More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Algernon Austin

Algernon Austin

GET UPDATES FROM Algernon Austin

Paul Ryan's Budget Plan: Trillions for the Rich, Pain for Everyone Else

Posted: 04/15/11 05:21 PM ET

The metaphor of the federal government as a family that needs to cut back on spending is a popular one today. But when a family finds itself in difficult financial circumstances, there are at least two major options: (1) reduce spending, or (2) increase income. Now imagine a family that is having difficulty paying its bills, and the family decides that it needs to bring in less income. The family tells you that if they were $10,000 poorer, they would be better able to pay their bills. Most people would say that this family is insane. If you can't pay your bills you need more income not less.

Yet, conservatives have been reducing the government's income -- tax revenue -- massively. The tax cuts that conservatives have been pushing shows that they are not serious about addressing government deficits and debt. What they are serious about is increasing the wealth of the rich.

In December, the Tax Cut-Unemployment Compromise Bill included $139 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy. Among the items that conservatives won in this deal was a reduction in the taxes paid by people inheriting estates worth up to $5 million. Most of the people inheriting $5 million estates are no doubt quite well-off before the inheritance. Yet, conservatives were willing to keep unemployed workers from receiving unemployment insurance until they made certain that the rich would pay fewer taxes on inheritances.

The $5 million level in the new estate tax provision is indexed to inflation so that it does not decline in value over time. While this provision for millionaires is indexed to inflation, the minimum wage for the lowest-income American workers is not. Year after year, we allow the minimum wage to decline in value and allow the living standards of the poorest workers to degrade, but when it comes to policies for millionaires policymakers remember to make sure that millionaire's benefits do not erode over time.

The latest and most-hyped among the conservative budget plans is Congressman Paul Ryan's. Ryan's budget plan proposes $4.3 trillion in cuts to programs for the needy with one hand and then gives $4.2 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy with the other. Thus, there is little in the way of debt reduction, just pain for the needy and windfalls for the rich.

And Ryan is extremely generous when it comes to dishing out pain for those who are not rich. His plan greatly weakens Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and Pell Grants. Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that Ryan's plan "would produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history, while increasing poverty and inequality more than any measure in recent times and possibly in the nation's history." This is a money grab for the rich, not a serious attempt to address the national debt.

"The Federal Treasury loses twice as much revenue due to tax breaks than Congress appropriates on all nonsecurity discretionary spending" reports the Center for American Progress, yet over and over again the target for conservatives is nonsecurity spending and not tax breaks. Social Security does not add to the national debt since it is funded separately from the federal budget and still has a surplus in its trust fund, but conservatives keep throwing it into debt reduction plans. None of this makes sense if one is truly concerned about our annual deficits and the national debt.

The real goal of conservatives is the perennial conservative goal of giving tax cuts to the wealthy and drastically reducing government services to low-income Americans. They have skillfully used the economic crisis (caused by the conservative policy of deregulating financial institutions, by the way) to mask their agenda. They would not be able to so easily accomplish this goal without the assistance of Democratic leadership in Washington. Key Democrats are more interested in forwarding their re-election strategy of appearing centrist and compromising with conservatives than in criticizing dangerously misguided conservative policies.

 

Follow Algernon Austin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EPInstitute

The metaphor of the federal government as a family that needs to cut back on spending is a popular one today. But when a family finds itself in difficult financial circumstances, there are at least tw...
The metaphor of the federal government as a family that needs to cut back on spending is a popular one today. But when a family finds itself in difficult financial circumstances, there are at least tw...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 151
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
justanoldhippie
sarcasm, intended
02:35 AM on 04/23/2011
What I am not clear on is...most of these really big corporations, after really awesome tax deductions, end up paying way less of an effective tax rate than what Ryan is proposing. Do we really think that corps that manage to drop their tax rate to 16% currently are all of a sudden going to be okay with a flat 25% (an increase)? So, why don't we hear them complaining against Ryan's proposition? Is it perhaps that their tax loopholes are secure under Ryan's plan? So, with a starting lower tax rate of 25% (and not 35%) perhaps they can get their actual tax rate down to, say 6%, or nothing? Or, maybe with subsidies and tax credits, after Ryan's plan takes effect, our government will owe corporate america the keys to bank? Shouldn't those that are paying less than 25% already, be against the Ryan plan and not just weirdly quiet?
This is just like the silence from the american medical association when the republican party attacked abortion. I thought, no doctor would go along with letting a woman die (say, in an ER, bleeding to death from a problem pregnancy) in order to avoid aborting the pregnancy...and nothing. We heard no outrage from the AMA at all at the thought of letting a woman die. Remember, republicans claim that we abort 1/3 of possible tax payers, but they are okay at allowing existing tax payers to die to "save a life"? What's everyone smoking?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sillygames
09:44 AM on 04/18/2011
Take a look at those who received the TALF money, according to CNN. Following the money it went to several Morgan Stanley Executives wives so they could invest in the market. Another receipent was Wayne Hunizena (multi-millionaire) that does not need the money.

