So the Republican Committee released its alternative budget blueprint. While it's being routinely mocked on the internet for its surprising lack of details and its "are they serious" parroting of the old faithful idea of "more tax cuts," I thought I'd weigh in on what amounts to a glorified press release that repeats old Republican talking and attacks the President's budget with largely ideological posturing and misinformation. Here are a few of the "highlights":
They criticize President Obama's health care plan by charging,
independent analysis confirms that the government-run “option” would quickly become a de facto single-payer system. Actuaries at the Lewin Group estimated that nearly three in four Americans—119 insurance would lose their current coverage. These individuals would lose their coverage not because they made a voluntary choice to accept the government plan, but because their employers would save billions of dollars by ending their current coverage and dumping their employees into the government-run plan.
However, the threat of loss of coverage by the Lewin Group was debunked during the campaign because the Lewin Group bases its calculation on a series of inaccurate assumptions about costs and contributions.
As the Republicans promote their plan as a combination of tax incentives and interstate competition of private plans, they point out,
Republicans also support breaking down the balkanized barriers within our current health insurance industry, allowing individuals to shop across state lines to purchase
affordable policies that best meet their needs. Independent estimates suggest that as many as 12 million individuals could obtain access to health insurance through this approach alone—health insurance that would be more responsive to individual consumers’ needs.
Of course, there are approximately 46 million Americans without health insurance. Are the Republicans really bragging about the fact that their plan would only cover just over 26% of those without health insurance? You know what a 26% gets you in school? An F. Well, the Republicans have always been good at "fuzzy math." Additionally, as the President pointed out during the Presidential debates, modeling health insurance after the credit/banking industries would be problematic because:
And the reason that it's a problem to go shopping state by state, you know what insurance companies will do? They will find a state -- maybe Arizona, maybe another state -- where there are no requirements for you to get cancer screenings, where there are no requirements for you to have to get pre-existing conditions, and they will all set up shop there.
That's how in banking it works. Everybody goes to Delaware, because they've got very -- pretty loose laws when it comes to things like credit cards.
Next, the Republicans promote the old canard about offshore drilling, arguing
Republicans recognize the importance of exploring for
American oil and gas in an environmentally-sound manner and support immediately leasing oil and gas resources in the OCS through an expedited and streamlined procedure. The Secretary of Interior should be required to offer new leases in the OCS, and ensure royalty revenues from OCS development are shared with coastal states in an effort to incentivize energy development.
In reality, the only things that offshore drilling accomplishes is kowtowing to oil companies. Aside from the environmental problems associated with offshore drilling, there wouldn't be a significant increase in oil production for 10-12 years.
Finally, I'd expose the holes in the Republicans plans for reducing debt, but they don't really appear to have one. Oh, wait. They have the usual plans for deregulation
We oppose the trend toward national ownership and control of financial
institutions. The government’s interventions to date have generated market uncertainty and an aversion to private lending and investment. The government’s strategy needs to minimize government interference in the management of companies and provide a clear exit strategy.
In addition,
Republicans believe it is important to provide families and entrepreneurs certainty against the fear of long-term runaway inflation and support a requirement that the
Fed establish some numerical definition for price stability and maintain that policy. This would ensure that the Fed would still have the power to deal with short-term deflation concerns, while restoring confidence that the Fed is committed to maintaining the cost of living later
on, by reducing the money supply when the economy begins to grow.
Well, we've been saying it for a while now, but the Republicans decided to make it official: they're long on posturing and short on plans.
Cross-posted at http://filibusted.net