I almost spit out my tea when I read Paul Ryan's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. As a former policy debater, and a fellow Wisconsinite, I feel its my duty to refute this nonsense, argument by argument.
Let's begin with the competing budgetary frameworks Ryan constructs.
I. Budgetary frameworks
Ryan notes that both budgets are not ordinary. He comments that Obama's budget seeks to continue the traditions of progressivism and expand beyond the New Deal and the Great Society. While I would contend that Obama's budget does not go far enough in this direction, it is, at least, a stark contrast to the past 12 years of governance.
However, Ryan says the opposition budget proposal has four main goals:
The plan works to accomplish four main goals: 1) fulfill the mission of health and retirement security; 2) control our nation's debts; 3) put the economy on a path of growth and leadership in the global economy; and 4) preserve the American legacy of leaving the next generation better off.
The first thing we have to ask ourselves is: "Are these desirable goals?"
1)Fulfill the mission of health and retirement security
No, this is not a sufficient goal. "Fulfilling the mission" means meeting our current obligations. This is a sure fire disaster for health care, no matter what the policy or proposal. We have to excel at providing access to affordable, world class care for all. In the 19 page glossy version of the budgetish proposal, Republicans go as far as to say "universal access", but with backtracking like this, you wonder if they even proofread a copy before they gave the design firm the okay to go to print.
- Control our nation's debt
Cryptic at best. We need debt reduction, a plan tied to financial regulation (we've spent roughly $12 trillion [our entire GDP] bailing out our banking system) and green energy independence. Any plan that continues to have America as an importer of hydrocarbons and not an exporter of green energy technologies is a loser strategy.
- Put the economy on a path of growth and leadership in the global economy
There's nothing wrong with this, on face.
- preserve the American legacy of leaving the next generation better off
Im not sure what legacy he's referring to (maybe the Iraq war), but again, vague enough to make it fairly untestable.
So, the concrete goals fail to accept the graveness of our problems. The lofty goals are empty rhetoric. But, go on, Mr. Ryan:
Under the president's plan, spending will top $4 trillion this year alone, and consume 28.5% of our nation's economy. His plan would mean a $1 trillion increase to the already unsustainable spending growth of our nation's entitlement programs -- including a "down payment" toward government-controlled health care and education; a $1.5 trillion tax increase to further shackle the small businesses and investors we rely on to create jobs; a massive increase in energy costs for families via cap and trade.
Let's take these claims, one by one.
- spending will top $4 trillion this year alone
In case Mr. Ryan has noticed, especially in his own dying district of Janesville, we are in the middle of a horrible recession. Unemployment is skyrocketing, uncertain rules the market, and our financial system is in shambles. Government spending, done correctly, is immediate stimulus.
If the government buys a new fleet of cars, guess who makes the Mr. Ryan. The underemployed and unemployed auto manufacturers in your district.
If the government buys a bridge, guess who makes it. The unemployed construction workers, in your district. They get a pay check. And they spend a portion.
2)consume 28.5% of our nation's economy
If all spending were consumption, like buying beer, you might have a point. But, as usual, its all straw and no meat. Government spending is actually government investing. Not the type of investment a stock broker makes. The type of investment your precious small business owner would make. Like a printer buying a better press, an automaker retooling a factory, we too, need to retool our country after 8 years of neglect. We are making up for lost time. In other words, the Obama budget provides a significant stimulating effect on the economy, by investing loads of money in our collective future.
3)$1 trillion increase to the already unsustainable spending growth of our nation's entitlement programs -- including a "down payment" toward government-controlled health care and education
Again, this is dishonest, at best. Subtracting the $650 billion down payment on a health care system, we are looking at $350 billion in entitlement spending. With soaring health costs, crumbling state budgets, and a recession, these all seems quite necessary. But Ryan again acts as if the $650 billion were spending that gets us nothing, rather than investment. Spending, Mr. Ryan, is when buy a missile and blow it up. We get nothing. Investments are when you spend on something, like education, with the hopes that it pays for itself and more in the future, like when we can compete globally. I think thats one of your goals (more on the republican spending-freeze-except-for-defense-below.)
4)a $1.5 trillion tax increase to further shackle the small businesses and investors we rely on to create jobs
Show me the money. I think we have competing interpretations of what a small business looks like.
5)a massive increase in energy costs for families via cap and trade
When even the libertarian CATO institute puts protecting oil and natural gas shipping lanes at $19 billion a year, any cost by cap and trade is completely offset by decreased costs in natural gas securitization. In other words, as we shift subsidies towards renewables, the cost of creating energy lowers, especially in non-energy costs of energy.
I don't buy this argument one bit. But it sure is full of emotional appeal. Im glad thats the Wall Street Journal's standards.
Now on to the Republican budgetish:
- Deficits/Debt. The Republican budget achieves lower deficits than the Democratic plan in every year, and by 2019 yields half the deficit proposed by the president. By doing so, we control government debt: Under our plan, debt held by the public is $3.6 trillion less during the budget period.
If only you had the republican experience to back that up. One wonders how republicans are going to magically have affordable health care, infrastructure payments, expand the military, finance social security, all while maintaining current spending levels. interesting.
Spending. Our budget gives priority to national defense and veterans' health care. We freeze all other discretionary spending for five years, allowing it to grow modestly after that. We also place all spending under a statutory spending cap backed up by tough budget enforcement.
HOLY SHIT. DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? WE ARE GOING TO FREEZE ALL SPENDING BESIDES DEFENSE?
THIS IS THE RESPONSE TO A RECESSION.
oh. my. fucking. non-existent. god.
Calling Herbert Hoover! Calling Milton Friedman! Wow.
Wasn't this their big idea in 2007 when the democrats finally took control. Im glad they are regurgitating old ideas.
This is the proof, folks. Republicans are toast. What thinking american is going to take this awful budget, compare it to the president's. Then say, "gee, a spending freeze sounds good."
We need a spending freeze in Iraq, not Wisconsin. Keep it up, Republicans. This is the new way forward? But resurrecting Reagan's mythological corpse?
So our big plan for education, to compete globally, is to not spend any more on our failing schools? How do these people get re-elected?
Oh, there's more.
Our budget lays a firm foundation to position the U.S. to meet three important strategic energy goals: reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, deploying more clean and renewable energy sources free of greenhouse gas, and supporting economic growth. We do these things by rejecting the president's cap-and-trade scheme, by opening exploration on our nation's oil and gas fields, and by investing the proceeds in a new clean energy trust fund, infrastructure and further deficit reduction.
This debate is getting tired: how does 3% of our oil use solve for the other 97%? It can't.
You can't solve the energy problem by tax cuts. You can't solve the oil problem with oil.
You can't fund new energy off of the bloated profits of the old technology. The incentive structure for the old technology must go. You can't expect a corporation to voluntarily give up its industry (especially one with its own armies). Government must change that.
Finally, on entitlements:
The budget moves toward making quality health care affordable and accessible to all Americans by strengthening the relationship between patients and their doctors, not the dictates of government bureaucrats.
If anybody can find a warrant in that sentence, you win $100. I shit you not. Find me a warrant. I dare you.
If anyone, and i mean anyone, can explain that paragraph to me in a way that i say, oh, that makes at least a little sense, i will give you money.
Im very confident its simply not possible.
Mr. Ryan, you and your party are out of ideas, out of energy. You can barely hide your contempt for your republican colleagues. This bullshit budget is going to get called out.
Its empty.
Your party's future is empty. You put your name on this budget. Let the people in your district judge it in 2010. I hope you enjoy the private sector as much as you say you do.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.