Sunday, August 12, 2012

CBO: Ryan Plan Wouldn't Run A Surplus For 30 Years

Consider the destructiveness and fraudulence of Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budgetary proposals. Taxes would be slashed for the wealthy and corporations, military spending would be left untouched, and the economic and health care conditions of the lower and middle classes either wouldn't improve or get worse. Progressive taxation and social services would be scrapped. And for all of Ryan's posturing about the deficit, we wouldn't reach a budgetary surplus for three decades:

His blueprint would greatly shrink the government, largely undoing the social safety net by shifting more costs onto individuals and essentially converting Medicare into a capped voucher program. It would also alter the progressive income tax system, which, like the safety net, was built through the 20th century under Republican as well as Democratic presidents.

...The Ryan plan, which Mr. Romney endorsed during the hard-fought race for the Republican presidential nomination, would cut about $6 trillion from projected spending in the first 10 years. But the plan also would cut revenues by $4 trillion, and more over time, by slashing individual and corporate income taxes. The government would not run a surplus for three decades, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — an outcome that would have been heresy to pro-tax-cut but anti-deficit Republicans of the past.

...Nonpartisan analyses of Mr. Ryan’s proposed income tax cuts reached conclusions much like those of Mr. Romney’s tax proposals in recent weeks. “The tax cuts in Paul Ryan’s 2013 budget plan would result in huge benefits for high-income people and very modest — or no — benefits for low-income working households,” Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a policy research organization, wrote in summarizing the findings of the Tax Policy Center.

...Analyzing the 2011 proposal for Medicare, the Congressional Budget Office said that “most elderly people would pay more for their health care” — $6,400 on average by 2022 — requiring older Americans to “reduce their use of health care services, spend less on other goods and services, or save more in advance of retirement.”

Image: Rob Rogers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

No comments: