Discussion:
GOP Republican Tax Plan for the Rich will add 2.9 trillion to the deficit in the next 10 years
(too old to reply)
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-04-11 23:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Paul Ryan wants to lower the income tax rates on the top income
earners from 35% to 25%. This will cost the government 2.9 trillion
dollars in revenues over the next decade. So now Ryan wants to cut
Medicare and Medicaid to help pay for it. His budget will increase
seniors on medicare, out of pocket costs by 6000 dollars a year. For
those seniors on medicaid, who are in nursing homes, its a real
possibility that Medicaid would not be able to cover the cost of their
care. Also his plan would lead to higher taxes for the middle class.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/ta040711.html
Think Again: 'Brave, Radical, and Smart'

SOURCE: AP/Susan Walsh

Slate’s Jacob Weisberg praises Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget as
“brave, radical, and smart.” The New York Times's David Brooks said it
"set the standard of seriousness for anybody who wants to play in this
discussion."
By Eric Alterman | April 7, 2011

A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a
quarrel.

- Robert Frost

It’s a truism that conservatives are tougher than liberals. It’s also
true. But the odd thing about this phenomenon is that while right-
wingers are, indeed, tougher, nastier, and more dedicated to achieving
their appointed tasks than their liberal counterparts, they get a
great deal of help from members of the so-called liberal media who are
always praising their courage—which is usually mustered to find a new
way to screw the poor and middle class on behalf of the wealthy.

Consider Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget plan. The New York Times's
David Brooks, who stands anointed as the most influential pundit of
the Obama era, and is frequently accepting kudos for his refusal to
kowtow to conservative dogma, pronounced that the document “set the
standard of seriousness for anybody who wants to play in this
discussion...This budget tackles just about every politically risky
issue with brio and guts...Paul Ryan has grasped reality with both
hands. He’s forcing everybody else to do the same.”

Joe Scarborough treated the document similarly. Scarborough is a
former Republican congressman who is treated to 15 hours of
programming each week on MSNBC, the cable network that allegedly
offsets the rabidly right-wing Fox. At the end of his program, his
executive producer, Chris Licht, said in Scarborough's earpiece of
Ryan, "I'm in love." The New York Times''s Andrew Ross Sorkin was also
impressed. He responded: "Give the man credit for putting out a plan,
when no one else would, frankly." And Mika Brzezinski, who is supposed
to be the liberal on this (liberal network) program, told Ryan, "I've
always said, I really like him.”

Weirdest of all, perhaps, was the confused cheerleading offered up by
Slate’s Jacob Weisberg under the headline “Good Plan!” followed by the
adjectives “brave, radical, and smart.” Generously granting that
“Democrats are within their rights to point out the negative effects
of Ryan's proposed cuts on future retirees, working families, and the
poor,” along with the fact that Ryan “was not specific about many of
his cuts,” he nevertheless thinks liberals should embrace the plan
because “it’s hard to make a principled liberal case for the program
[Medicare] in its current form.”

To which one can only respond with: “Say what?” Does Weisberg really
think that the problem with liberals these days is that they don’t pay
enough attention to principle? Are Koch-backed conservatives with
money flowing through a post-Citzens United political landscape like a
tsunami beating liberals because the latter are insufficiently
principled? Is Weisberg living on the same planet as the rest of us?

This is an old problem. Weisberg is an alumnus of The New Republic,
which his old boss, Mike Kinsley, used to joke ought to have been
renamed “Even the New Republic…” because it was always endorsing right-
wing Reaganite programs while pretending to speak for liberals.
Weisberg has done his old colleagues like Charles Krauthammer, Fred
Barnes, and Morton Kondracke one better here, however, by getting on
board with a plan so heartless toward the poor and indigent that even
Ronald Regan and George W. Bush never dared propose anything like it.

Weisberg appears to know a bit of this. He admits that the “brave,
radical, and smart” plan he so admires is full of “sleight-of-hand
tricks” and would not actually come close to eliminating the deficit
in the coming decade, “leaving $400 billion in annual deficits as far
as the eye can see.”

Weisberg attributes this to yet another massive tax cut for the
wealthy, a goal he endorses, though he does not go quite as far as
Ryan in calling for a top rate of 25 percent. Apparently the fact that
the United States has just experienced 40 years of purposeful transfer
of wealth from working stiffs to the extremely wealthy—the share of
total wealth for the top 1 percent has increased from 8 percent during
the 1960s to more than 20 percent in 2011 with wages for the average
worker remaining flat during that period— is insufficient.

So too, the fact, that, as Jesse Drucker reports in Bloomberg-Business
Week:

For the 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income, the
effective federal income tax rate fell from almost 30 percent in 1995
to just under 17 percent in 2007, according to the IRS. And for the
approximately 1.4 million people who make up the top 1 percent of
taxpayers, the effective federal income tax rate dropped from 29
percent to 23 percent in 2008. It may seem too fantastic to be true,
but the top 400 end up paying a lower rate than the next 1,399,600 or
so.

Yet for an "Even the New Republic" liberal like Slate's Weisberg, this
is insufficiently generous to the extremely wealthy. Together with
Ryan, he thinks they need more.

And he recognizes even more evasions in the “brave, radical, and
smart” plan, including Rep. Ryan’s refusal to spell out the cuts in
domestic programs he assumes will be achieved through “caps,” as well
as “which deductions and tax subsidies he'd eliminate to pay for these
lower rates.” What’s more, his economic projections are a “a supply-
side fantasy. His anti-bailout rhetoric is silly pandering,” but, one
presumes, “brave, radical, and smart” fantasizing and pandering.

Here are some more “brave, radical, and smart” details of the plan
Weisberg presumably did not have room to praise:

■The Ryan plan, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’s Robert
Greenstein notes, "would get about two-thirds of its more than $4
trillion in budget cuts over 10 years from programs that serve people
of limited means…Actual program cuts produce net savings of $4.322
trillion. Cuts in low-income programs appear likely to account for at
least $2.9 trillion—or about two-thirds—of this amount. The $2.9
trillion includes the following three categories of cuts: $2.17
trillion in reductions from Medicaid and related health care...$350
billion in cuts in mandatory programs serving low-income Americans
(other than Medicaid)...$400 billion in cuts in low-income
discretionary programs.”

