Rep. Paul Ryan Set to Propose $4 Trillion in Cuts

[BigRob]

From the AP:

A Republican plan for the 2012 budget would cut more than $4 trillion over the next decade, more than even the president's debt commission proposed, with spending caps as well as changes in the Medicare and Medicaid health programs, its principal author said Sunday.

The spending blueprint from Rep. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, is to be released Tuesday. It deals with the budget year that begins Oct. 1, not the current one that is the subject of negotiations aimed at preventing a partial government shutdown on Friday.

Some key points:
-A "premium support system" for Medicare. In the future, older people would choose plans in the marketplace and the government would subsidize those plans. Ryan said that would differ from the voucher system he has proposed in the past. Those 55 and older would remain under the present Medicare system.

-Block grants to states for Medicaid, the health program for the poor. Ryan disputed reports that the plan would seek savings of $1 trillion over 10 years from Medicaid, but would say only that the details would be in the plan.

-A statutory cap on actual discretionary spending as a percentage of the economy. While Ryan did not specify the amount during the interview, he said it would be at a higher level than proposed by Obama and would return the government to its "historic size."

-Pro-growth tax changes, including lower tax rates and broadening the tax base. Ryan said overhauling taxes would boost the economy. The plan will not propose tax increases.

We will have to wait and see what the actual details look like when the plan is released on Tuesday, but it seems to be more in line with the kind of cuts that we really need to start making. Thoughts?

 

[Gipper]

From the AP:



We will have to wait and see what the actual details look like when the plan is released on Tuesday, but it seems to be more in line with the kind of cuts that we really need to start making. Thoughts?

Well maybe, but I'm not buying.

$4 Trillion over 10 years...well that amounts to roughly 10% if the stupid a-holes continue to spend $4 Trillion per year, which is most unlikely as they will spend EVEN more. Not much of a cut and certainly not enough to generate balanced budgets.

My thought is they should spend no more than they take in. No more deficit spending...period. What a novel idea.

And, it does not matter what Ryan and the Rs propose, though I am glad they are trying. The Ds and Obama have no intention of cutting the budget...not one penny...and if truth be told, they intend to spend more.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Three words. Fair Tax Plan.

 

[Dr.Who]

When you owe a lot of money the first step is not to determine where to cut but how large you payments on the debt need to be. So far no one has done that.

 

[BigRob]

When you owe a lot of money the first step is not to determine where to cut but how large you payments on the debt need to be. So far no one has done that.

Rueters is reporting the cuts would actually be 5.8 trillion.

 

[Hobo1]

We will have to wait and see what the actual details look like when the plan is released on Tuesday, but it seems to be more in line with the kind of cuts that we really need to start making. Thoughts?

It doesn't take a genius to figure out the problem with Federal spending. Medicare & Medicaid + Social Security + Defense Department make up the vast majority of spending. Now if you look at the sources of income you can see percentage wise, Social Security pretty much pays for itself. Despite the recession, income tax still pulls its weight.

So you have two choices: you can become more of a socialist country and increase the income, or you can rely on the individual to pay his/her own way in life. That doesn't mean we can't have a safety net of social programs so we don't have every poor person diving into dumpsters for food or dying in culverts under the street from a common illness.

I think Ryan is looking in one of the right places to make cuts, but simply cutting benefits is not a great answer. In my mind it is the ultra-modern technology (and the companies that make the high-tech equipment and designer drugs) that need to be cut. You can't get mid-grade medical treatment in American hospitals, that's malpractice. My mother died in a hospital watching a large screen TV and had about 5 computer-like devices to monitor everything and pump fluids in and out. Medicare (read tax-payers/borrowed money) picked up 100% of the cost because she was poor as a church mouse. The only technology she had at home was an old b/w TV. She would have been just as happy - and just as dead - with 1960's technology where the nurses pump a rubber bulb to take your blood pressure.

The cost/benefit ration is far too heavily tilted on the side of COST in modern medicine. The government could probably save the $5.8 trillion if they just passed a law that gave patients a choice about what grade of medical care they wanted and had hospitals that met that need. Oh, and the Right to Die should be an individual's personal freedom. When all the pleasure is gone from my life and ain't never comin' back because I am never going to get healthy, I want the right to say, "Give me the arsenic"

 

[Rick]

Three words. Fair Tax Plan.

Two words. Cut spending.

 

[BigRob]

Two words. Cut spending.

Kudos to Rep. Ryan for his proposal...it is a shame that most people seem incapable of addressing Social Security or Medicare without yelling that Republicans hate old, poor people.

Like it or not, we have to address this issue, and cuts now are better than austerity cuts down the road.

 

[Dr.Who]

Kudos to Rep. Ryan for his proposal...it is a shame that most people seem incapable of addressing Social Security or Medicare without yelling that Republicans hate old, poor people.

Like it or not, we have to address this issue, and cuts now are better than austerity cuts down the road.

And just to be clear, old people tend to be wealthier than young people. If there were cuts it would not drive any of them into starvation.

It would drive some of them into spending their assets on food and medical care. And when they ran out they would go onto the medicaid system. In theory they wold not starve or die of lack of medical care since they would still be on a government plan.

In practice those who are on medicaid now, have poorer medical outcomes than those with no insurance at all! ( a correlation not a causation)