For a really scathing condemnation of the Ryan budget proposal, don’t look to the Democratic objections which fall along the expected lines. Consider this critique from a more libertarian, small government perspective from Mish Shedlock:
Flat out, Ryan’s proposal is no path to prosperity. It is a step in the right direction but the best we can say about it is that it delays bankrupting the nation.
Republicans need to take another look at Ryan’s assumptions on growth, on jobs, on interest on the national debt, on military spending, on shared sacrifice, and on the idea that budget projections 30 years from now make any sense .
Ryan’s plan may be far better than Obama’s but neither plan is a “Path to Prosperity”.
Read the whole thing.
Update
Another libertarian critique of the Ryan proposal, this time from Nick Gillespie and Veronique de Rugy. In brief, it punts on Social Security, the timeline for bringing the budget into balance is too long, and a more basic philosophical problem:
Which brings us to the major flaw in Ryan’s budget: He doesn’t rest his reform of entitlements on a fundamental understanding that not everyone should be receiving govenment money. Even as he pushes to reform Medicare, for instance, he emphasizes continuing its universality for retirees. The two of us believe it is society’s responsiblity to care for the neediest and poorest among us. But it’s not society’s responsiblity to take care of middle-class and wealthy individuals who have the means of doing so for themselves (as David Stockman told one of us recently, all government benefits should be means-tested). By failing to make this distinction, Ryan sets his plan up for political failure. When his plan was scored by the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO noted that under his reforms most Medicare beneficiaries would have to pay more for their health care costs. That’s not only mathematically correct, it’s morally correct. There is simply no reason that relatively well-off seniors shouldn’t pay their own way. That would allow the government to take better care of those actually in need while reducing overall tax burdens on the economy. Similarly, while we think Ryan is absolutely correct about block-granting Medicaid, at least that program is specifically geared toward helping the poor. The same cannot be said about Social Security and Medicare, which suggests reforming those programs should be the highest priority when it comes to entitlements.
Mish is off his feed. He failed to note that Ryan does not address Social Security at all. Invictus at Ritholtz place looked at the 4% unemployment number from another angle, inflation. What is the possibility that we achieve a labor market that tight that fast w/o real inflation? Also, the part about magically reducing “other mandatory” and discretionary spending from 12% GDP to 3 1/2% GDP with no plan is suspect.
Steve
It’s funny you should mention this. One of my immediate reactions to Ryan’s very low projected rate of unemployment was to wonder if we wouldn’t see the updated version of the Phillips curve starting to kick in. Back when I took economics the old, original version of the Phillips curve (the trade off between employment and inflation) was taught as gospel.
re: the update’s “means testing” critique
I used to be totally for means testing everything too, until I read Sumner’s marshmallow post.
here in case my embedded hyperlink doesn’t work:
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=9359l
As a two-marshmallow-eater myself I like his “lifetime earnings” means test a lot better.
The first link contains the CBO report I couldn’t find yesterday.
As to Mish’s first two complaints: the failure to account for interest on the debt and defense spending — these appear to be common failings in this type of analysis. What are interest rates going to be the next year or ten or thirty? How many wars will we be in next year? Is it reasonable to assume that a Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan will arise periodically?
In any event, listening to Ryan yesterday morning on CNBC, it was clear that his plan was offered as a point of negotiation. I think the question is whether there is anybody willing to negotiate on the other side?
Sam, good link, though it raises the question of how means-testing is done.
I’ve not seen a lot of specifics, but theoretically you can construct a model which assumes a certain savings rate at different annual income levels so that the two-marshmallow-eaters aren’t unfairly treated. But theory and practice are different things. I do think we are wasting assets guaranteeing Bill Gate’s retirement.
“When his plan was scored by the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO noted that under his reforms most Medicare beneficiaries would have to pay more for their health care costs. That’s not only mathematically correct, it’s morally correct. ”
Really? Morally correct?
<a href ="http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/representative-ryan-proposes-medicare-plan-under-which-seniors-would-pay-most-of-their-income-for-health-care"Representative Ryan Proposes Medicare Plan Under Which Seniors Would Pay Most of Their Income for Health Care
[Cross-posted from OTB]
sorry for the bad main link:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/representative-ryan-proposes-medicare-plan-under-which-seniors-would-pay-most-of-their-income-for-health-care