The Republican Study Committee has just released their proposed 2012 budget, Honest Solutions, which would balance the budget by 2020. (Note that Paul Ryan’s proposal wouldn’t balance the budget until sometime between 2030 to 2040.) Here are some highlights from the budget:
Discretionary Spending. In this budget, discretionary spending in 2012 would be reduced to 2006 levels (which would require spending $141 billion less in discretionary spending than was spent in 2010). Spending from 2013 to 2021 would be at 2008 levels, $933 billion per year.
Health Care. The RSC Medicare budget proposal is founded on Ryan’s budget, with the crucial difference that the RSC budget would impact all Americans 59 years old or younger, while Ryan’s budget would only impact those 55 or younger. Obamacare would be completely defunded. Medicaid would be switched to block grants to the states, with grants beginning at the levels of Medicaid funding in 2006 and growing at the rate of inflation.
Social Security. Those 60 and older would not be impacted. For anyone younger than 60 but born before 1975, benefits would not begin until the recipient was 66 and 2 months old, with that age being increased by two months every year. For all born in 1975 or later, Social Security benefits would kick in at age 70.
Other programs. Food stamps funding would be cut to 2007 levels. Federal funding for unemployment benefits would also be cut, with the budget allowing the federal government’s full funding of unemployment benefit weeks 26 – 39 to expire. Farm subsidies would be cut by $11.8 billion over ten years. The federal workforce would be cut by 15 percent.
Promising. At least something is presented in advance unlike what the 111th Congress gave us for this FY - nothing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow does the sliding scale starting age work? Since I was born after '75, my retirement age would be 70. Can someone provide some examples for people between 36 and 60?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy not an opt-out plan for Social Security? Give me my money back now, I will no longer pay in, and I won't take when I get old. If the money is in a separate fund, it really shouldn't have any financial impact, should it? Of course we know that's a big if. The govt. is and has been stealing from me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHallelujah! I don't care if I ever retire (I am 59) and will happily (God willing) work until I die. Just keep the military paid and get the nation financially solvent. Curing cancer can wait, even if I develop cancer. The nation isn't in danger if the NIH shuts down, the EPA is defunded, PP and the NEA get no money, the Depts of Energy & Education get delegated to state level, etc. The framers of the Constitution considered the military to be discretionary spending because they assumed a nation that minded its own business would not have constant threats to its safety. However, we do.
Our social safety net won't save us from foreign invasion, but the military will (if actually applied to do so). The rest of the world will not save us; they will loot our corpses. Whether we die by financial suicide or begin to thrive again and regain our strength is going to be determined by the budgets and spending choices we make.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHi Mitch,
Those currently aged 60 were born in 1952: 66+2 mos
Increase that by 2 mos per year - e.g.
1955: 66+8 mos
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse1957: 67
1963: 68
1969: 69
1972: 69+6 mos
1974: 69+10 mos
1975: 70
Yahoo, war on the middle class. Whatever you do, don't cut the military budget: we really really need to spend ten times more than anyone else. And keep cutting taxes on the wealthy because that will create a bunch of great jobs, just like it did in the Bush years!
This plan is idiocy and a total complete sellout to the plutocracy. Cut defense, raise taxes on the rich and you fix the budget with little pain to the middle class.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse