Republicans stepping back from budget cuts in Ryan's Roadmap

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2011 4:52 AM GMT
    It seems that the comely new Budget Committee chair is losing favor among his fellow Repubilcan legislator

    From National Review Online:

    A Roadmap Not Taken?
    Republican freshmen hesitate to embrace Paul Ryan’s budget plan.

    Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the GOP’s high priest of pecuniary politics, has ascended to the chairmanship of the House Budget Committee. Across the land, fiscal conservatives applaud the rise of the 40-year-old wonk. But the cheers in Congress are more sporadic: Unflinching endorsements of Ryan’s fiscal blueprint are rare. Apparently, the new majority is in no mood — yet — for a full-spectrum fight on entitlements.

    With fanfare, Ryan last year published “A Roadmap for America’s Future,” a comprehensive government-shrinking document that tackles the three main problems in the federal budget: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Its bold, data-fueled approach was the single best piece of evidence that Republicans were ready to address long-term liabilities.

    Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia and Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, now the No. 2 and No. 3 Republicans in the House, went so far as to include a chapter about the measure in Young Guns, the best-selling campaign manifesto they coauthored with Ryan. Thirteen House Republicans signed on to the plan. Sarah Palin and former House majority leader Dick Armey urged the faithful to rally ’round.

    But as Ryan preps for a spring budget battle, Cantor, House Speaker John Boehner, and others are not showing much eagerness to take up the roadmap’s specifics. Ryan’s project, which proposes we curb the looming debt crisis by moving toward a defined-contribution model for entitlements over the next several decades, languishes.

    Nevertheless, with Ryan now holding real power, along with a burgeoning national profile, Republicans will be forced to choose how aggressively to act on his big ideas — even if it makes them uncomfortable. With a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in the Senate, chances for major policy change are slim. But the public will eye how Republicans fight — to see if they’re serious about finding a solution.

    On Capitol Hill, praise for the Wisconsin Republican comes easy and often, full-scale endorsement of the roadmap less so. Most leading first-year legislators temper their words when discussing the plan. “I think it’s a good start; it’s not perfect,” says Rep. Allen West (R., Fla.). “We have to be able to be flexible.”

    Rep. Kristi Noem (R., S.D.), a member of the House leadership team, tells us she likes portions of the roadmap, such as Ryan’s caps on spending, but “beyond that, I haven’t explored too far.”

    Rep. Steve Chabot (R., Ohio), who returned to Congress this month after losing his seat in 2008, takes a similar tack. “We are still studying it, what the implications might be for the budget,” he says. “I’m not ready to announce a position. I’m sure there are parts of it that we agree with — probably the vast majority of it — but there may be some things we have problems with. We need more time.”

    Rep. Patrick Meehan, a freshman from Pennsylvania, is “reserving judgment.” So is Rep. Jon Runyan (R., N.J.). “It’s something we are digging through slowly,” he says. “I’m not prepared to make a statement on that.” Others point out that they like Ryan’s push to simplify the tax code and his focus on the debt, but become evasive when pressed for their opinion of its adjustments to Medicare and Social Security.

    Rep. Sean Duffy (R., Wis.), a freshman and a close friend of Ryan’s, understands the nervous response by many in his class. “This is Paul Ryan’s vision,” he explains. “Many members in the freshman class would be able to tell you a few good things about Paul’s roadmap, but could they all go out there and defend it? No.”

    A “wholesale endorsement” of the roadmap, Duffy adds, is likely not forthcoming: “I have not heard a swell of support saying, ‘Let’s go endorse Paul’s roadmap.’”

    Cantor, the House majority leader, brushes back the idea that House Republicans are wary of Ryan. But he, like the others, is not championing the roadmap as the House GOP budget strategy. Instead, he tells NRO, the leadership is encouraging Ryan to craft a flinty budget for the remainder of the fiscal year. By addressing Washington’s discretionary-spending levels first, Republicans, Cantor argues, can “demonstrate that we are serious about cutting spending and getting our debt under control.”

    Beyond that, things get a bit murkier, but Cantor does see an opportunity for aspects of the roadmap to become policy. “I am supportive of the direction that Paul is headed,” he says. Still, he cautions, “as you know, the budget is something that is [scored] within the budget window for the next ten years. I’m hopeful that we can get elements of what Paul is aiming for incorporated.” Regarding entitlements, however, the roadmap really takes hold beyond that point.

    In an interview at his committee office, Ryan acknowledges that convincing his colleagues to back the plan in its entirety will be an uphill climb. “Look, I never said this was a take-it-or-leave-it plan,” he points out. But he remains hopeful: “My sense is that Republicans see the world differently than they did a few years ago.”

    House Democrats, freshly in the minority, sense an opportunity to needle Republicans. “They are caught between their rhetoric and reality,” Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) notes in an interview with NRO. “Ryan is legit on this, but I don’t think the rest of them are. Maybe that’s partly why they gave him this power — so they can hide behind him.”

    Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.) echoes that line. “Republicans like to point to Ryan as their thought leader but appear to be deeply ambivalent about his thoughts,” he muses.

    For House Republicans, the plan presents a straightforward choice: a detailed party line on bloated entitlements, or a roadmap not taken.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 18, 2011 10:50 AM GMT
    LOL ......

    It's different from when all you have to say is umm ....... No?
    To where you have to really come up with Sh*t

    Time to fold the arms and sit back .................. and Laugh icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2011 12:22 PM GMT
    The big problem, you see, is that it involves graphs and numbers. Politicians are, regrettably, largely innumerate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2011 1:24 PM GMT
    I'm going to say that having reread the plan over breakfast, there's actually a lot of good stuff in it. It's definitely a basis for a rational discussion of fixing the demographic timebomb, in that it acknowledges where the problems lie.

    We need more Paul Ryans in the Republican party.

    I also strongly suggest reading the CBO's analysis of the Paul Ryan proposal from last Jan: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf

    I guess for the younger people on here, such as myself, how do we feel collectively about the Baby Boomers screwing us over once again? [Which is effectively what the Ryan plan does]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2011 1:34 PM GMT
    There are interesting aspects to it, Tim, but I can't take seriously any budgetary formulas that do not touch defense spending.

    The other issue is the CBO (and I realize they were not asked to do so) does not go into how these cuts and changes would effect the end users of the programs Paul proposes to alter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2011 2:23 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidThere are interesting aspects to it, Tim, but I can't take seriously any budgetary formulas that do not touch defense spending.


    Oh I agree. But I think defense spending is a separate problem. There are too many cost overruns, idiotic infeasible projects, overlap, infeasible ideas, layers of management etc. Contrast Scaled Composites with NASA for instance. The military is insanely wasteful!

    I think the main value of Ryan's contribution is forcing politicians to talk in actual numbers that obey the long-understood laws of addition and subtraction. It is regrettable that the political discourse in this country proceeds at a level lower than the average fifth-grader can comprehend.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Jan 18, 2011 2:25 PM GMT
    "you can prove anything with statistics!" --- Homer J. Simpson

    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2011 2:31 PM GMT
    rnch said"you can prove anything with statistics!" --- Homer J. Simpson

    icon_lol.gif


    Do you understand the difference between arithmetic and statistics?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 18, 2011 2:39 PM GMT
    This is understandable, because the ones responsible for making deep and painful cuts are going to be the ones thrown out of office the following election because let's face it, people selfishly want the government spending even if it means undoing the next generation. I think they are holding off until 2012 before they start supporting Paul Ryan's roadmap a little closer.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Jan 18, 2011 2:40 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]TigerTim said....Do you understand the difference between arithmetic and statistics?[/quote]

    it's obvious many of out congressmen don't! icon_eek.gif
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jan 18, 2011 11:26 PM GMT
    "With fanfare, Ryan last year published “A Roadmap for America’s Future,” a comprehensive government-shrinking document that tackles the three main problems in the federal budget: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security."



    These are certainly not the 3 main problems in the Federal budget.
    Social Security is self sustaining.

    These are the 3 main problems.

    1) The 2 wars
    2) High unemployment
    3) Moving jobs overseas

    1) End the wars
    2) Provide a temporary Federal job for everyone who's unemployed. Those people will spend almost every dime that they earn, thereby stimulating the economy by creating a need for regular businesses to hire a lot more people. And, when they hire a lot more people, the temporary Federal jobs can be phased out.
    3) Force American corporations to manufacture their products in America by charging them a tariff so great (to bring their goods back to America to sell) that it would be cheaper for them to manufacture in America, hiring American workers.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 18, 2011 11:54 PM GMT
    The War on Logic
    By PAUL KRUGMAN
    Published: January 16, 2011
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage
    All they ever needed (the republicans) or wanted were some numbers and charts to wave at the press, fooling some people into believing that we’re having some kind of rational discussion. We aren’t.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 19, 2011 1:32 PM GMT
    GQjock saidThe War on Logic
    By PAUL KRUGMAN
    Published: January 16, 2011
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage
    All they ever needed (the republicans) or wanted were some numbers and charts to wave at the press, fooling some people into believing that we’re having some kind of rational discussion. We aren’t.


    I should point out that the article you cite is about the Healthcare calculations by the CBO ---- to which the Republicans have not offered a credible response despite their loud protestations --- and not about the Ryan proposal.