■Michael Linden, Associate Director of Tax and Budget Policy at the
Center for American Progress, writes, "The rate cut at the top, of
course, benefits only those in the top brackets (the richest two
percent of Americans), but to pay for it, Ryan says he will 'broaden
the tax base.' Broadening the tax base means removing some tax
expenditures that currently benefit the middle class.” Ryan's
vagueness is probably deliberate, "since any detailed description of
his ideas for tax 'reform' would reveal a massive tax hike for the
middle class."

■Washington Post fact-checker columnist Glen Kessler adds that Rep.
Ryan relies on the Congressional Budget Office to vouch for his plan,
but he appears to ignore CBO estimates that a repeal of the health
care law would lead to an increase in the deficit. A substantial part
of his claimed deficit reduction—$1.4 trillion over the next 10 years—
comes from repealing the health care law. Even Alice Rivlin, whose
surname accounts for the “Rivlin” in “Ryan-Rivlin,” explained to
Garance Franke-Ruta: “There is no way we can control medical spending
at the inflation level. It’s going to rise faster than that.”
Moreover, “as the Congressional Budget Office noted, a lot of what
Rep. Ryan’s budget does is shift costs from the federal budget to
someone else’s budget: Medicaid’s costs moves to the states, and then
when the states cut it, to the people who need it, or to their
families.”

■Rep. Ryan’s budget estimates are very optimistic, report Jim
Tankersley and Katy O’Donnell at the National Journal: “If Rep. Paul
Ryan’s newly unveiled 2012 budget is signed into law, this is what
Ryan’s economic forecasters say will happen: The unemployment rate
will plunge by 2.5 percentage points. The still-sinking housing market
will roar back in a brand new boom. The federal government will
collect $100 billion more in income tax revenues than it otherwise
would have. And that’s just in the first year. By 2015, the
forecasters say, unemployment will fall to 4 percent. By 2021, it will
be a nearly unprecedented 2.8 percent.”

■Finally, seniors would pay much more for Medicare under Rep. Ryan’s
proposal, report Julie Appleby, Mary Agnes Carey, and Laurie McGinley
at Kaiser Health News: “Seniors and the disabled would pay sharply
more for their Medicare coverage under a new plan by House Republicans
aimed at curbing the nation’s growing deficit, a Congressional Budget
Office analysis shows. For example, by 2030, under the plan, typical
65-year-olds would be required to pay 68 percent of the total cost of
their coverage, which includes premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-
pocket costs, according to CBO. That compares with the 25 percent they
would pay under current law, CBO said. The GOP budget proposal also
would raise the eligibility age for the politically popular program—
and repeal big chunks of the health care overhaul law approved by
Congress last year.”

In fact, the only real value of Rep. Ryan’s plan is that, like
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s assault on the right of public workers
to bargain collectively, it clarifies the long-term agenda of the
conservative class war that right-wing intellectuals and operatives
have been planning and waging against poor and middle-class Americans
for nearly half a century now. That the mainstream media is peopled
with so many influential “liberals” willing to call this agenda
“brave, radical, and smart” and instruct genuine liberals to endorse
it on principle tells us a great deal about why this vicious assault
on what was once the American social compact has been so successful so
far.

Eric Alterman is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress
and a Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College and the
CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is also a columnist for The
Nation, Moment, and The Daily Beast. His newest book is Kabuki
Democracy: The System vs. Barack Obama.
thomaswheat1975
keywords: paul ryan, gop, republican tax cut 2.9 trillion
medicare medicaid cuts
CB
2011-04-11 23:11:31 UTC
Permalink
The problem has never been a matter of taxes. God knows we're taxed
TOO death.

The problem 'is' politicians spending othoer peoples money like a
crack head on MLK BLVD.
unknown
2011-04-12 02:02:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by CB
The problem has never been a matter of taxes. God knows we're taxed
TOO death.
The problem 'is' politicians spending othoer peoples money like a
crack head on MLK BLVD.
The imbalance is in all not just both directions.
Until we get rid of Lobbyists, one dollar one vote, and the view that
Corporations of more than one Individual is a person we have no chance
of controlling our OWN Country.
The Global Upper Investor or Global Ruling Economic Elites have
Washington dancing to their tune. Many, of Washington, are them.
We vote, for who they present, promote and manipulate with their dollars
or yuan.
Public Financing of Political Campaigns, only, is one of the fundamental
changes we must have.
We are no longer the land of opportunity and the American Dream, for the
majority of America. We are now a land of limited expectations.
We have high fuel prices because Washington has political agenda ahead
of the interest, of Americans and the influence of Wall Street, Hedge
Funds, Investment Bankers and ICE.
The Legislation, to stop the speculation and manipulation and
destruction, of our economy passed in 08 has still not been formulated
or applied because of that bunch and complicity in this Administration's
agenda. We are teetering on the precipice. Washington refuses to deal
with the villains, instead they attack Americans and seek to cut from
under us the things that make America.
It is becoming or is a bizarro world where up is down and the Robin Hood
is per corporate.
RichTravsky
2011-04-13 04:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by CB
The problem has never been a matter of taxes. God knows we're taxed
TOO death.
The problem 'is' politicians spending othoer peoples money like a
crack head on MLK BLVD.
And yet, you were silent when republicons were doing and while cheering on an
off budget war...

RT
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-04-12 00:19:40 UTC
Permalink
economist paul krugman on how the GOP republican budget plan will add
2.9 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/opinion/11krugman.html
excerpt:
"I’m not exaggerating. The House budget proposal that was unveiled
last week — and was praised as “bold” and “serious” by all of
Washington’s Very Serious People — includes savage cuts in Medicaid
and other programs that help the neediest, which would among other
things deprive 34 million Americans of health insurance. It includes a
plan to privatize and defund Medicare that would leave many if not
most seniors unable to afford health care. And it includes a plan to
sharply cut taxes on corporations and to bring the tax rate on high
earners down to its lowest level since 1931.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center puts the revenue loss from these tax
cuts at $2.9 trillion over the next decade. House Republicans claim
that the tax cuts can be made “revenue neutral” by “broadening the tax
base” — that is, by closing loopholes and ending exemptions. But you’d
need to close a lot of loopholes to close a $3 trillion gap; for
example, even completely eliminating one of the biggest exemptions,
the mortgage interest deduction, wouldn’t come close. And G.O.P.
leaders have not, of course, called for anything that drastic. I
haven’t seen them name any significant exemptions they would end. "

