Ryan's balanced budget quest
March 7th, 2013
10:37 AM ET
7 years ago

Ryan's balanced budget quest

New York (CNNMoney) - House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan will release the latest version of his budget proposal on Tuesday.

The 2014 plan, he promises, will balance the federal budget in 10 years.

Is that possible?


Filed under: Budget • Paul Ryan
soundoff (9 Responses)

    Stop funding programs that actually benefit the poor. Let them eat cake.

    March 7, 2013 10:55 am at 10:55 am |
  2. Patrick in Wisconsin

    Paul who?

    March 7, 2013 11:04 am at 11:04 am |
  3. Rudy NYC

    from the article:

    Ryan's budget proposal probably won't differ drastically from the one he put out last year, which was roundly rejected by Democrats for being too

    Details on Ryan's new proposal are still spare, but here are a few paths that could help him hit his mark.
    In other words, he hasn't run the numbers on his own budget once again. He hasn't worked out the details, because if he had he would be bragging about them. I wish he would explain how the same plan, all wrapped up in new gift wrap and a bow, is suddenly able to balance the annual budget in ten years when it previously took at least thirty years.

    One tidbit that is not discussed too much is how groups like the CBO are able to produce an accurate estimate when the plans have so many unknowns. What they do is they go to the source and ask for estimates. In the case of the orginal Ryan Plan, which featrued a plethora of tax cuts "to generate economic growth", he told the CBO assume that there would be increased future revenue because unemployment would drop to around 4.5% within a 4-5 years and stay that way....permanently, or at least until the budget balances when they run the estimate: 30 years.

    Ryan makes too many false assumptions with little or no basis in facts or reality. Anyone who believes that unemployment can magically drop to under 5% over the next few years an stay that way for the next 30 is either a good liar or a total quack.

    March 7, 2013 11:08 am at 11:08 am |
  4. Chipster

    Ryan's plan typically places the greatest burden on Social Security and Medicare recipients who paid for their benefits for decades! His plan to kick those who contributed but have the misfortune to be 55 yrs old or younger to the curb should require the government to return their contributions to the programs. If you're age 50-55, you'll have less than 15 years to try to save enough for your retirement so good luck with that. Ryan doesn't care. After all, members of Congress secure their far-more-generous retirement with only 6 years of service. Have you seen any attempts to change THAT in Ryan's budget? Don't think so. I retired, after 45 years of contributions, and fall quite short of the $80,000+ retirement that our Congress members get, even including my own 401k! Social Security and Medicare are not causing the deficit!

    March 7, 2013 11:10 am at 11:10 am |
  5. MrBeenThere

    GOP House Members take a 25% pay cut (since they only work about 128 days a year anyway), 50% cut in there for life retirement plan and 35% cut in Medical Benefits............. kinda like what they expect us average American's to except.

    March 7, 2013 11:15 am at 11:15 am |
  6. Pedrons

    Show it to me and I will tell you who are your friends.

    March 7, 2013 11:21 am at 11:21 am |
  7. Sniffit

    "Is that possible?"

    Sure. You can make the arithmetic say anything you want it to if you go about it the way the GOP/Teatrolls do: assume ridiculous, implausible, historically unprecedented economic growth will result from the destruction of Medicare, Medicaid, SS and hundreds of thousands of federal jobs in areas like environmental protection and education. They'll no doubt have some "expert" economist from Heritage Foundation or some of the "conservative think tank" run around saying it's totally reasonable and even likely. Meanwhile, the overwhelming consensus among economists will be that it's nothing more than unicorn farts and double-rainbow daydreams...but that won't stop the false equivalency narrative we'll get from the MSM.

    March 7, 2013 11:46 am at 11:46 am |
  8. Phyllis Gwendoline Williams

    Fellowship between Democratics/Republicans
    "If we walk in the Light, as He is in the Light, we have fellowship one with another" (1st John 1: 7)

    March 7, 2013 11:56 am at 11:56 am |
  9. TheObserver

    Go ahead Paul Ryan, and tell us the answer to our fiscal issues, be our savior. You represent the party that's good with money, right? What could possibly go wrong? I think recent administrations did a great job, don't you? Maybe the better question is, what could possibly go right? Obviously, any legislation from either side of congress will benefit those running for re-election, but no so much the American people. Progress, at this point, for our country as a whole, is an afterthought. There are some in Washington trying to make progress, but they don't last long, and are quickly squashed by their wealthier or more-connected opponents and their lobbying machines.

    That being said, go ahead Paul Ryan, tell us the big plan that's going to help everyone. What reason could the American people possibly have to not trust you? Does your plan involve any sense of an equity from tax-bracket to tax-bracket? Is this an actual plan you're going to talk about or should we go to your website? Your party keeps telling the country about the wonders of "trickle-down" economics. Guess what everyone, in America, money doesn't trickle down, it trickles into 3rd, 4th, and 5th vacation homes for the increasingly small, and increasingly wealthy fraternity of people (most of us don't see them anymore, they make enough to purchase their own exclusivity and privacy).

    The economic trends we face now are the same going back to the late 1970's, with every single American outside the top 1% getting relatively less wealthy every day, and those inside the top 1% getting wealthier every day. Since about 1978, the 99% have apparently been ok with this arrangement. You have filthy rich people like Warren Buffet and Phil Mickelson speaking out and pointing out huge discrepancies in the tax code, and nobody in Washington cares, why would they? They have one of the most secure jobs in the country, and they don't feel too bad about insider-trading on their laptops during their work-day either. They all get huge money from their corporate boosters, and there's absolutely no threat to their positions, and no accountability either. Can anyone think of a more perk-filled, secure job in America than a career-politician?

    Warren Buffet points out that his secretary has to pay more taxes than him. Phil Mickelson points out, quite accurately, that America really only taxes work, not wealth, as he is asked to pay large amounts of his prize money in taxes whilst our political candidates seem unphased and undeterred throwing around BILLIONS in campaign advertising. Little reform has affected capital gains, and inheritance taxes, so if you're wealthy don't worry too much.

    So does anyone out there really think our economic policy will be reformed to more progressive, whole-country ideal? Anyone who thinks the American government is capable, at this point, of data-driven, progressive, beneficial, economic reform is naive. The corporate lobby is too strong. If you want anything to change, it will come from people organizing. Having all the facts is no longer reason enough for the government to do the right thing. So, it will have to be the people that demand it.

    We can start by demanding TERM LIMITS!!!!!!!

    March 7, 2013 12:00 pm at 12:00 pm |