As promised I have read through the Ryan Plan, the conservative budget
proposed by Republicans in the House of Representatives. Keep in mind, the
U.S. still does
not have a working budget. Paul Ryan had initially come up with his plan for
the 2010 through 2012/13 time frame which I wrote about in issues 26, 27 and
28. So when I say it is the same as the previous plan, you can go to my summary
in those three issues. Let’s get started.
The same: The idea to means test people’s income and finances
to determine their benefits is the same. He seeks to reform Medicaid by block
granting money to States which would give them flexibility on what benefits
they provide especially when combined with the work requirements that would be
re-instated under this plan. It is believed that by allowing this flexibility
that it would support upward mobility by removing barriers (and certain
benefits) to keep people poor or incentivize them not to work.
It would consolidate job programs and shut down failing job training
institutions funded by or run by the federal government. With respect to
taxation, the goal is still to remove taxation from a number of areas while
creating a two tear tax program with the lowest rate being 10%, and the highest
being 25%. In addition, spending caps would be put into place just like in the
original.
What's different?: The plan deals with energy independence
by opening up federal land and ocean to drilling for both oil and natural gas.
However, it does not say if oil and gas will receive government subsidies and
how many if any subsidies for "green tech" will be reduced. Also, the
plan will block the Department of Interior from getting 70% of monies generated
from the land being used for drilling and set it towards paying off the federal
deficit, rather than allowing the money to be used to buy up more land in the
United States.
Under this plan the military and the Veterans administration (VA) will be
fully funded. The soldiers will get a budget in excess of $500 billion to
develop technology to defend our nation from "threats" and redeploy
where needed. As to the Veterans, well apparently the VA is underfunded, but I
don't put much stock in that. I feel that it is more likely that the VA is
inefficient due to government regulations on how to take care of veterans, aka,
it lacks flexibility to both treat veterans with custom care, or to outsource
to cheep but equally/more effective charities who may be able to do the same
job for less.
Ryan want to eliminate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the home mortgage giants
that have a monopoly on the
U.S.
housing sector, while fixing flawed regulations. He also want to update
accounting rules for programs and departments, cap pell grants while
eliminating barriers to education that restrict innovation (like online
teaching). This includes eliminating duplicate and failing programs in the
Department of Education (currently 82 programs already are in operation). I
would eliminate this department as it limits innovation (as Ryan pointed out)
by preventing innovation. But the department exists to send out money to
schools and students if they meet certain requirements (either through loans or
grants) but only serves to restrict how that money is spent and placing
conditions on schools that cause school taxes to rise unnecessarily.
In a move to save money, Ryan wants have all members of the federal
government pay more toward retirement as their total compensation (an elected
and unelected members pay, retirement and other perks) is 16% more than the
private sector. It is estimated that it will save at least $132 billion.
Finally, a board will be created staffed by members of bi-partisan watch dog
groups and government auditors who will decide where to cut and how to do it.
This is Ryan's alternative to letting the heads of the federal agencies cut
spending as part of reconciliation as they have been purposely not cutting
waste such as their party budgets, but seem intent on cutting everything else.
The board’s decision will be final and will be implemented.
Conclusion: I agree with getting government out of the way.
In addition I want
America
to be prosperous, but I do not agree on spending more money. The federal
government is too slow to adapt to the changing job situations and thus cannot
successfully make any job program work properly. It should be cut, and given to
the private sector who will after a period of time innovate to make job
training quick and efficient. With respect to schooling, the government is equally
as inept in its adapting to changing market trends. It will further stifle
education even with reforms that try to slim the system down. In this situation
it is better left to the local government and their welfare offices along with
private scholarships to help children go to college. I agree, Fannie and
Freddie's hold on the housing market must disappear, and I like the commission
idea (so long as they are not paid to do it). I am troubled by how the plan
still spends more that what we as a nation have financially despite all the
cuts (not taking into account accelerations in economic growth). Overall, it is
an "OK" plan, but it needs more government out of the way rather than
trying to help but gumming up what works.