thomaswheat1975
keywords gop paul ryan tax cut adds 2.9 trillion dollars to deficit
Post by Tom Jigme Wheat
Paul Ryan wants to lower the income tax rates on the top income
earners from 35% to 25%. This will cost the government 2.9 trillion
dollars in revenues over the next decade. So now Ryan wants to cut
Medicare and Medicaid to help pay for it. His budget will increase
seniors on medicare, out of pocket costs by 6000 dollars a year. For
those seniors on medicaid, who are in nursing homes, its a real
possibility that Medicaid would not be able to cover the cost of their
care.  Also his plan would lead to higher taxes for the middle class.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/ta040711.html
Think Again: 'Brave, Radical, and Smart'
SOURCE: AP/Susan Walsh
Slate’s Jacob Weisberg praises Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget as
“brave, radical, and smart.” The New York Times's David Brooks said it
"set the standard of seriousness for anybody who wants to play in this
discussion."
By Eric Alterman | April 7, 2011
 A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a
quarrel.
- Robert Frost
It’s a truism that conservatives are tougher than liberals. It’s also
true. But the odd thing about this phenomenon is that while right-
wingers are, indeed, tougher, nastier, and more dedicated to achieving
their appointed tasks than their liberal counterparts, they get a
great deal of help from members of the so-called liberal media who are
always praising their courage—which is usually mustered to find a new
way to screw the poor and middle class on behalf of the wealthy.
Consider Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget plan. The New York Times's
David Brooks, who stands anointed as the most influential pundit of
the Obama era, and is frequently accepting kudos for his refusal to
kowtow to conservative dogma, pronounced that the document “set the
standard of seriousness for anybody who wants to play in this
discussion...This budget tackles just about every politically risky
issue with brio and guts...Paul Ryan has grasped reality with both
hands. He’s forcing everybody else to do the same.”
Joe Scarborough treated the document similarly. Scarborough is a
former Republican congressman who is treated to 15 hours of
programming each week on MSNBC, the cable network that allegedly
offsets the rabidly right-wing Fox. At the end of his program, his
executive producer, Chris Licht, said in Scarborough's earpiece of
Ryan, "I'm in love." The New York Times''s Andrew Ross Sorkin was also
impressed. He responded: "Give the man credit for putting out a plan,
when no one else would, frankly." And Mika Brzezinski, who is supposed
to be the liberal on this (liberal network) program, told Ryan, "I've
always said, I really like him.”
Weirdest of all, perhaps, was the confused cheerleading offered up by
Slate’s Jacob Weisberg under the headline “Good Plan!” followed by the
adjectives “brave, radical, and smart.” Generously granting that
“Democrats are within their rights to point out the negative effects
of Ryan's proposed cuts on future retirees, working families, and the
poor,” along with the fact that Ryan “was not specific about many of
his cuts,” he nevertheless thinks liberals should embrace the plan
because “it’s hard to make a principled liberal case for the program
[Medicare] in its current form.”
To which one can only respond with: “Say what?” Does Weisberg really
think that the problem with liberals these days is that they don’t pay
enough attention to principle? Are Koch-backed conservatives with
money flowing through a post-Citzens United political landscape like a
tsunami beating liberals because the latter are insufficiently
principled? Is Weisberg living on the same planet as the rest of us?
This is an old problem. Weisberg is an alumnus of The New Republic,
which his old boss, Mike Kinsley, used to joke ought to have been
renamed “Even the New Republic…” because it was always endorsing right-
wing Reaganite programs while pretending to speak for liberals.
Weisberg has done his old colleagues like Charles Krauthammer, Fred
Barnes, and Morton Kondracke one better here, however, by getting on
board with a plan so heartless toward the poor and indigent that even
Ronald Regan and George W. Bush never dared propose anything like it.
Weisberg appears to know a bit of this. He admits that the “brave,
radical, and smart” plan he so admires is full of “sleight-of-hand
tricks” and would not actually come close to eliminating the deficit
in the coming decade, “leaving $400 billion in annual deficits as far
as the eye can see.”
Weisberg attributes this to yet another massive tax cut for the
wealthy, a goal he endorses, though he does not go quite as far as
Ryan in calling for a top rate of 25 percent. Apparently the fact that
the United States has just experienced 40 years of purposeful transfer
of wealth from working stiffs to the extremely wealthy—the share of
total wealth for the top 1 percent has increased from 8 percent during
the 1960s to more than 20 percent in 2011 with wages for the average
worker remaining flat during that period— is insufficient.
So too, the fact, that, as Jesse Drucker reports in Bloomberg-Business
For the 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income, the
effective federal income tax rate fell from almost 30 percent in 1995
to just under 17 percent in 2007, according to the IRS. And for the
approximately 1.4 million people who make up the top 1 percent of
taxpayers, the effective federal income tax rate dropped from 29
percent to 23 percent in 2008. It may seem too fantastic to be true,
but the top 400 end up paying a lower rate than the next 1,399,600 or
so.
Yet for an "Even the New Republic" liberal like Slate's Weisberg, this
is insufficiently generous to the extremely wealthy. Together with
Ryan, he thinks they need more.
And he recognizes even more evasions in the “brave, radical, and
smart” plan, including Rep. Ryan’s refusal to spell out the cuts in
domestic programs he assumes will be achieved through “caps,” as well
as “which deductions and tax subsidies he'd eliminate to pay for these
lower rates.” What’s more, his economic projections are a “a supply-
side fantasy. His anti-bailout rhetoric is silly pandering,” but, one
presumes, “brave, radical, and smart” fantasizing and pandering.
Here are some more “brave, radical, and smart” details of the plan
■The Ryan plan, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’s Robert
Greenstein notes, "would get about two-thirds of its more than $4
trillion in budget cuts over 10 years from programs that serve people
of limited means…Actual program cuts produce net savings of $4.322
trillion. Cuts in low-income programs appear likely to account for at
least $2.9 trillion—or about two-thirds—of this amount. The $2.9
trillion includes the following three categories of cuts: $2.17
trillion in reductions from Medicaid and related health care...$350
billion in cuts in mandatory programs serving low-income Americans
(other than Medicaid)...$400 billion in cuts in low-income
discretionary programs.”
■Michael Linden, Associate Director of Tax and Budget Policy at the
Center for American Progress, writes, "The rate cut at the top, of
course, benefits only those in the top brackets (the richest two
percent of Americans), but to pay for it, Ryan says he will 'broaden
the tax base.' Broadening the tax base means removing some tax
expenditures that currently benefit the middle class.” Ryan's
vagueness is probably deliberate, "since any detailed description of
his ideas for tax 'reform' would reveal a massive tax hike for the
middle class."
■Washington Post fact-checker columnist Glen Kessler adds that Rep.
Ryan relies on the Congressional Budget Office to vouch for his plan,
but he appears to ignore CBO estimates that a repeal of the health
care law would lead to an increase in the deficit. A substantial part
of his claimed deficit reduction—$1.4 trillion over the next 10 years—
comes from repealing the health care law. Even Alice Rivlin, whose
surname accounts for the “Rivlin” in “Ryan-Rivlin,” explained to
Garance Franke-Ruta: “There is no way we can control medical spending
at the inflation level. It’s going to rise faster than that.”
Moreover, “as the Congressional Budget Office noted, a lot of what
Rep. Ryan’s budget does is shift costs from the federal budget to
someone else’s budget: Medicaid’s costs moves to the states, and then
when the states cut it, to the people who need it, or to their
families.”
■Rep. Ryan’s budget estimates are very optimistic, report Jim
Tankersley and Katy O’Donnell at the National Journal: “If Rep. Paul
Ryan’s newly unveiled 2012 budget is signed into law, this is what
Ryan’s economic forecasters say will happen: The unemployment rate
will plunge by 2.5 percentage points. The still-sinking housing market
will roar back in a brand new boom. The federal government will
collect $100 billion more in income tax revenues than it otherwise
would have. And that’s just in the first year. By 2015, the
forecasters say, unemployment will fall to 4 percent. By 2021, it will
be a nearly unprecedented 2.8 percent.”
■Finally, seniors would pay much more for Medicare under Rep. Ryan’s
proposal, report Julie Appleby, Mary Agnes Carey, and Laurie McGinley
at Kaiser Health News: “Seniors and the disabled would pay sharply
more for their Medicare coverage under a new plan by House Republicans
aimed at curbing the nation’s growing deficit, a Congressional Budget
Office analysis shows. For example, by 2030, under the plan, typical
65-year-olds would be required to pay 68 percent of the total cost of
their coverage, which includes premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-
pocket costs, according to CBO. That compares with the 25 percent they
would pay under current law, CBO said. The GOP budget proposal also
would
read more »...
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-04-12 00:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Center for American Progress on how Paul Ryan's Budget Plan will raise
taxes on the middle class and the poor:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/ryan_tax_plan.html

