Posted on 02/28/2010 4:57:35 AM PST by IbJensen
An alternative budget proposal submitted by Congressman Paul Ryan (Wis.), the House Budget Committee's Republican ranking member, would increase the federal budget deficit even more than President Obama's bloated budget — nearly $1 trillion more — according to a February 24 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
Ryan's “alternative policy scenario” would make no serious spending cuts, but it would institute three new tax cuts. CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf explained to Ryan that “the three changes to the tax policy assumptions are estimated to increase deficits relative to the baseline projections by $9 billion in 2010 and $3.4 trillion over the 2011-2020 period, mostly from lower revenues but also from increased outlays for refundable tax credits.”
Elmendorf continued: “CBO estimates that, under the alternative scenario you specified, the deficit would amount to $1.2 trillion in 2020, about $500 billion more than the shortfall projected under baseline assumptions.” Overall, the Republican budget alternative would increase the federal budget deficit by $9.4 trillion over the next 10 years, while President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget would increase the deficit by $8.5 trillion over the same period of time.
Ironically, the House Republican website boasts its “Alternative Budget” for last year's budget (fiscal 2010) would spend less than Obama. “Under the Republican plan, deficits are $3.3 trillion lower for the 10-year budget period and fall below 3.0 percent of GDP over the 10-year period.” Ryan also postured against the recent vote to increase the national debt by $1.9 trillion, claiming:
We know irrefutably we’re going to bequeath this mountain of deficit and debt onto the next generation. Both of our parties share in the blame. No one party corners a virtue on fiscal responsibility. But we’re going to together have to come down here and fix this problem once and for all, and this doesn’t do it. This bill raises the debt limit by $1.9 trillion. It’s a fiscal cop-out so that we can talk tough in the election about how we did this and that, while we bequeathed the next generation an inferior standard of living.
The bipartisan fiscal cop-outs are evidently continuing, especially from the House Republicans.
America has two political parties, but both are engaging in a bidding war to see which can jack up the deficit higher than the other. The situation is reminiscent of Tammany Democrat William “Bourke” Cockran, who quipped back in 1894: “You can't outbid a profligate.” But what happens when two profligate parties are intent upon outbidding each other in deficit spending?
Static analysis?
CBO assumes static scoring on tax cuts.
If the GOP wants to stop being viewed as being the Democrat-lite party then it should propose an actual balanced budget that cuts spending until it matches revenue. Not a budget that balances in >0 years, one that is balanced now.
Well it was my understanding that the new Obama plan, hadn’t been scored by the CBO because it was too vague. But that being said, it’s back to the old argument about tax cuts and their effect on the economy. But if we’re going to get out of this mess, Washington has to quit placating voters with talk of entitlements, and cut spending, which nobody seems man enough to do. And yes Rush, Republicans and Democrats both do it!
What good is a CBO if they do not adjust their scoring skills with real-world analysis?
In the real world, a group of economists that did not take real-world data into account would be terminated.
Bush tax cuts of 2003 INCREASED revenue!
REVENUE:
2003 $1.78 trillion
2004 $1.88 trillion
2005 $2.15 trillion
2006 $2.40 trillion
2007 $2.60 trillion
http://fms.treas.gov/mts/backissues.html
The OP (formerly the GOP) budget is another example in a long line of examples illustrating there is not a fundamental difference between them and the socialist RATs. They are two factions of one big socialist Republicrat Party. Limbaugh can spew how much different the OP is from the RATs all he wants but the action of the former prove otherwise.
Pure BS from the CBO static analysis crowd. These are the same geniuses who can tolerate counting $500 billion in medicare cuts twice as long as the Dem overlords demand it.
that plan was the health care bill: not the budget for the federal gov’t.
There's a HUGE difference if you pay attention.
The Dems get there by SPENDING and the Republicans get there by LOWERING TAXES.
The CBO uses a static model which assumes everything else will stay the same...but we know it doesn't.Lowering taxes, as it has been proven, actually increase the incoming revenue (Reagan did it and so did Bush).
Do you now see the fundamental difference?
This is one of these ongoing lib fallacies that tax cuts cause deficits, a product of static economics. Three out of four times, they caused HIGHER revenues, and under Reagan, tax revenues rose 40% . . . but spending doubled.
While I agree that tax cuts would lead to higher revenue by stimulating the economy through more hiring, spending, investment, etc, it still does not excuse the GOP entirely. It is ridiculous that in a budget as bloated as our current federal budget, with tons of unconstitutional spending, we cannot find 25% of the budget, at a minimum, to cut.
LLS
LLS
Okay, I have one for you that is not a lie. While in the recent past, federal government revenues have increased after tax cuts, there is no definitive proof that tax cuts were the cause of the increased revenue.
There is an indication of a correlation, but that is all.
Actually, I have another one that is not a lie. Tax cuts sometimes decrease revenue. Think the left hand side of the Laffer Curve.
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.