Posted on 04/04/2011 2:00:50 AM PDT by Scanian
Republicans will present this week a 2012 budget proposal that would cut more than $4 trillion from federal spending projected over the next decade and transform the Medicare health program for the elderly, a move that will dramatically reshape the budget debate in Washington.
The budget has been prepared by Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican and the new chairman of the House Budget Committee, and it represents the most complete attempt so far by Republicans to make good on their promises during the 2010 midterm elections to cut government spending and deficits.
Though Rep. Ryan based the Medicare portion of his budget on a previous plan created in collaboration with a Democrat, Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and long-time budget expert, the current plan isn't likely to get much Democratic support. Instead, it will set up a broad debate over spending and the role of government heading into the 2012 general election.
The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills. Mr. Ryan and other conservatives say this is necessary because of the program's soaring costs. Medicare cost $396.5 billion in 2010 and is projected to rise to $502.8 billion in 2016. At that pace, spending on the program would have doubled between 2002 and 2016.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Sounds good.
as did the promises right before 11/2/10. It is all BS. They (the republican establishment) have lost any remaining trust with me.
Didn’t say I believed them, It sounds good.
Warner may be a Rat clown, but he does have a point. I think that we should reevaluate "defense" spending and foreign aid in light of whether such spending actually advances the defense of lawful United States citizens, property, and territory rather than the advancement of the goals of assorted special interests.
Actually, shucks, let's go all out and start reevaluating ALL Federal spending in light of whether such spending is within the scope of the Constitution and the laws that it authorizes.
My point was that it doesn’t even sound good now.
Oh, no! They’re going to kill grandma!
All I hear is whining.
Cut it to the year 2000 Budget.
Cut everything, or let the gubmint shut down. The last time the gubmint shut down we had some very good years after and the republicans STILL retained both houses the next election.
Screw em..shut er down.
Some great ideas that will work, if and only if a majority of Americans want them.
We have one of two choices to accept. By which method we will accept less? Orderly via the budget process, or disorderly as dictated by the currency market.
Ideally we should eliminate ObamaCare, Social Security and cut the salaries of politicians by 50%, but let's take what we get. Beggars can't be choosers
While reading the article I ran across this “gem”: ...Those who are poorer or less healthy would receive bigger payments than others.
What do you know about that? MEANS TESTING!
Medicare is now...Social Security is next.
The Republican camel’s nose is already under the tent. It’s only time before the rest of it is inside.
We all are forced to pay the tax but disbursements will be based on means testing. You know...kind of like another system we cherish in our American way of life....WELFARE.
These "Public Servants" work for us.
They spend OUR tax money.
Enough is enough. From what they have shown so far the Republicans are no different than Democrats.
They don't leave us much choice, but I am no going to beg.
Obama has personally overspent over $3T in his first 2 years in office. Cutting $4T over a ten year period would get us back to about 2007. An improvement? Sure. But were we too much in debt in 2007? You bet we were. So, ten years from now, in a "best case scenario" the planned outcome is ... to be too much in debt.
The other way is revolution, which can have nasty repercussions
This sounds very reasonable. Only question I can think of is whether the $15,000 is indexed to inflation, so the amount paid out is always the same value, year after year.
Conservative activists who are familiar with the Ryan plan said they expect it to call for a fundamental overhaul of the tax system, with a 25% top rate for both individuals and corporations, compared to the current 35% top rate. It is expected to raise about the same amount of money as the current system, however. Lawmakers already are considering ways to accomplish that by reducing or eliminating some deductions and other tax breaks.
This... this... this I friggin' *LOVE*!!!! Do this, do this NOW!!!
The reduction in the corporate rate will seriously boost the both the number of people hired... and the number of international corporations based in America. Heck, if we did this, I'd expect to see Honda and Toyota re-incorporate as US headquartered companies. (Japan's corporate tax rate is higher than the US, but not by much. Couple that with how the high value of the yen is crippling their export abilities and this might be the final push for Japanese automakers to finally become US automakers.)
The easiest way to cut defense spending is to stop fighting so many wars.
Bombs, missiles, diesel and jet fuel, repairs, new equipment... they all cost a lot of money.
That, and it’d definitely help our military reconstitute itself, considering how stretched we’ve become since all the fighting first started.
Not really.
Defense is one of the few things actually authorized by the constitution to spend money on.
In 2010 defense spending was 20% of the budget. If you were to completely remove defense spending form the 2010 budget it still would have been in the red by nearly a trillion dollars.
The problem is social programs and government growth plain and simple. Social programs and government jobs not authorized by the US constitution at the federal level.
Eliminate:
The Medicare Prescription Drug Care ‘Benefit’ and Obamacare
The following Departments:
Department of Homeland Security (redundant, as the Department of Defense has that job)
Department of Energy (redundant, as energy is bought and sold - therefore it is commerce and should fall under that Department)
Department of Education (redundant, as each state has one... and all public schools fall under state control, not federal)
Department of Health and Human Services (Again, redundant as every state has one!)
Department of the Interior (Redundant, as *ALL* of the US Interior is parceled out to already existing entities... they are called ‘States’. National parks could be run by a federal bureau, or converted to state parks.)
Department of Agriculture (food is bought and sold, so it should fall under Commerce)
Department of Labor (again, labor is bought and sold, so it should fall under Commerce, heck... it used to even be called the Department of Commerce and Labor, for pete’s sake!)
Department of Housing and Urban Development (WTF is this?!? Why do we have a federal department acting as a landlord?!?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, if you were to add up how much all these Departments *alone* cost each year... you’d save $1.391 TRILLION each and every year (based on 2009 dollars).
But then, add in the repeal of the Prescription Drug care benefit and the repeal of Obamacare and you’ll see savings at nearly 2 TRILLION dollars a year.
That 2 TRILLION in one year, not 10 years, like the current plan.
The Crats and Rats are going back to their same old. Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts and cut Defense. That is all they have. I imagine the MSM will soon start up the sob stories and pity parties to back them up. Also the word of the week from crat central looks to be “the number”.
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.