Paul Ryan’s Hidden Middle-Class Tax Hike
House Budget Plan Obfuscates Real Impact of ‘Tax Reform’

SOURCE: AP/Carolyn Kaster

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, accompanied by House
Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, House Majority Whip Kevin
McCarthy, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, speaks during a news conference on
Capitol Hill.
By Michael Linden | April 5, 2011

PrintEmailText-size: A A A Share: When it comes to tax reform, it
appears House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s courage failed
him. Various pundits and Washington columnists have been falling all
over themselves to praise the bravery of Rep. Ryan (R-WI) in offering
a federal budget plan that abolishes Medicare, slashes services for
the middle class, and yet somehow manages to keep the bonus Bush tax
cuts for the wealthy. But what these instapundits are missing is the
fact that Rep. Ryan’s plan for the tax side of the ledger is
remarkably opaque and is almost certain to raise taxes on the middle
class, and that its opacity is deliberately obscuring that tax hike.
That doesn’t seem so brave to me.

Rep. Ryan’s budget simply doesn’t describe exactly how his tax plan
would work, instead resorting to broad bullet points that conveniently
skip over important details. Nonetheless, the broad outlines of his
tax plan are to:

■Maintain the Bush-era tax cuts beyond their expiration in 2012 and
cut the top individual tax rate down to 25 percent from 35 percent
■Consolidate the current six tax brackets into some, unspecified,
fewer number of brackets
■Keep overall tax revenue levels the same
■Pay for the enormous tax cut for the top by eliminating or curtailing
some, unspecified, tax expenditures
Without the missing details this is nothing but pure political
boilerplate. Which brackets are going to be consolidated? What will
the new rate structure be? Which tax expenditures will be eliminated?
Which will be limited and how? Rep. Ryan doesn’t tell us. There is no
plan here.

That’s probably on purpose since any detailed description of his ideas
for tax “reform” would reveal a massive tax hike for the middle class.
For Rep. Ryan to cut the top rate by nearly one-third and still keep
tax revenue the same as it would have been under President’s Bush tax-
cut regime means he’s going to have to raise taxes somewhere else. And
though he pointedly refuses to tell us where those tax hikes will come
from, we can make an educated guess.

For one thing, the basic math makes a middle-class tax hike
unavoidable. The rate cut at the top, of course, benefits only those
in the top brackets (the richest 2 percent of Americans), but to pay
for this, Rep. Ryan says he will “broaden the tax base.” Broadening
the tax base means removing some tax expenditures that currently
benefit both the middle class and the rich—though remember that the
rich are getting a huge rate cut. For another, Ryan’s previous budget
plan, the “Roadmap for America’s Future,” includes a massive tax cut
for the rich paid for by an equally massive tax increase for the
middle class.

To be clear, reforming the myriad tax expenditures that litter the
current tax code is a good idea. But using the new revenue to pay for
a massive tax cut for the rich is not. Furthermore, Ryan neither tells
us which tax expenditures he will seek to cut nor how his reforms
would actually work. This is tax reform by magic.

But Rep. Ryan actually boasts a history of using gimmicks and trickery
to make his tax numbers work. When he released his “Roadmap for
America’s Future” several years ago, claiming it would balance the
budget and eliminate the debt, he relied on one very key assumption—
that his enormous tax cuts for the rich would nevertheless result in a
stable amount of federal revenue. Sound familiar? In fact, when he
submitted his plan to the Congressional Budget Office for official
review, he explicitly told them to make the same assumption, ignoring
the actual revenue effects of his proposals. Lo and behold, when the
CBO score came back, it looked remarkably similar to Rep. Ryan’s own
projections.

Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for the rest of us, there are
other independent organizations with the capability to score budget
proposals. Both the Tax Policy Center and the Institute for Taxation
and Economic Policy produced their own estimates of Ryan’s “Roadmap”
and found that, far from holding revenue steady, his proposals would
result in far less revenue overall while simultaneously raising taxes
for 90 percent of Americans. How did he accomplish such an impressive
feat? By dramatically cutting taxes on the very wealthy. And yet Rep.
Ryan was able to hide this fact by pointing to the CBO analysis that
showed stable revenue. But, of course, it only showed stable revenue
because he instructed the CBO to make that assumption.

Somehow, Rep. Ryan was able to get away with this deception and
maintain his reputation as an “honest” budget wonk. So it’s not
surprising that he’s using the same playbook again with his new budget
plan.

His revenue estimates for this new budget plan do not come from the
Congressional Budget Office. They do not come from the Joint Committee
on Taxation, or the Treasury Department, or even from the comically
wrong Heritage Foundation model. No, Ryan’s revenue numbers are simple
assertions. And if his numbers are wrong, as they were with his
“Roadmap,” then so, too, are his deficit and debt numbers.

Perhaps Rep. Ryan deserves some credit for laying out a specific plan
that slashes Medicaid—the health care program that pays for nearly two-
thirds of all nursing home residents—and abolishes Medicare, which
ensures senior citizens and the disabled can access the quality health
care they need. If those are his priorities and that is what he
believes, then he should be praised for being clear and upfront about
it. Of course, even here, that praise should be tempered by the great
linguistic gymnastics Rep. Ryan engages in to describe these cuts as
something other than what they are—an assault on the middle class. And
any praise should certainly not extend to his tax plan.

The bottom line: Rep. Ryan’s “reform” of the tax code is long on
rhetoric and short on details. It would almost certainly mean a huge
tax increase for the middle class. And his overall numbers, on which
the entire plan relies, are based on absolutely no outside analysis.
Far from a real tax plan, his approach is made up of obfuscation,
misdirection, and pure assertion.

Michael Linden is Director for Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for
American Progress.
Post by Tom Jigme Wheat
economist paul krugman on how the GOP republican budget plan will add
2.9 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/opinion/11krugman.html
"I’m not exaggerating. The House budget proposal that was unveiled
last week — and was praised as “bold” and “serious” by all of
Washington’s Very Serious People — includes savage cuts in Medicaid
and other programs that help the neediest, which would among other
things deprive 34 million Americans of health insurance. It includes a
plan to privatize and defund Medicare that would leave many if not
most seniors unable to afford health care. And it includes a plan to
sharply cut taxes on corporations and to bring the tax rate on high
earners down to its lowest level since 1931.
The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center puts the revenue loss from these tax
cuts at $2.9 trillion over the next decade. House Republicans claim
that the tax cuts can be made “revenue neutral” by “broadening the tax
base” — that is, by closing loopholes and ending exemptions. But you’d
need to close a lot of loopholes to close a $3 trillion gap; for
example, even completely eliminating one of the biggest exemptions,
the mortgage interest deduction, wouldn’t come close. And G.O.P.
leaders have not, of course, called for anything that drastic. I
haven’t seen them name any significant exemptions they would end. "
thomaswheat1975
keywords gop paul ryan tax cut adds 2.9 trillion dollars to deficit
Post by Tom Jigme Wheat
Paul Ryan wants to lower the income tax rates on the top income
earners from 35% to 25%. This will cost the government 2.9 trillion
dollars in revenues over the next decade. So now Ryan wants to cut
Medicare and Medicaid to help pay for it. His budget will increase
seniors on medicare, out of pocket costs by 6000 dollars a year. For
those seniors on medicaid, who are in nursing homes, its a real
possibility that Medicaid would not be able to cover the cost of their
care.  Also his plan would lead to higher taxes for the middle class.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/ta040711.html
Think Again: 'Brave, Radical, and Smart'
SOURCE: AP/Susan Walsh
Slate’s Jacob Weisberg praises Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget as
“brave, radical, and smart.” The New York Times's David Brooks said it
"set the standard of seriousness for anybody who wants to play in this
discussion."
By Eric Alterman | April 7, 2011
 A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a
quarrel.
- Robert Frost
It’s a truism that conservatives are tougher than liberals. It’s also
true. But the odd thing about this phenomenon is that while right-
wingers are, indeed, tougher, nastier, and more dedicated to achieving
their appointed tasks than their liberal counterparts, they get a
great deal of help from members of the so-called liberal media who are
always praising their courage—which is usually mustered to find a new
way to screw the poor and middle class on behalf of the wealthy.
Consider Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget plan. The New York Times's
David Brooks, who stands anointed as the most influential pundit of
the Obama era, and is frequently accepting kudos for his refusal to
kowtow to conservative dogma, pronounced that the document “set the
standard of seriousness for anybody who wants to play in this
discussion...This budget tackles just about every politically risky
issue with brio and guts...Paul Ryan has grasped reality with both
hands. He’s forcing everybody else to do the same.”
Joe Scarborough treated the document similarly. Scarborough is a
former Republican congressman who is treated to 15 hours of
programming each week on MSNBC, the cable network that allegedly
offsets the rabidly right-wing Fox. At the end of his program, his
executive producer, Chris Licht, said in Scarborough's earpiece of
Ryan, "I'm in love." The New York Times''s Andrew Ross Sorkin was also
impressed. He responded: "Give the man credit for putting out a plan,
when no one else would, frankly." And Mika Brzezinski, who is supposed
to be the liberal on this (liberal network) program, told Ryan, "I've
always said, I really like him.”
Weirdest of all, perhaps, was the confused cheerleading offered up by
Slate’s Jacob Weisberg under the headline “Good Plan!” followed by the
adjectives “brave, radical, and smart.” Generously granting that
“Democrats are within their rights to point out the negative effects
of Ryan's proposed cuts on future retirees, working families, and the
poor,” along with the fact that Ryan “was not specific about many of
his cuts,” he nevertheless thinks liberals should embrace the plan
because “it’s hard to make a principled liberal case for the program
[Medicare] in its current form.”
To which one can only respond with: “Say what?” Does Weisberg really
think that the problem with liberals these days is that they don’t pay
enough attention to principle? Are Koch-backed conservatives with
money flowing through a post-Citzens United political landscape like a
tsunami beating liberals because the latter are insufficiently
principled? Is Weisberg living on the same planet as the rest of us?
This is an old problem. Weisberg is an alumnus of The New Republic,
which his old boss, Mike Kinsley, used to joke ought to have been
renamed “Even the New Republic…” because it was always endorsing right-
wing Reaganite programs while pretending to speak for liberals.
Weisberg has done his old colleagues like Charles Krauthammer, Fred
Barnes, and Morton Kondracke one better here, however, by getting on
board with a plan so heartless toward the poor and indigent that even
Ronald Regan and George W. Bush never dared propose anything like it.
Weisberg appears to know a bit of this. He admits that the “brave,
radical, and smart” plan he so admires is full of “sleight-of-hand
tricks” and would not actually come close to eliminating the deficit
in the coming decade, “leaving $400 billion in annual deficits as far
as the eye can see.”
Weisberg attributes this to yet another massive tax cut for the
wealthy, a goal he endorses, though he does not go quite as far as
Ryan in calling for a top rate of 25 percent. Apparently the fact that
the United States has just experienced 40 years of purposeful transfer
of wealth from working stiffs to the extremely wealthy—the share of
total wealth for the top 1 percent has increased from 8 percent during
the 1960s to more than 20 percent in 2011 with wages for the average
worker remaining flat during that period— is insufficient.
So too, the fact, that, as Jesse Drucker reports in Bloomberg-Business
For the 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income, the
effective federal income tax rate fell from almost 30 percent in 1995
to just under 17 percent in 2007, according to the IRS. And for the
approximately 1.4 million people who make up the top 1 percent of
taxpayers, the effective federal income tax rate dropped from 29
percent to 23 percent in 2008. It may seem too fantastic to be true,
but the top 400 end up paying a lower rate than the next 1,399,600 or
so.
Yet for an "Even the New Republic" liberal like Slate's Weisberg, this
is insufficiently generous to the extremely wealthy. Together with
Ryan, he thinks they need more.
And he recognizes even more evasions in the “brave, radical, and
smart” plan, including Rep. Ryan’s refusal to spell out the cuts in
domestic programs he assumes will be achieved through “caps,” as well
as “which deductions and tax subsidies he'd eliminate to pay for these
lower rates.” What’s more, his economic projections are a “a supply-
side fantasy. His anti-bailout rhetoric is silly pandering,” but, one
presumes, “brave, radical, and smart” fantasizing and pandering.
Here are some more “brave, radical, and smart” details of the plan
■The Ryan plan, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’s Robert
Greenstein notes, "would get about two-thirds of its more than $4
trillion in budget cuts over 10 years from programs that serve people
of limited means…Actual program cuts produce net savings of $4.322
trillion. Cuts in low-income programs appear likely to account for at
least $2.9 trillion—or about two-thirds—of this amount. The $2.9
trillion includes the following three categories of cuts: $2.17
trillion in reductions from Medicaid and related health care...$350
billion in cuts in mandatory programs serving low-income Americans
(other than Medicaid)...$400 billion in cuts in low-income
discretionary programs.”
■Michael Linden, Associate Director of Tax and Budget Policy at the
Center for American Progress, writes, "The rate cut at the top, of
course, benefits only those in the top brackets (the richest two
percent of Americans), but to pay for it, Ryan says he will 'broaden
the tax base.' Broadening the tax base means removing some tax
expenditures that currently benefit the middle class.” Ryan's
vagueness is probably deliberate, "since any detailed description of
his ideas for tax 'reform' would reveal a massive tax hike for the
middle class."
■Washington Post fact-checker columnist Glen Kessler adds that Rep.
Ryan relies on the Congressional Budget Office to vouch for his plan,
but he appears to ignore CBO estimates that a repeal of the health
care law would lead to an increase in the deficit. A substantial part
of his claimed deficit reduction—$1.4 trillion over the next 10 years—
comes from repealing the health care law. Even Alice Rivlin, whose
surname accounts for- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
read more »
Eddie Haskell
2011-04-12 15:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Jigme Wheat
economist paul krugman on how the GOP republican budget plan will add
2.9 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.
Krugman is a liar and a hack who knows that economics is not a zero-sum
game.

