

It’s not that complicated.

BadgerHawk on April 5, 2011 at 2:27 AM

Another thing, crr6, you’re here every day, so you must have randomly clicked on more than one link to a graph depicting how much of the federal government’s revenue goes towards debt payments, and how that number is going to skyrocket in the years ahead.

I can understand how someone who insulates themselves in an ideological bubble could be ignorant of the numbers, but you don’t have an excuse.

You have to know how absolutely unsustainable our current trajectory is, yet you don’t seem bothered by it.

BadgerHawk on April 5, 2011 at 2:32 AM

Not to mention the stabilizing effect a more balanced budget would have on our currency and future interest rate levels…

steebo77 on April 5, 2011 at 2:23 AM

This too. For a party that’s supposedly all about the poor and working class, the Democrats don’t seem too bothered about that fact that the coming inflation is going to absolutely destroy their standard of living.

BadgerHawk on April 5, 2011 at 2:34 AM

heh. Seriously though, isn’t it a little bit much for you guys to claim this bill will actually create jobs? How exactly does that work?

crr6 on April 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM

Yeah, instead, they should just say it will “save and/or create” jobs. Smrt powr!

Good Solid B-Plus on April 5, 2011 at 2:59 AM

BadgerHawk on April 5, 2011 at 2:32 AM

It’s all reflexive knee jerk. I’ve met very few liberals who understand supply and demand principles.

a capella on April 5, 2011 at 3:28 AM

I’m reading ‘When Money Dies’ about 1922-23 Weimar Germany and Austria and Hungary. The only people who were not destroyed by the rampant currency devaluation from the endless money printing were the Producers who could set their prices (farmers in the best shape).

Doesn’t sound like the Progressives did too well, except in Russia, where they went by their real name.

Jimmy Doolittle on April 5, 2011 at 3:54 AM

…is she hot?

Vyce on April 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Here you go.

Jaibones on April 5, 2011 at 8:34 AM

A sound financial proposal from a congressman. Remarkable.

Jaibones on April 5, 2011 at 8:36 AM

crr6 on April 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM

First, all government spending is ultimately an opportunity lost to the private sector, and greater-than-proportional jobs lost (whether funded by taxes, borrowing, or inflation just determines where). Second, government intervention always carries an uncertainty because it is directed by a relative handful of people in power ( a bottleneck in decision making).

Count to 10 on April 5, 2011 at 8:47 AM

crr6 on April 5, 2011 at 1:30 AM

As depressing as it is to consider, this ^^ is really the level of economic illiteracy we’re dealing with when trying to undo the damage of decades of progressive tinkering. The fact that someone who is literate could make it to adulthood without understanding the impact of government growth on the private sector economy depreses the h3ll out of me. We might make incremental gains between the 40-yard lines, but without fundamental education reform we’re doomed. You simply can’t preserve a free-market economy when this kind of ignorance infects ~40% of the population. Amazing . . .

SoRight on April 5, 2011 at 8:59 AM

depreses

– depresses — just to save someone the trouble of “debunking” my economic literacy argument by pointing out typos . . .

SoRight on April 5, 2011 at 9:00 AM

Vyce on April 4, 2011 at 9:36 PM

0bama cant sign on to this, even if he wanted to. The moment he does, he loses all support from his base and those who know where his skeletons are buried will uncover them for the world to see.

Not that he would mind you. It goes against his Cloward/Piven plan for economic deconstruction of this United States to build some sort of semi-socialist Euro-like nation.

Wolftech on April 5, 2011 at 9:07 AM

Our budget targets corporate welfare, starting by ending the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that is costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. It gets rid of the permanent Wall Street bailout authority that Congress created last year. And it rolls back expensive handouts for uncompetitive sources of energy, calling instead for a free and open marketplace for energy development, innovation and exploration.

In other words, Wall Street gets a pass on everything but receiving bailouts, and polluting energy sources get free reign to destroy more land and harm more people. So much for targeting corporate welfare.

ernesto on April 5, 2011 at 9:12 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on April 4, 2011 at 11:48 PM

Not. Even. Funny.

Wolftech on April 5, 2011 at 9:14 AM

In other words, Wall Street gets a pass on everything but receiving bailouts, and polluting energy sources get free reign to destroy more land and harm more people. So much for targeting corporate welfare.

ernesto on April 5, 2011 at 9:12 AM

ernie, your fall into communist dogma has been distressing to watch.

Count to 10 on April 5, 2011 at 9:19 AM

ernie, your fall into communist dogma has been distressing to watch.

