CBO says Paul Ryan’s plan worse than doing nothing in terms of deficits


The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has BAD NEWS for Rep. Paul Ryan’s 10-year budget plan, which was unveiled only yesterday.

An excerpt:

[T]he spending cuts Republicans would realize in the first 10 years would be outpaced by deficit increasing tax-cuts, which Ryan also proposes. After that, debt projections under the plan improve decade-by-decade relative to current law. That’s because 2022 would mark the beginning of the Medicare privatization plan. That’s when, CBO finds, “most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system.”

UPDATE: It says HERE that some Republicans are a little nervous about the Ryan plan.

Gee, I can’t imagine.

UPDATE II: A numbers cruncher at the Heritage Foundation is SQUIRMING in the face of widespread criticism of his work as a basis for the Ryan plan.



  1. RedRover

    What could they have put in the cheese to cause working-class Wisconsonians to vote for transparent kleptocrats like Paul Ryan?

    What kind of person with common sense would buy a budget plan that seeks to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes for corporations and the nation’s wealthiest citizens?

    And how on earth can Ryan’s plan to funnel Medicare funds to insurance companies (which take 20% for administrative costs and profit margins) do anything but increase health care costs over the current system wherein Medicare pays healthcare providers directly (which costs about 3% to 6% in administrative costs)?

    Please tell me, how much in legalized bribes have Ryan and the Republicans collected in the form of campaign contributions from the wealthy special interests that will benefit from this plan?

    Follow the money!

  2. Neftali

    Red Rover – But the facts are that eventually it will cut costs and bring down the deficit, which is the whole goal. Be sure to let me know when the Democrats propose a better plan.

    Besides, administrative costs are proportional to the amount of clients. Since medicare covers everyone under the same general plan, of course its administrative costs will be lower, but that doesn’t necessarily mean its a better plan, or even more efficient. And it certainly doesn’t mean that medicare does a good job of reining in health care costs at all, in fact, its quite the opposite. Medicare is terrible about controlling costs. Plus the idea of having no insurance coverage options is borderline un-humanitarian. People should have a choice of health insurance plans that are not ran by the government.

    As far as profits go, insurance company profits are typically under 3%, which is very, very lower compared to most industries. And here’s the real kicker:

    Profits help reduce costs. You heard me. Read it again.

    Its completely in their best interests of a insurance company to keep their patients healthy for as long as possible. Healthier people means less payouts. If a person is sick, its in the best interest to get that person as feeling well again as quick as possible. Having a bunch of sick clients isn’t good for margins. (This is why ObamaCare is good in that it forces insurance companies to make it illegal to drop patients from plans)

    Finally, I personally don’t think the tax cuts are going to fly. If we can turn Medicare into ObamaCare, which will eventually reduce the deficits, why do we need the tax cuts? It seems to me that if we kept most of Ryan’s plan, except the tax cuts, that would bring us to financial sovereignty that much sooner.

  3. expdoc

    Lowering the marginal tax rate and lowering the corporate tax rate do not equate to cutting taxes. Or at least to cutting revenue, in Ryan’s plan he suggests closing loopholes and removing deductions that decrease government revenue.

    For a conservative analysis of Ryan’s plan which is detailed, read this.


    Well, so much for dodging entitlements. This year’s trendy complaint, shared by the left and the tea party, that Republicans hadn’t tackled the toughest budget issues was blown away yesterday with the release of House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget for 2012. We’ll now separate the real reformers from the fiscal chickenhawks.

    Mr. Ryan’s budget rollout is an important political and policy moment because it is the most serious attempt to reform government in at least a generation. The plan offers what voters have been saying they want—a blueprint to address the roots of Washington’s fiscal disorder. It does so not by the usual posturing (“paygo”) and symbolism (balanced budget amendment) but by going to the heart of the spending problem, especially on the vast and rapidly growing health-care entitlements of Medicaid and Medicare. The Wisconsin Republican’s plan is a generational choice, not the usual Beltway echo.

  4. Milton Waddams

    I haven’t seen much mention of ACTUALLY cutting the $1.2T in yearly “Defense” spending. Until it’s on the table, none of these budget cutting plans are worth the paper they are printed on.

  5. expdoc

    I believe both Ryan and Obama’s budget cut defense spending by the same amount. I think it is 78 billion dollars.

  6. Milton Waddams

    However, I believe that was a 10 year figure. Thus the capitalization of ‘actually’ in my first post.

  7. Why is it they always say they can pay for the cuts by closing loop holes? How about you close the loop hole and then if we start to have extra cash we cut the taxes?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *