Well, folks... it's been awhile since I've posted a stand-alone newsbite.
John Tamny takes on the new "Ryan Plan" and I take on both Tamney and Ryan!
* * * * * *
In a Republican Party that seemingly no longer believes
or understands its limited government rhetoric, Rep. Paul Ryan has long been an
outlier.
* ONLY IN TERMS OF PR-DRIVEN PUBLIC PERCEPTION...
Much like his late mentor, Jack Kemp, Ryan has always
given the impression that he supports light taxation, limited government and
stable money values precisely because they would do the most to lift the
economic chances of those least well to do.
* YEP. THE KEY WORD THERE BEING "IMPRESSION."
That's why Ryan's latest budget proposal is such a
disappointment.
* OH, PLEEEAAASE! ONLY TO THE GULLIBLE! RYAN IS A FAKE,
PHONY FRAUD. PERIOD.
In proclaiming that his plan will balance revenues and
spending by 2023, it's apparent that Ryan's lost the reformist fire that used
to set him apart from his fellow Republicans.
* FRANKLY... I DON'T KNOW WHICH RYAN... THE RYAN OF WHICH
YEARS... HE'S TALKING ABOUT. ANYONE WHO ACTUALLY PAYS ATTENTION KNOWS THAT RYAN
HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE POCKET OF BOEHNER AND THE RINO LEADERSHIP. HE'S THE
HOUSE VERSION OF SENATOR TOM COBURN - TALKS A GOOD GAME BUT WHEN ONE DELVES
INTO THE DETAILS...
(*SHRUG*)
In promising to balance the federal budget, Ryan has very
much made plain that he's given up any pretense of shrinking the burden that is
government.
(*NOD*)
To understand why, it has to be remembered that there's
nothing "small government" about balanced budgets. This is particularly
true in the United States.
* AMEN!
Thinking about the U.S. (and Ryan no doubt knows this
well), Americans are easily some of the most productive people on earth.
Because they are, and because their private output is enormous, the federal
government collects gargantuan sums on an annual basis thanks to its power to
tax.
Ryan observes that his budget "returns government to
its proper limits and focus," but even he must have chuckled when he typed
out what is so plainly untrue.
When we consider how very limiting is our founding
document, the Constitution, it's surely laughable that Ryan's 10-year, $41
trillion dollar budget will return government "to its proper limits and
focus." More likely it's the opposite, particularly when we consider that
Ryan is in no way talking about reducing annual federal spending.
* ONE... MORE... TIME...
... Ryan is in no way talking about reducing annual
federal spending.
(*SPITTING ON THE GROUND*)
Instead, and this is typical of Washington budgeting,
Ryan's merely talking about reductions in planned increases in federal
spending.
(Or, as he puts it, "On the current path, spending
will increase by 5% each year. Under our proposal, it will increase by
3.4%.")
* DOUCHE BAG...
Taking this further, would readers prefer annual deficits
of $500 billion on $1 trillion in spending, or a balanced federal budget of
$4.1 trillion in 2023 as Ryan promises? The answer should be obvious, but if
it's not, the deficit-infused $1 trillion dollar budget is the one that would
make us much better off economically.
* WHILE I SEE THE AUTHOR'S POINT, BOTH SCENARIOS ARE DISASTROUS. I FEAR VIOLENCE IS THE ONLY ANSWER.
Indeed, lost on the deficit worriers is the simple truth
that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar. Deficits aren't the problem, but the
level of federal spending is.
* NO... BOTH ARE THE PROBLEM!
Whether we're financing deficit spending or paying for it
all with incoming federal revenues is of no economic consequence; the real
burden being the dollars taxed or borrowed to fund that which is unproductive and
that exists at the expense and often to the detriment of the profit-disciplined
private sector.
* THIS IS WHERE THE AUTHOR - JOHN TAMNY - LOSES ME. DEBT
MATTERS! DEFICIT MATTER! OR... TO BE MORE PRECISE... UNSUSTAINABLE AND
UNREPAYABLE DEBTS AND DEFICIT MATTER - AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NO
MATTER WHAT SORTS OF ROSY SCENARIOS WE PLUG INTO OUR EQUATIONS!
* FOLKS... IT'S CALLED LIVING WITHIN ONE'S MEANS... AND,
YES, I'LL EVEN TOSS IN LIVING WITHIN ONE'S LIFETIME EXPECTED MEANS! (THUS... WE
BORROW FOR COLLEGE... WE BORROW FOR A HOME... BUT WE ONLY BORROW WHAT WE CAN
REASONABLY EXPECT TO PAY BACK IN THE FUTURE!)
[Ryan apologists apparently believe] that the days of
small government are over and that Ryan's doing the best he can in
consideration of a federal government no longer limited by the Constitution.
* AND IT IS TRUE... THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NO LONGER
ALLOWS ITSELF TO BE EFFECTIVELY LIMITED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
Ryan apologists would add that even under his existing
proposal he'll be pilloried by lefty politicians and their media enablers as
the ultimate Austerian; stingily taking away Grandma's healthcare.
* AGAIN... GRANTED...
Of course... the latter explains why Ryan should have
gone for broke, and actually proposed shrinking the size of the federal
government.
* YES...!!!
Indeed, as evidenced by the false adjectives that will be
attached to Ryan's budget no matter its size, the traditional media were and
are going to attack him. That being the case, Ryan should have proposed
something that's actually meaningful when it comes to shrinking our federal
burden.
* YES...!!!
The traditional media would [still] hit him hard, much as
they're doing now, but in proposing real cuts Ryan would have ensured a real
debate about the proper role of government.
(Also, it must be remembered that the mainstream or
traditional media we've long known is not the powerful force that it once was.
Thanks to the internet, Americans are not as a reliant anymore on traditional
sources for their news. While the New York Times would and will report
negatively on any Paul Ryan budget, Americans are less and less reliant on the
Times for analysis of matters political and economic.)
* IN OTHER WORDS, THE COWARDLY SCUM RUNNING THE GOP COULD
ACTUALLY WIN THE DEBATE IF ONLY THEY WERE WILLING TO HAVE IT!
Ryan surely knows that it's heavy government spending
that represents austerity and slow growth, while lower spending represents a
reduction in the certain economic burden that is our federal government.
* RYAN HAS POWER, PRESTIGE, AND MONEY... HE'S BEEN
CAPTURED. WHAT HE ACTUALLY BELIEVES IS IRRELEVANT.
If Republicans, and in particular Paul Ryan, can't make
the latter case, then welcome to the minority.
* YEP. THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE THE GOP WILL LOSE THE HOUSE AFTER
THE 2014 ELECTION.
Put simply, Republicans will never win the battle over
who can best redistribute wealth. On the other hand, they can win the argument
if they use history and logic to explain to the voters that the federal
government is their burden in terms of lower wages and reduced job
opportunities.
* BUT THEY WON'T.
(*SHRUG*)
Paul Ryan surely understands this, and that's why his
federal government expanding ‘balanced budget' is such a disappointment.
No comments:
Post a Comment