Conservative Economists Criticize 'Off The Deep End' Republican Budget

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Now that Republicans and Democrats have supposedly figured out how to fund the government through September, Congress' attention will turn to other issues, including the GOP's 10 year vision for the country: Paul Ryan's budget proposal, which includes Medicare privatization, severe cuts to Medicaid, and further tax breaks for the wealthy.

While the government teetered on the brink of a shutdown last week over short term funding, economists across the ideological spectrum weighed in on the GOP's long-term plan with negative reviews. The biggest shock came from high-profile economists with GOP leanings, who also criticized it on the merits.

"It doesn't address in any serious or courageous way the issue of the near and medium-term deficit," David Stockman told me in a Thursday phone interview. "I think the biggest problem is revenues. It is simply unrealistic to say that raising revenue isn't part of the solution. It's a measure of how far off the deep end Republicans have gone with this religious catechism about taxes."

Stockman, who directed Ronald Reagan's Office of Management and Budget, approves of Ryan's entitlement proposals, but breaks faith over taxes and the GOP's unwillingness to slash defense spending. And he laughs off the notion that the plan will do anything about unemployment, let alone dramatically reduce it, which Ryan and his plan claim it will. "This isn't 1980. It's not morning again in America. it's late afternoon, or possibly even sunset."

On this score, Doug Holtz-Eakin -- a former McCain and George W. Bush economic adviser -- told Huffington Post Ryan's plan is "implausibly optimistic."

The libertarian economist Tyler Cowen wrote up a point-by-point critique of the plan. His principle objections are that the plan doesn't do anything to control health care costs, and cutting Medicaid is neither good policy, nor urgent. Indeed, he notes, "Medicaid should be one of the last parts of the health care budget to cut." Emphasis in the original.

However, Cowen also argues that, by proposing $6 trillion in spending cuts, the main impact of the GOP plan will be to shift the center of the fiscal debate in Washington dramatically to the right. This is already happening.

The question will probably come down to whether lawmakers and the Obama administration have the stomach for a public fight over how to cut popular entitlement programs with unemployment high, and old voters on guard against any major benefits changes.

"It's kind of a pitiful commentary on our state of fiscal malgovernance when you consider the two leaders that we have that are trying to face down this issue," Stockman said. "One of them is so ready to compromise that he folds faster than a lawnchair (that's Obama). And the other is ready to sob at the drop of a hat."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/conservative-economists-criticize-off-the-deep-end-republican-budget.php

[dalegg 143]

My dream is that somebody with some balls would stand up and do something serious. This means people on both sides. There are ways that both sides could be courageous and actually keep some political clout.

The right needs to put their money where their mouths are. Don't give the left a way to say no. On top of all of the drastic domestic spending cuts that need to happen Republicans should offer $100 billion in military spending cuts and just start closing the ####### out of our European bases. At that point the usual rebuttal to the real needed spending cuts is now wiped away.

I seriously cannot believe how spineless Obama was on the tax cuts either. This was like one of the cornerstones of his Presidency and he just folded. I definitely believe that higher taxes on anyone will hurt the economy- but I don't believe it would have such a net loss as to offset the increased revenues that are needed more than ever now that we have to pay for the additional spending the government has added on as of late.

If the cost of rolling back tax cuts on the wealthy was rolling back tax cuts on everybody- then that's what he should have done. He's such a coward I don't even know what this guy stands for. Letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire would have meant the tax code goes back to the Clinton tax rates for everyone which by all Democratic standards is the Gold standard, so why not just do that? If we are ever going to do anything serious about the deficit it is going to be painful for most of us in one way or another- whether that means we cut social security to the point where your mother in law has to move in with you and instead of buying a new LCD 3D TV you have to pay for your Father's arthritis pills so why not just prime everyone by going back to the way things were 11 years ago?

He talks about how not paying the price now on how we treat the environment will have devastating affects later (not that he's done ####### about that either)..., well isn't it the same thing with the debt? The difference is that the people in power right now actually have the ability to fix this ..but of course, they won't.

[^_^ 5,021]

If the cost of rolling back tax cuts on the wealthy was rolling back tax cuts on everybody- then that's what he should have done.

Agreed.