Count to 10 on April 5, 2011 at 9:19 AM

Your fealty to moneyed interests has always been distressing.

ernesto on April 5, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Time for an adult conversation not only on entitlements, but on military expenditure and military size. We have to realize that we can no longer afford to be the world police. We need to cut the number of overseas bases/personnel down to the bare minimum we need to respond to real national security emergencies.

That’s not the same as Rand-style isolationism. There are lots of ways to engage overseas without direct military intervention.

AngusMc on April 5, 2011 at 9:49 AM

LOL at people who love Paul Ryan. A guy who hasn’t seen a union he’s voted against.

Notorious GOP on April 5, 2011 at 9:53 AM

LOL at people who love Paul Ryan. A guy who hasn’t seen a union he’s voted against.

Notorious GOP on April 5, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. Paul Ryan’s strength is his willingness to take on the budget.

So for this, I ♥ Paul Ryan, too.

Fallon on April 5, 2011 at 10:10 AM

If you want certainty, wouldn’t you just maintain current spending levels, and avoid attempting to repeal major pieces of legislation like the PPACA and financial reform?

crr6 on April 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM

Current spending is largely shaped by the 2009 budget. The 2007 spending was $2.9 Trillion and the real deficit was $500 Billion, and the tax cuts and wars were in full swing so larger deficits since can’t be blamed on those factors.

By ’09 the drop in revenue due to the economy, the TARP set-aside, and a $900 Billion stimulus package gave us our first Trillion-dollar annual deficit. They’ve been over a Trillion dollars ever since.

If we could only banish Kruggers and his Keynsian ilk to the basement and get rid of “stimulus” spending, which we haven’t really felt the pain given we’ve monetized the debt of the last few years to pay for it and exported the resultant inflation to the rest of the world, we could use 2007 as a baseline and freeze spending at, say, 10% above that, or around $3.2 Trillion. That would be $600 Billion less than the current budget. Your suggestion would freeze that $600 Billion in place forever.

No matter what the level of spending (and if we don’t address it the bond market will), the real battle will be over what programs will be cut to accelerate the retirement of the national debt within the alloted budget, as opposed to simply servicing it.

shuzilla on April 5, 2011 at 10:27 AM

“A study just released by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to Prosperity will help create nearly one million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade. It spurs economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade. According to Heritage’s analysis, it would result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year…”

This set’s off my BS detector. It’s a budget, just a spending plan. Spending plans don’t

1. “bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015″

2. “spur economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade”

3. “1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year”

Businesses do all that, not budgets. I don’t immediately see where the budget is even balanced, much less the debt retired. It sounds like Rand’s plan is a list of moderate cuts along free market principles with rosy assumptions that supposedly result in revenue growth sufficient to balance the budget without ever balancing the budget.

This is sure to be picked apart by even moderates and fail. Balancing the budget is not rocket science. Just pass a budget that cuts everything equally by about 30%, and then take money from low value programs to fund what’s clearly most important.

elfman on April 5, 2011 at 10:36 AM

I’m not too worried about that. I was assured by very high-ranking party members that after the Revolution, I’ll be given a prestigious position as Chief Prosecutor of thought-crimes.

crr6 on April 4, 2011 at 9:48 PM

ROFL!!!

Holy crap. I think you pushed to hard during your last visit to the toilet. The brains went down the toilet with everything else.

capejasmine on April 5, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Wow. Please remind me never to click on a TPM link again. I’ve never been to that site and I never plan on going back.

It’s amazing…the comments blame Republicans for everything, then follow it up with the Dems are just acting like Republicans………

My head now hurts. Thanks AllahP……

Sponge on April 5, 2011 at 11:05 AM

In other words, Wall Street gets a pass on everything but receiving bailouts, and polluting energy sources get free reign to destroy more land and harm more people. So much for targeting corporate welfare.

ernesto on April 5, 2011 at 9:12 AM

You do realize those free passes are coming from Obama….right? These are Obama buddies.

And communism is share, and share alike. Right? No one above another? Since when has that ever been applied and been done? Ever!

capejasmine on April 5, 2011 at 11:06 AM

If we do this, we will be following the Canadian Model.

unclesmrgol on April 5, 2011 at 11:13 AM

How does it “reduce uncertainty” to engage in unprecedented spending cuts? If you want certainty, wouldn’t you just maintain current spending levels, and avoid attempting to repeal major pieces of legislation like the PPACA and financial reform?

crr6 on April 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM

Do you really believe ObamaCare is going to cut the deficit and bring down health care costs across the board? It’s an honest question.