Fuck off.

<snip>



-Eddie Haskell
RichTravsky
2011-04-13 04:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eddie Haskell
Post by Tom Jigme Wheat
economist paul krugman on how the GOP republican budget plan will add
2.9 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.
Krugman is a liar and a hack who knows that economics is not a zero-sum
game.
Fuck off.
<snip>
http://youtu.be/XHAf4XbffcE
-Eddie Haskell
Lack of refutation noted.

RT

Eric S. Harris
2011-04-12 01:25:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Jigme Wheat
Paul Ryan wants to lower the income tax rates on the top income
earners from 35% to 25%. This will cost the government
Bzzzzzt!

Reducing tax rates thus allowing people to keep more of the money they
earned is not the government giving them money.

To say otherwise is to assume the government owns what people earn.

There's a word for that: slavery.

On this, the 150 anniversary of the start of a war which ultimately lead
to the abolition of slavery, it's nice to think about that.

And it might be nice for folks to read (or re-read) "Emancipating
Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
of correction; it's a big Internet and I'm only one opinionated guy:
http://xkcd.com/386
Tom Jigme Wheat
2011-04-12 02:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric S. Harris
Post by Tom Jigme Wheat
Paul Ryan wants to lower the income tax rates on the top income
earners from 35% to 25%. This will cost the government
Bzzzzzt!
Reducing tax rates thus allowing people to keep more of the money they
earned is not the government giving them money.
Under paul ryan's plan taxes on the middle class and the poor will
increase.
also here in california since 1978 the top 2% have increased their
wealth by 81%
and this has not led to job creation. trickle down economics fleeces
the wealth of the middle class and poor.
Post by Eric S. Harris
To say otherwise is to assume the government owns what people earn.
There's a word for that: slavery.
On this, the 150 anniversary of the start of a war which ultimately lead
to the abolition of slavery, it's nice to think about that.
And it might be nice for folks to read (or re-read) "Emancipating
Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel.   -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail.  If I haven't
replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
of correction; it's a big Internet and I'm only one opinionated guy:http://xkcd.com/386
ByeStander
2011-04-12 05:33:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:25:41 -0500, "Eric S. Harris"
Post by Eric S. Harris
Post by Tom Jigme Wheat
Paul Ryan wants to lower the income tax rates on the top income
earners from 35% to 25%. This will cost the government
Bzzzzzt!
Reducing tax rates thus allowing people to keep more of the money they
earned is not the government giving them money.
To say otherwise is to assume the government owns what people earn.
There's a word for that: slavery.
On this, the 150 anniversary of the start of a war which ultimately lead
to the abolition of slavery, it's nice to think about that.
And it might be nice for folks to read (or re-read) "Emancipating
Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. -Eric
IMHO, I think they want you (perhaps force you) to be "politically
correct" and want you to give your money away to those that haven't
tried to succeed in life and are poor.

