If I were in Congress and submitted a plan that said government spending on health care would decline to $1 trillion 10 years from now (rather than the projected $1.8 trillion), that obviously would reduce the federal budget assuming that it did indeed decline to $1 trillion 10 years from now. Under that logic, any plan that dictated a set of favorable outcomes would score well, as long as the assumptions proved true. In short, the plan scored well simply because the Congressional Budget Office accepted the assumptions without any claim that there was any reason that those assumptions would or could actually come true. But it did so based purely on an assumption that Ryan’s plan would lead to a freeze in government spending other than defense and to increased tax revenue. Ryan’s plans were only partially evaluated, but the analysis tended to be favorable insofar as it showed government spending dropping precipitously by midcentury and the deficit declining. And he also calls for freezing federal government spending and allowing for a partial privatization of Social Security plans.Īs everyone inside the Beltway knows, all congressional revenue plans are “scored” by the Congressional Budget Office. His agenda demands a repeal of most elements of the health-care reforms passed in 2010 (what the Republicans have dubbed “ Obamacare”). Even more significant for future budgets, he has called for a complete overhaul of Medicare and Medicaid spending after 2022, with direct subsidies from the federal government giving way to block grants to states.
#Congressional budget office ryan plan code
He has called for a massive simplification of the tax code to two rates, one for those making less than $100,000 a year (10 percent) and one for those making above that (25 percent). Unsurprisingly, the Republicans tend to laud his efforts. His proposals were exhaustively analyzed and covered in the past two years, but now that he’s in on the presidential ticket, that has been revisited.
The past two Republican budget proposals bear the moniker of the “ Ryan plan” and are marked by a substantive attempt to deal with the escalation of health-care spending and the complexity of the federal tax code. Ryan has made a name for himself the past two years as the leading champion in the House of Representatives for radical changes in the current trajectory of the federal government and future spending. Ryan’s blueprint, however, is less a viable plan than a hope and prayer about the ability of “the market” to govern outcomes in a manner that serves the common good. At the same time, Mitt Romney and the Republicans should be mindful of the adage “Be careful what you wish for.” The injection of substantive debate about government obligations for the health care of seniors and those at or below the poverty line may be welcome relative to an endless debate over the virtues or vices of Bain Capital.
0 kommentar(er)
