Out of Balance

Paul Ryan has garnered wide praise for his latest GOP budget. But there’s a problem: It won’t come close to wiping out the deficit.

Rep. Paul Ryan unveils his budget proposal at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, March 20, 2012.
Chet Susslin
March 22, 2012, noon

COR­REC­TION: An earli­er ver­sion of this art­icle mis­char­ac­ter­ized the type of gov­ern­ment spend­ing that House Budget Chair­man Paul Ry­an has pro­posed re­du­cing to 3.75 per­cent of GDP by 2050.

Rep. Paul Ry­an has long been seen as the Re­pub­lic­an poster boy for fisc­al mat­ters: a vis­ion­ary will­ing to tackle the coun­try’s long-term budget prob­lems. Last year, Time magazine went so far to call the Wis­con­sin­ite a “proph­et” when nam­ing him a run­ner-up to its “Per­son of the Year.” Even the House Budget Com­mit­tee chair­man’s skep­tics ap­plaud him for his cour­age in tack­ling grow­ing en­ti­tle­ment spend­ing. But crunch the num­bers, and his latest plan looks like a lot of oth­er ones.

Ry­an’s fisc­al 2013 budget pro­pos­al seeks huge tax cuts without of­fer­ing any way to pay for them apart from the broad pre­scrip­tion of clos­ing loop­holes and elim­in­at­ing tax havens.

He says his plan would re­duce dis­cre­tion­ary gov­ern­ment spend­ing and oth­er man­dat­ory spend­ing—apart from Medi­care, Medi­caid, and So­cial Se­cur­ity—to 3.75 per­cent of gross do­mest­ic product by 2050. That’s a huge cut that would re­quire pro­grams for the poor, eld­erly, and work­ing class — everything from food stamps to hous­ing as­sist­ance to Medi­caid to job train­ing — to take severe fin­an­cial hits. It would also con­vert Medi­care to a vouch­er-based sys­tem that could push rising costs onto seni­ors. Such moves sound dar­ing in prac­tice but could be hard to pull off without cast­ing the Re­pub­lic­an Party as a mod­ern-day Ebenez­er Scrooge. All to­geth­er, the pack­age hands Demo­crats a po­tent polit­ic­al weapon, es­pe­cially if it doesn’t do what it pur­ports: that is, bal­ance the budget.

Ry­an’s plan would also undo the across-the-board cuts of $1.2 tril­lion from last sum­mer’s debt-ceil­ing deal, with a spe­cial eye to­ward pre­serving de­fense spend­ing. To ac­com­plish this, he would ask six nondefense-re­lated com­mit­tees to find sav­ings. That’s an idea that sounds very much like the route the failed su­per com­mit­tee fol­lowed.

“The House budget res­ol­u­tion pushes the en­vel­ope in every dir­ec­tion. If you aren’t will­ing to be­lieve that every one of these ex­treme claims is go­ing to come true, then the num­bers won’t hap­pen,” says Joseph Min­arik, who was chief eco­nom­ist at the Of­fice of Man­age­ment and Budget un­der Pres­id­ent Clin­ton.

The math doesn’t ap­pear to work in Ry­an’s fa­vor, either. The non­par­tis­an Tax Policy Cen­ter es­tim­ates that his tax cuts would add up to $4.6 tril­lion — and that’s on top of the $5.4 tril­lion in rev­en­ue for­feited through ex­tend­ing the Bush-era tax cuts.

Giv­ing away that much money while lower­ing the cor­por­ate and top in­di­vidu­al tax rates to 25 per­cent would re­quire Con­gress and the pres­id­ent to es­sen­tially do away with tax ex­pendit­ures. These breaks en­cour­age middle-class Amer­ic­ans to buy homes or give char­it­able dona­tions. They al­low people to de­duct state and loc­al taxes or give com­pan­ies a break if they provide health in­sur­ance.

Yet, without tar­get­ing spe­cif­ic breaks, the Ry­an plan looks like a massive money loser for the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment and a win for the wealthy and cor­por­a­tions — op­tics that play in­to Pres­id­ent Obama’s cam­paign drum­beat of eco­nom­ic fair­ness.