They know they would never give money away - so they want to force you
to.

Making you / everyone feel guilty - is the only argument they've got.
RichTravsky
2011-04-13 04:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by ByeStander
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:25:41 -0500, "Eric S. Harris"
Post by Eric S. Harris
Post by Tom Jigme Wheat
Paul Ryan wants to lower the income tax rates on the top income
earners from 35% to 25%. This will cost the government
Bzzzzzt!
Reducing tax rates thus allowing people to keep more of the money they
earned is not the government giving them money.
To say otherwise is to assume the government owns what people earn.
There's a word for that: slavery.
On this, the 150 anniversary of the start of a war which ultimately lead
to the abolition of slavery, it's nice to think about that.
And it might be nice for folks to read (or re-read) "Emancipating
Slaves, Enslaving Free Men" by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. -Eric
IMHO, I think they want you (perhaps force you) to be "politically
correct" and want you to give your money away to those that haven't
tried to succeed in life and are poor.
They know they would never give money away - so they want to force you
to.
Making you / everyone feel guilty - is the only argument they've got.
Haven't succeeded in life? Does that include giving our money to people like
this:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-hypocrisy-lawmakers-tea-party-ties-government/story?id=13259014
The Tea Party swept into the 112th Congress with promises of cutting
government spending. But according to a report out today, at least five
lawmakers with Tea Party connections have been longtime recipients of
federal agricultural subsidies.
...
Eddie Haskell
2011-04-12 16:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric S. Harris
Post by Tom Jigme Wheat
Paul Ryan wants to lower the income tax rates on the top income
earners from 35% to 25%. This will cost the government
Bzzzzzt!
Reducing tax rates thus allowing people to keep more of the money they
earned is not the government giving them money.
He doesn't give a fuck. He's a liar.