When the economy collapses the rich came out to pick up the freebies..........................point the finger at the middle class that we need to manage our finances better.

My unborn great-grandchildren want to thank all the rich for putting them in debt and we don't even know yet whether these grandchildren are male or female. What a great country.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ProfessorDuh
06:13 AM on 04/18/2011
Whatever you want to call it, it's wrapped in the flag, it's carrying a cross and its claws are ripping right through the American social safety net and the last of our rights.
11:34 PM on 04/17/2011
Cool. You must of course mean that the 49% who pay absolutely no fed taxes will now begin to pay their fair share. We might actually be able to become solvent again. Nah we know the demmies won't let that happen.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
t-boy42
01:31 AM on 04/18/2011
they don't have anything to pay. The 2% with the 98% of the wealth have all their money DUH!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wonmean
University of Michigan Class of 2010
02:03 AM on 04/18/2011
Do you know the current poverty rate in America?
photo
Schalaine
We are women. We vote.
06:03 AM on 04/18/2011
They don't care...it is just a right wing talking point. Living in poverty....tough, so be it.
photo
George Hanshaw
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
11:13 PM on 04/17/2011
There is only one measure of tax fairness - is everyone paying their share?

This year we had a $3.72 Trillion dollar budget. There are 330 million of us, and every single one of us has the same constitutional rights and every single one of us ought to be paying our pro-rata share.

Do the division. The magic number is $11720. If you (individually) paid that much in federal taxes, you did your fair share. If you didn't pay that much in federal taxes, some rich guy paid your share for you. He (or she) did YOUR job as an American citizen paying to protect YOUR constitutional rights.

You ought to find them and thank them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
t-boy42
01:35 AM on 04/18/2011
it's called INCOME taxed. You're taxed based on how much you make. somebody that makes $10,000,000 a year shouldn't be taxed the same as somebody who makes $10,000. Of course the richest corporations paid NO taxes!! A middle class guy did their jobs as American 'citizens' to protect THEIR constitutional rights.

They ought to find and thank them (but they probably won't)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ProudLiberalDan
Standing up an fighting conservatives since 1987
12:47 PM on 04/18/2011
LOL.

The wealthy pay only on average 16% of their income in taxes and the middle classes pay 23%.

It's time to make you pay your fair share.
10:11 PM on 04/17/2011
To use the family analogy, the republicans plan is something along the lines of cutting the money for the baby's(representative of the most vulnerable) food while giving your oldest son(the rich of course) a bigger allowance. If a family did that, they would be insane, but it makes perfect sense for the government to do that.
photo
Hijeetz Mipanz
November 2012, The End of a Mistake.
05:41 PM on 04/17/2011
Pain for everyone else, you mean the bottom feeders that pay No Tax's, Fine with me.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Hoosierbrad
I know it when I see it.
11:06 PM on 04/17/2011
Nobody in this country pays no taxes, tr oll.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AdamWest1313
Hardcore Agnostic
01:10 AM on 04/18/2011
If you honestly think that they pay no taxes, then you have not thought about this issue enough. Or payed enough attention. Or have done any research.
Peabodies
We are the Many. They are the Few.
04:54 PM on 04/17/2011
It's interesting to me, a baby boomer, how history is being re-invented everyday by the "opposition",.

It was Saint Ronald (Reagan) who DOUBLED Social Security levies on our payckecks, way back in 1983, when competent demographers (there were plenty back then) told him about the baby boom bulge coming down the pike 30 years hence. So for most of my working life I contributed that levy that was to guarantee me my "Social Security". I didn't steal it, I didn't fudge it, I PAID INTO IT, PAYCHECK AFTER PAYCHECK ,YEAR AFTER YEAR. And now Rep. Ryan has the nerve to imply that I AM A FREELOADER? I suggest that HE IS the freeloader. After just one or two terms as a congress critter he will HAVE A PENSION FOR LIFE! Is THAT fair? The Ronald Reagan crowd was counting on us oldsters forgetting that FACT. Mr. Ryan, I hope your mother and grandmother are covered by the system they probably paid into. As for you, not so sure.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Hoosierbrad
I know it when I see it.
11:08 PM on 04/17/2011
I will bet you my life's earnings that not one of these Republicans will forgo their pensions, nor their generous health insurance policies as an example to the country. They are selfish, plain and simple.
photo
bredlaum
manners are free
02:25 PM on 05/19/2011
How about the Democrats forgoing theirs?
They didn't address this before the last elections because they knew they were in trouble. Just as they didn't pass a budget and now they criticize the "Republicans" .. that's as worn out as "Bush did it" .
photo
George Hanshaw
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
11:22 PM on 04/17/2011
The social security system set 65 as the eligibility age at a time when THE MEDIAN SURVIVAL WAS ONLY 65.

The EXPECTATION was that the already dead would subsidize those unfortunate souls who had outlived their ability to provide for themselves economically.

Current life expectancy in the US is 78.3 years. Tha's a hell of a difference. Things have gotta change.
photo
George Hanshaw
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
07:47 PM on 04/18/2011
"In 1983 the median survival age was probably higher than it is today."

