David Frum isn't a fan of Paul Ryan's budget:
The real message of the Ryan plan is: Upper-income tax cuts now; spending cuts for the poor now; more deficits now; spending cuts for middle-income people much later; spending cuts for today’s elderly, never.
Jobs first, deficit later is actually the right timing of priorities. But the upper-income tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 markedly failed to translate into higher incomes for ordinary Americans. The Ryan plan offers no reason to hope that another round of the same medicine will deliver better results.
I agree with David that the biggest flaw is the refusal to add new taxation to the proposal. Worse, it actually wants to reduce tax revenues. And, as Krugman has pointed out, the cuts in discretionary spending are completely implausible. The defense cuts are also far too small. All this is true – and should be countered by the Dems and Obama. As for the cruelty argument, the truth is: the past fiscal recklessness makes some cruelty a mathematical necessity. I'm all in favor of Obama's cost-controls in the health reform I'd keep. But I have no confidence that they can alone stop us from heading off a cliff at some point.
And we simply cannot tax our way out of this (although we can raise taxes as part of a broader, fairer package). The math doesn't work. And since entitlements have to be reduced or we go belly-up, future seniors, i.e. my generation and below, will have to get less care and spend more of their own money on it than they do now.
When you have an entitlement to a service that has been transformed in scope, ambition and expense since Medicare was started, and when individuals have become used to open-ended medical care, your costs are going to sky-rocket until the entire economy is devoted to healthcare. There's no way out but rationing – either by making seniors pay much more for their healthcare or denying them much more than basic care. At least Ryan is more honest about this than Obama.
Matt Miller, as so often, has a sane take. And it's a pox on both parties:
The bottom line is that there remains a huge void in the debate. President Obama punted on long-term debt and deficits, while pretending that his modest new investments in areas such as education are enough to “win the future.” They’re not, though he plainly hopes they’re enough to win him reelection. Now, speaking for his party, Paul Ryan has offered a plan that stiffs the poor, gives fresh breaks to the wealthy, shortchanges needed public investment, yet still adds trillions in new debt and doesn’t balance the budget for decades because Republicans won’t come clean on taxes. As if to punctuate the lunacy, our fearless leaders may now let the government shut down to boot!
As Peggy Lee once sang, “Is that all there is?” America desperately needs a third choice if we’re ever to get serious about national renewal.
Will Obama triangulate and a get a decent deal on this? Or are the Republicans incapable of compromise? All this remains to be seen. The one indisputable fact is that the GOP has now come clean about the real sacrifices we have to make to get back to balance. The tragedy is that they want to do this almost entirely on the backs of the neediest. Some of that is necessary. But morally and politically, I think the rich, including current seniors, have to sacrifice much more.
The Dish 