-Eddie Haskell
Post by Eric S. Harris
To say otherwise is to assume the government owns what people earn.
There's a word for that: slavery.
On this, the 150 anniversary of the start of a war which ultimately lead
to the abolition of slavery, it's nice to think about that.
And it might be nice for folks to read (or re-read) "Emancipating Slaves,
Enslaving Free Men" by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
http://xkcd.com/386
unknown
2011-04-12 01:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Jigme Wheat
Paul Ryan wants to lower the income tax rates on the top income
earners from 35% to 25%. This will cost the government 2.9 trillion
dollars in revenues over the next decade. So now Ryan wants to cut
Medicare and Medicaid to help pay for it. His budget will increase
seniors on medicare, out of pocket costs by 6000 dollars a year. For
those seniors on medicaid, who are in nursing homes, its a real
possibility that Medicaid would not be able to cover the cost of their
care. Also his plan would lead to higher taxes for the middle class.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/ta040711.html
Think Again: 'Brave, Radical, and Smart'
SOURCE: AP/Susan Walsh
Slate’s Jacob Weisberg praises Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget as
“brave, radical, and smart.” The New York Times's David Brooks said it
"set the standard of seriousness for anybody who wants to play in this
discussion."
By Eric Alterman | April 7, 2011
A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a
quarrel.
- Robert Frost
It’s a truism that conservatives are tougher than liberals. It’s also
true. But the odd thing about this phenomenon is that while right-
wingers are, indeed, tougher, nastier, and more dedicated to achieving
their appointed tasks than their liberal counterparts, they get a
great deal of help from members of the so-called liberal media who are
always praising their courage—which is usually mustered to find a new
way to screw the poor and middle class on behalf of the wealthy.
Consider Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget plan. The New York Times's
David Brooks, who stands anointed as the most influential pundit of
the Obama era, and is frequently accepting kudos for his refusal to
kowtow to conservative dogma, pronounced that the document “set the
standard of seriousness for anybody who wants to play in this
discussion...This budget tackles just about every politically risky
issue with brio and guts...Paul Ryan has grasped reality with both
hands. He’s forcing everybody else to do the same.”
Joe Scarborough treated the document similarly. Scarborough is a
former Republican congressman who is treated to 15 hours of
programming each week on MSNBC, the cable network that allegedly
offsets the rabidly right-wing Fox. At the end of his program, his
executive producer, Chris Licht, said in Scarborough's earpiece of
Ryan, "I'm in love." The New York Times''s Andrew Ross Sorkin was also
impressed. He responded: "Give the man credit for putting out a plan,
when no one else would, frankly." And Mika Brzezinski, who is supposed
to be the liberal on this (liberal network) program, told Ryan, "I've
always said, I really like him.”
Weirdest of all, perhaps, was the confused cheerleading offered up by
Slate’s Jacob Weisberg under the headline “Good Plan!” followed by the
adjectives “brave, radical, and smart.” Generously granting that
“Democrats are within their rights to point out the negative effects
of Ryan's proposed cuts on future retirees, working families, and the
poor,” along with the fact that Ryan “was not specific about many of
his cuts,” he nevertheless thinks liberals should embrace the plan
because “it’s hard to make a principled liberal case for the program
[Medicare] in its current form.”
To which one can only respond with: “Say what?” Does Weisberg really
think that the problem with liberals these days is that they don’t pay
enough attention to principle? Are Koch-backed conservatives with
money flowing through a post-Citzens United political landscape like a
tsunami beating liberals because the latter are insufficiently
principled? Is Weisberg living on the same planet as the rest of us?
This is an old problem. Weisberg is an alumnus of The New Republic,
which his old boss, Mike Kinsley, used to joke ought to have been
renamed “Even the New Republic…” because it was always endorsing right-
wing Reaganite programs while pretending to speak for liberals.
Weisberg has done his old colleagues like Charles Krauthammer, Fred
Barnes, and Morton Kondracke one better here, however, by getting on
board with a plan so heartless toward the poor and indigent that even
Ronald Regan and George W. Bush never dared propose anything like it.
Weisberg appears to know a bit of this. He admits that the “brave,
radical, and smart” plan he so admires is full of “sleight-of-hand
tricks” and would not actually come close to eliminating the deficit
in the coming decade, “leaving $400 billion in annual deficits as far
as the eye can see.”
Weisberg attributes this to yet another massive tax cut for the
wealthy, a goal he endorses, though he does not go quite as far as
Ryan in calling for a top rate of 25 percent. Apparently the fact that
the United States has just experienced 40 years of purposeful transfer
of wealth from working stiffs to the extremely wealthy—the share of
total wealth for the top 1 percent has increased from 8 percent during
the 1960s to more than 20 percent in 2011 with wages for the average
worker remaining flat during that period— is insufficient.
So too, the fact, that, as Jesse Drucker reports in Bloomberg-Business
For the 400 U.S. taxpayers with the highest adjusted gross income, the
effective federal income tax rate fell from almost 30 percent in 1995
to just under 17 percent in 2007, according to the IRS. And for the
approximately 1.4 million people who make up the top 1 percent of
taxpayers, the effective federal income tax rate dropped from 29
percent to 23 percent in 2008. It may seem too fantastic to be true,
but the top 400 end up paying a lower rate than the next 1,399,600 or
so.
Yet for an "Even the New Republic" liberal like Slate's Weisberg, this
is insufficiently generous to the extremely wealthy. Together with
Ryan, he thinks they need more.
And he recognizes even more evasions in the “brave, radical, and
smart” plan, including Rep. Ryan’s refusal to spell out the cuts in
domestic programs he assumes will be achieved through “caps,” as well
as “which deductions and tax subsidies he'd eliminate to pay for these
lower rates.” What’s more, his economic projections are a “a supply-
side fantasy. His anti-bailout rhetoric is silly pandering,” but, one
presumes, “brave, radical, and smart” fantasizing and pandering.
Here are some more “brave, radical, and smart” details of the plan
■The Ryan plan, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’s Robert
Greenstein notes, "would get about two-thirds of its more than $4
trillion in budget cuts over 10 years from programs that serve people
of limited means…Actual program cuts produce net savings of $4.322
trillion. Cuts in low-income programs appear likely to account for at
least $2.9 trillion—or about two-thirds—of this amount. The $2.9
trillion includes the following three categories of cuts: $2.17
trillion in reductions from Medicaid and related health care...$350
billion in cuts in mandatory programs serving low-income Americans
(other than Medicaid)...$400 billion in cuts in low-income
discretionary programs.”
■Michael Linden, Associate Director of Tax and Budget Policy at the
Center for American Progress, writes, "The rate cut at the top, of
course, benefits only those in the top brackets (the richest two
percent of Americans), but to pay for it, Ryan says he will 'broaden
the tax base.' Broadening the tax base means removing some tax
expenditures that currently benefit the middle class.” Ryan's
vagueness is probably deliberate, "since any detailed description of
his ideas for tax 'reform' would reveal a massive tax hike for the
middle class."
■Washington Post fact-checker columnist Glen Kessler adds that Rep.
Ryan relies on the Congressional Budget Office to vouch for his plan,
but he appears to ignore CBO estimates that a repeal of the health
care law would lead to an increase in the deficit. A substantial part
of his claimed deficit reduction—$1.4 trillion over the next 10 years—
comes from repealing the health care law. Even Alice Rivlin, whose
surname accounts for the “Rivlin” in “Ryan-Rivlin,” explained to
Garance Franke-Ruta: “There is no way we can control medical spending
at the inflation level. It’s going to rise faster than that.”
Moreover, “as the Congressional Budget Office noted, a lot of what
Rep. Ryan’s budget does is shift costs from the federal budget to
someone else’s budget: Medicaid’s costs moves to the states, and then
when the states cut it, to the people who need it, or to their
families.”
■Rep. Ryan’s budget estimates are very optimistic, report Jim
Tankersley and Katy O’Donnell at the National Journal: “If Rep. Paul
Ryan’s newly unveiled 2012 budget is signed into law, this is what
Ryan’s economic forecasters say will happen: The unemployment rate
will plunge by 2.5 percentage points. The still-sinking housing market
will roar back in a brand new boom. The federal government will
collect $100 billion more in income tax revenues than it otherwise
would have. And that’s just in the first year. By 2015, the
forecasters say, unemployment will fall to 4 percent. By 2021, it will
be a nearly unprecedented 2.8 percent.”
■Finally, seniors would pay much more for Medicare under Rep. Ryan’s
proposal, report Julie Appleby, Mary Agnes Carey, and Laurie McGinley
at Kaiser Health News: “Seniors and the disabled would pay sharply
more for their Medicare coverage under a new plan by House Republicans
aimed at curbing the nation’s growing deficit, a Congressional Budget
Office analysis shows. For example, by 2030, under the plan, typical
65-year-olds would be required to pay 68 percent of the total cost of
their coverage, which includes premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-
pocket costs, according to CBO. That compares with the 25 percent they
would pay under current law, CBO said. The GOP budget proposal also
would raise the eligibility age for the politically popular program—
and repeal big chunks of the health care overhaul law approved by
Congress last year.”
In fact, the only real value of Rep. Ryan’s plan is that, like
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s assault on the right of public workers.
to bargain collectively, it clarifies the long-term agenda of the
conservative class war that right-wing intellectuals and operatives
have been planning and waging against poor and middle-class Americans
for nearly half a century now. That the mainstream media is peopled
with so many influential “liberals” willing to call this agenda
“brave, radical, and smart” and instruct genuine liberals to endorse
it on principle tells us a great deal about why this vicious assault
on what was once the American social compact has been so successful so
far.
Eric Alterman is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress
and a Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College and the
CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is also a columnist for The
Nation, Moment, and The Daily Beast. His newest book is Kabuki
Democracy: The System vs. Barack Obama.
thomaswheat1975
keywords: paul ryan, gop, republican tax cut 2.9 trillion
medicare medicaid cuts
I don't think I've ever met anyone that pays 35%.
We paid close but we are poor.
Since we are now both disabled we don't make enough to worry about taxes.
The Rich don't really pay any taxes until they take a little, of their
money to spend.
They may pay15% on the money they spend, but that amount is only a
fraction of their wealth accumulation that year, usually.
This idea of the pur abused wealth is nuts.
It's amazing the pr put out by all the pur wealthy interests.
This is turning into a bizarro world where up is down and rich are poor
etc.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...