In 1983, the life expectancy at birth was 74.6 years in the US.

In 2010 it is 78.3.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0102.pdf

Deal with facts, not guesses.
04:04 PM on 04/17/2011
Where is the coverage of the People's Budget? From the largest caucus in the entire congress- the Progressive Caucus. It has what the American people overwhelmingly want.

Yet all we get to hear about is Ryan this and Ryan that.
Peabodies
We are the Many. They are the Few.
04:55 PM on 04/17/2011
hear, hear Warthog.
05:39 PM on 04/17/2011
where can i read this bill?
06:37 PM on 04/17/2011
At Democracynow.org, from April 14, 2011. It's an interview with Rep Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the Progressive Caucus.
03:29 PM on 04/17/2011
Not only has John Boehner lost control of his caucus (if he ever actually had it), he may have also lost control of his senses if he thinks that the American people are going to accept or tolerate the unabashedly unfair and inequitable budget proposal of Rep. Paul Ryan. Mr. Ryan's "trial balloon" is going to burst like an overblown child's balloon, stuffed with goodies for the rich and super-rich, and for pain and sacrifice for the rest of us. Come on Speaker Boehner, while you will never win a contest for eloquence or statesmanship, I thought you could tell which way the political winds are blowing, and, if you are not careful the gale force winds at your back are going to blow you off your feet and out of the Speakership you have held for such a short time.

To the Repub party I say be careful what you wish for, and, beware the siren call of your own narrow ideological rhetoric, lest you experience a backlash of epic proportion, and of your own making based on a colossal political miscalculation of the sensibility and gulability of the American people. The American people are not fooled by your simplistic prescription of cut, cut, cut, that benefits the rich and deeply hurts the poor and the middle class. Beware the backlash, for it will surely come!
Peabodies
We are the Many. They are the Few.
04:57 PM on 04/17/2011
F&F! ken.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
noaxe397
03:05 PM on 04/17/2011
.
 
It's too bad Democrats, repeat, DEMOCRATS, are fawning all over Ryan's budget bill
 
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/17/mark-warner-gang-six-social-security-taxes_n_850211.html
 
 
Ryan was a legislative aide to former senator (now governor) Sam Brownback of Kansas, a candidiate for prsident in 2008 who, during a GOP primary debate raised his hand when asked by the moderator  if he did not believe in evolution.
05:07 PM on 04/17/2011
Let me simply quote Yul Brynner from "The King and I" . It is a puzzlement.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:17 PM on 04/17/2011
Here's the thing, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZCl2bi-JDY&feature=youtu.be
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Hoosierbrad
I know it when I see it.
11:13 PM on 04/17/2011
Did you notice the congressman actually helping to pick up the papers? No Republican in congress today would have bent down to help that employee out! That is the difference between Republicans and Democrats in a nutshell.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Hoosierbrad
I know it when I see it.
11:13 PM on 04/17/2011
Oh, F & F!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
innerpuppie
The truth is an absolute defense...
12:57 PM on 04/17/2011
If we refuse to care for our poor and our children and our infrastructure and our environment we might as well just pack it in because we will no longer be the greatest country on earth. Since 1980 America has been on a downward spiral that is now speeding toward a brick wall. When it hits it won't be pretty and we won't be able to put Humpty Dumpty together again, either. We get it right this time - with this opportunity - or we will end up a third world Nation. Where will the GOP be? Why, they will have moved on without so much as a bye-bye to all the simpletons that voted them into office.
02:14 PM on 04/17/2011
the decay of our society .
photo
RadioRhoda
GOP = Government so small it fits in my uterus
12:37 PM on 04/17/2011
What about cutting the salaries and generous benefits of members of Congress? It wouldn't balance the budget but it would be nice to see them "share" the pain.
12:04 PM on 04/17/2011
The sooner we get rid of the GOP, the Tea Party and more specifically Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and John Boehner the more secure America will be.

Someone tell Ryan that the millionaires and billionaire already have enough.

When the disparity becomes as great as Ryan's plan would make it, revolution is in the air.

Stop Ryan before he kills the elderly, the infirm and our children with his prepotserous "budget" plan.
02:14 PM on 04/17/2011
yep .
photo
Soulsurfer
Solar Electrician,Longtime Surfin'Fool
11:50 AM on 04/17/2011
Give the repubs credit for consistency. What I don't understand is why the MSM can continue to portray the repubs as anything other than what they are: undemocratic. From obstructing every piece of legislation, to publicly proclaiming that their number one priority is to oust President Obama, to publicly 'standing firm' so millionaires can benefit from an extension of the temporary Bush tax cuts while at the same time crying about the government deficit, the republican party obviously does not stand for democratic principles. They publicly state they hate the government, except the military of course. They publicly state that they are anti-union, which is anti-labor, and which they back up with wage suppressing legislation and tax breaks for companies that offshore jobs. These people are fasc*sts, pure and simple. Why doesn't the 'librul MSM' call them on it?