Not that this mat­ters to some con­ser­vat­ive Re­pub­lic­ans, who are grumpy that Ry­an’s plan did not go far enough. It caps spend­ing at $1.028 tril­lion, but a fac­tion of the party wanted to cap it at $931 bil­lion.

Still, the plan’s vague­ness hasn’t stopped the GOP pres­id­en­tial can­did­ates from re­sound­ingly en­dors­ing it. “It’s a bold and ex­cit­ing ef­fort on his part and on the part of the Re­pub­lic­ans, and it’s very much con­sist­ent with what I put out earli­er,” Rom­ney said dur­ing a tour of the Google of­fices in Chica­go on Tues­day.

Newt Gin­grich, who last year called Ry­an’s fisc­al 2012 plan a piece of “right-wing so­cial en­gin­eer­ing,” con­jured up enough good­will to call this one “cour­ageous.”

More broadly, Ry­an’s budget speaks to a grow­ing trend in the Re­pub­lic­an Party this elec­tion cycle of cam­paign­ing on the plat­form of fisc­al re­spons­ib­il­ity while of­fer­ing policy pro­pos­als that would in­crease the de­fi­cit.

Like Ry­an, Rom­ney would slash tax rates — so much so that the Tax Policy Cen­ter es­tim­ates that the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment would lose $900 bil­lion in rev­en­ue in 2015 alone, as­sum­ing ex­ten­sion of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Rom­ney sim­il­arly has not out­lined the tax breaks he would elim­in­ate to pay for his cuts.

These policy pro­pos­als sound fine if you don’t like taxes, but they’re hardly con­sist­ent with the tra­di­tion­al Re­pub­lic­an mes­sage of re­du­cing the de­fi­cit, bal­an­cing the budget, and op­er­at­ing on sound eco­nom­ic foot­ing. In­stead, they make vividly clear that right now the party is primar­ily in­ter­ested in shrink­ing the size of gov­ern­ment rather than bal­an­cing the books.

“Bey­ond the GOP base, I don’t see the Ry­an budget play­ing well,” says Alan I. Ab­ramow­itz, a pro­fess­or of polit­ic­al sci­ence at Emory Uni­versity. “It opens up the Re­pub­lic­ans to cri­ti­cism that they’re mak­ing these gi­gant­ic cuts that hurt low-in­come groups while cut­ting taxes primar­ily on the wealthy. Par­tic­u­larly for someone like Rom­ney, this re­in­forces the im­age he already has of a rich guy whose policies fa­vor the rich.”

Go­ing in­to Novem­ber, Ry­an has signaled that he ex­pects the pres­id­en­tial can­did­ates to pay heed to his pro­pos­al and to of­fer up their own choices about the budget and taxes. And some budget ex­perts give Ry­an cred­it for tack­ling Medi­care, a struc­tur­al prob­lem that’s grow­ing in cost re­gard­less of which party con­trols the White House and Con­gress.

“I do give Paul Ry­an two thumbs up as a lead­er for the need to re­form en­ti­tle­ments,” says Maya MacGuineas, pres­id­ent of the Com­mit­tee for a Re­spons­ible Fed­er­al Budget.

Still, with each new budget and tax plan the Re­pub­lic­ans un­veil, they’re chip­ping away at their long-held repu­ta­tion for fisc­al hawk­ish­ness. But that may no longer be the point.

What We're Following See More »
Gillibrand Announces Exploratory Committee
1 hours ago
House Votes to Condemn Rep. King for Racist Comments
4 hours ago

"The House voted overwhelmingly to rebuke GOP Rep. Steve King for making racist comments in a recent interview. The rare resolution of disapproval, which included a broad denunciation of white supremacist and white nationalist movements, was passed on a 424-1 vote. But some House Democrats argue the move doesn't go far enough and are pushing censure motions against the Iowa Republican."

Parliament Defeats Brexit Resolution
5 hours ago
Steve King Will Vote For Resolution
6 hours ago
Judge Rules Against Air Traffic Controllers
6 hours ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.