Chuck Schick on April 5, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Can’t wait for Krugman to take Ryan out to the woodshed over this….
crr6 on April 4, 2011 at 9:01 PM

Ha ha

my friends Dad worked for the neuvo york tiempos

when kruggy got his Nobel (snicker) award I mentioned it to him

he said,” krugman? He’s a communist”!

No shit, Ryan along with the likes of Sowell and Williams and others who aren’t blind ideoloques would eat his lunch

only an effin moron would constantly try to sell that centralized control is the path to prosperity

all it does it does is keep certain people as kingmakers

people who are lazy along with power hungry

Sonosam on April 5, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Also

Ryan will be great as SP treasurer

Sarah endorsed Ryans plan months ago and what is most noticable about it is that his plan considers decades in order gor it to work which is honesty at it’s best since it took decades to create the issue

at least he’s realistic

Sonosam on April 5, 2011 at 11:32 AM

How does it “reduce uncertainty” to engage in unprecedented spending cuts? If you want certainty, would’t you just maintain current spending levels, and avoid attempting to repeal major pieces of legislation like the PPACA and financial reform?

crr6 on April 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM

Current spending levels promote uncertainly because they are near universally recognized as unsustainable. Even Obama’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner used that word to describe it. When something this big and growing is unsustainable, something big will change. Taxing our way out? Inflating our way out? Defaulting on our dept? Revolution for a centrally planned system?

Many claim Ryan’s has the first a realistic plan toward sustainability? Being so dependent on free market ideology, I don’t think it’s politically palatable, and only across the board spending cuts by 30 percent in one year have a chance of passing. But if it could be passed, I think that it would bring great certainty to businesses.

elfman on April 5, 2011 at 11:49 AM

It maintains a revenue-neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of deductions and loopholes that distort economic activity and leave some corporations paying no income taxes at all.

ernie, your fall into communist dogma has been distressing to watch.

Count to 10 on April 5, 2011 at 9:19 AM
Your fealty to moneyed interests has always been distressing.

ernesto on April 5, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Your inability to read distresses me. And I’m sorry, but “moneyed interests” are who create the jobs. I’ve never worked for a person middle class or lower. Every employer I’ve had has been in the top 1% of incomes in this country. Those are the people who invest, create jobs, and do 25% of the spending that makes up 70% of GDP.

Without the rich you have no economy. Even in a communist country, you still need money flowing to the government. It has to come from somewhere.

The difference in the United States is that we have had the freedom to work hard and become a “moneyed interest.” We’ve had the freedom to invest, create businesses, and build a dream. That is not what is killing the country. What is driving us into debt destruction is that, because of liberal policies, we also have the freedom to slack off in school, make no effort at getting marketable skills of any kind, and live off welfare, foodstamps and medicare. You may think “Nobody chooses that!”, but it IS a choice.

What Obama would do is regulate, tax and fee the job producers, investors and spenders in this country into leaving the US. He would make it a place where permits, regulations and fees make it completely pointless for me to try to start a business that isn’t an ACORN like office.

But lets look at it your way: Who is invested in our debt? Wall Street, main street and foreign governments. Who gets rich off of interest payments . . . ? Not you or I. Do you really want a HUGE percentage of your taxes going to pay billions, then trillions, of interest to Wall Street, China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, etc.? And as our debt grows the world will demand higher interest rates, so they will make even more money as we go towards insolvency . . .

PastorJon on April 5, 2011 at 12:37 PM

It looks deep but it still has budget shortfalls over the next ten years. It’s a start but without increasing revenue or adjusting social security it is not a viable plan to reduce US debt. The only way out of debt short of something akin to the industrial revolution is to pay it down.

lexhamfox on April 5, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Your fealty to moneyed interests has always been distressing.

ernesto on April 5, 2011 at 9:32 AM

Pot, meet kettle. What the hell do you think unions are?

fossten on April 5, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Can’t wait for Krugman to take Ryan out to the woodshed over this….

crr6 on April 4, 2011 at 9:01 PM

You’re not qualified to understand whether he will have or won’t have.

DrSteve on April 5, 2011 at 2:44 PM

crr6 on April 5, 2011 at 1:57 AM

Proof, beyond any doubt, that crr6′s brain is yet to be developed. What a pretendern.

Those of you who bothered to respond to this, save your energy the next time. This is a lost cause who deserves to live in the dark. May your ignorance follow you, throughout.

Schadenfreude on April 5, 2011 at 3:05 PM

There are no cuts under Ryan’s plan. The budget grows every year through 2021, and the national debt (“debt held by the public”) grows by $5,720,000,000,000, even under the House Budget Committee’s optimistic assumptions. There is no thrift here, let alone heroic thrift.

Kralizec on April 7, 2011 at 12:28 AM

Comment pages: 1 2