There are several very good things about the RSC plan.
First, it puts all spending categories on the table, including defense (even though in a minor way) and Social Security. Second, it balances the budget by 2020. Third, while spending goes up between today and 2021, it grows by $600 billion, which is much less than the increase in the Obama budget ($1.9 trillion) or even Chairman Ryan’s budget ($1.1trillion). That means the RSC proposal makes the Ryan plan a floor rather than a ceiling for budget negotiations, which is great.
Yesterday, Nick Gillespie and I did an interview with John Stossel about the budget wars (it will air on Fox Business Network on Saturday at 9 p.m. and midnight, and Sunday at 9 p.m). In the segment before ours, Stossel talked to Rep. Scott Garrett, chairman of the RSC Budget and Spending Task Force, who explained that Washington lawmakers always mistakenly assess their budget plans in reference to projected levels of future spending, when the only relevant data to measure a budget against is the current spending level. I agree entirely — that’s the only way that you can measure whether a bill actually cuts spending or not.
Congressman Garrett voted against TARP and against the prescription-drug-benefit law passed under President Bush, which prompted Stossel to tell him, “You are the real deal.”
I generally like Ryan's plan, but what the heck is up with his answer to Chris Wallace last week on Fox? Ryan is getting absolutely pounded (rightfully so?) about his refusal to answer a simple question about tax breaks for big oil.
In short, the conversation went something like this:
WALLACE: Do you bring in new revenue by eliminating, for instance, tax breaks for oil companies?
RYAN: We don't have a tax problem. The problem with our deficit is not because Americans are taxed too little. The problem with the deficit is because Washington spends too much money. We have got to stop spending money we don't have.
WALLACE: -- you will not eliminate tax breaks for big oil and gas?
RYAN: Those are the kinds of details that we'll come out later with, that the Ways and Means Committee will work on.
BAD, BAD, BAD answer (or bad plan?). The correct answer should be (and change the plan if it needs to be), "The plan will eliminate all tax incentives for particular businesses and get the government out of the role of telling companies where to deploy their capital".
Please, Cong. Ryan, this thing has to be defended by average people on the ground. If this is the best answer you have to that easy question, then we are all in trouble.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse