Paul Ryan Will Not Balance The Budget

Not only will Republican budget guru Paul Ryan’s proposed budget raise taxes on almost everyone, it will also not balance the budget — the one thing it was designed to do!

Here’s the problem. That Congressional Budget Office score that Ryan cites as proof? It doesn’t estimate how much revenue his plan would bring in based on his new tax regime. Because the CBO never scores changes to tax policy — that’s the job of the Joint Committee on Taxation — its score was based on a revenue number (19% of GDP) that came from…where? Oh, right: Paul Ryan. Where did he get that number? He made it up.

The Tax Policy Center, on the other hand, did score Ryan’s tax proposals. Would you be surprised if I told you Ryan’s figures are a steaming pile of bullshit? I didn’t think so:

Just for kicks, here’s the relevant portion of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities’ takedown of the whole ugly thing:

Assertions that the Ryan plan is fiscally responsible rest on a serious misunderstanding of a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the plan. CBO only partially analyzed the Ryan plan. Contrary to some media reports, CBO has not prepared an actual cost estimate of it. CBO generally does not produce estimates of the effects of proposed changes in tax policies; that is the responsibility of the Joint Committee on Taxation. In its analysis of the Ryan plan, CBO did not attempt to measure the revenue losses that Rep. Ryan’s proposals would generate.

Instead, as its report states, CBO simply used an assumption specified by Rep. Ryan’s staff that the overall level of revenues would remain unchanged from what the federal government would collect through 2030 under current policies, and would equal 19 percent of GDP in later years. CBO did not find that the Ryan plan actually would achieve these assumed revenue levels. (For commentary by Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center on the widespread misunderstanding of the CBO analysis, see here.)

The reality is different; TPC finds that the Ryan plan would result in very large revenue losses relative to current policies. TPC estimates that even with its middle-class tax increases, the plan would reduce federal revenues to 16 percent of GDP in 2014. Because the tax cuts for the wealthy would dwarf the tax increases for the middle class, the Ryan plan would allow the federal debt to continue growing for a number of decades to come, despite its steep cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Disappointing, but not surprising. Honest Republicans are, after all, an endangered species.

Paul Ryan Wants To Raise Your Taxes

Last month, during a little back-and-forth with a commenter, I conceded that although I completely disagree with it, Paul Ryan’s budget “roadmap” is serious and in good faith (unlike most recent GOP “plans” for major issues).

What I didn’t know at the time was that if you run the numbers, as the Center for Tax Justice has, it turns out that Ryan’s plan has the unique effect of reducing government revenue while raising taxes on the bottom NINETY (90) PERCENT of Americans. (It also, of course, violently cuts programs and services.) I could have sworn Republicans were for lower taxes!

(I’ll note here that I’m not comparing Ryan’s plan to President Obama’s budget priorities, just pointing out an interesting fact.)

Along those lines, Matt Yglesias introduces some necessary dread:

So give Ryan credit. It’s quite difficult to raise taxes on 90 percent of Americans while reducing overall tax revenue, but he’s shown enormous ingenuity in getting the job done. Remember that this is the top House GOP budget guy. If John Boehner becomes Speaker after the midterms, Ryan will be writing budgets for the new majority, presumably animated by the same moral principles that led him to this idea.

Truth and Reconciliation

Following up on my last post, I’d just like to point out an excellent graphic the Times ran yesterday showing that, despite what the GOP would have you believe, use of budget reconciliation for major legislation is not even remotely uncommon.

Irreconcilable Differences

One of the more annoying tropes of the past few weeks, as it has become more and more likely that the Democrats will finally get their act together and inch past the goal line on health care reform, is the idea that budget reconciliation is somehow ”unprecedented” and “extreme” and ”jamming it through.”

This is bullshit, plain and simple. A few points:

First, it is, without question, not unprecedented. Even that dastardly Mainstream Media know this:

Second and more imporantly, the Democrats have already passed health care reform. All that’s left to do is find a way to reconcile (not exactly what “budget reconciliation” means, but we’ll get to that) the House and Senate bills. The difficulty is that since the Second Boston Massacre — WHICH CHANGED EVERYTHING DIDN’T YOU KNOW – the Democrats no longer have 60 votes in the Senate to pass an amended bill.

With the Senate GOP voting in lockstep against everything, the only way to get anything close to the (again, already-)passed bills to the President’s desk is for the House to pass the Senate’s bill. There are significant differences between the two, but the foundation is largely the same. What matters now is whether Pelosi and co. can get enough “no” votes to switch to “yes.” (And at least fewer “yes” votes to switch to “no.”) That is literally all that matters for health care to pass. Reconciliation is only a small part of the bargain between the House and the Senate to get that done.

If you watch CNN, however, you’ll see Mary Matalin, who is about as pleasant as bedbugs, drone on about how reconciliation is a travesty of democracy and will destroy the Democrats’ majority come November. Every other cable news network will carry another loathesome version of the same drivel. You’ll read more of this in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and in a thousand witless posts on the Corner.

It’s all a big red herring.

Budget reconciliation, as I understand it, is just a patch for legislation that has already been approved. Because budget-related legislation is so complicated, involving so many committees, the budget reconciliation process allows policy changes to entitlements (such as MEDICARE) and tax laws to be passed in a streamlined, unfilibusterable way, to avoid total gridlock. After all, the federal government’s gotta have a budget, one way or another. If you’re really interested in the procedure, the House Rules Committee has a nicely dense summary.

In the case of health care reform, reconciliation will allow the Senate to appease House members’ concerns about things like affordability and the Medicare Part D “donut hole,” but not, since it’s not budget-related, things like the Stupak abortion language and the structure of the insurance exchanges. Still, still, still: all that matters is that the House pass the Senate bill.

The point is that reconciliation is the icing, not the cake. It doesn’t even actually have to happen for reform to pass. The worst fears of conservatives arrive earlier – health care reform is a few House votes away from becoming law. (I suspect the rumors of a smaller compromise bill are a political feint. Obama said as much yesterday.) The furor over reconciliation is merely a last-ditch effort on the part of Republicans to squeeze a little more political blood from the fight. They aim to tar Obama as a partisan, so they can run against him and his “socialized medicine” in the fall. Let them. Health care reform is too important, and too close, to be sacrificed on the altar of politics. The ineptitude of the Democrats over the past year has already guaranteed a bloody midterms. And the hubristic failure of Rove’s “permanent majority” should have Democrats realizing that huge majorities are unsustainable anyway.

Besides, if they don’t get health care reform passed, the Democrats are really screwed in November. They couldn’t be that stupid, could they?

Where Bills Go To Die

Not to beat a dead horse, but can we not agree there’s something seriously wrong with the US Senate? Senators are literally not doing their jobs anymore!

The Hill has a list of the 290 — yes, 290 — bills the House passed that the Senate has not yet acted on. Not “not passed.” These are bills the Senate has done nothing about, including quite a bit of major legislation. This is not even to mention, as Pareene does, the dozens of federal nominees the Senate has exclusive authority to confirm that it isn’t bothering doing anything about.

I know it’s an election year and all, but what exactly are these people doing with their time and on the taxpayer’s dime?

The Road Ahead On HCR

I hope to have more original analysis in the next few days (before the Blair House summit), but in the meantime Jonathan Chait has a great, great post countering all the claims that health care reform is dead.

Update: More.

The Stimulus Worked

As David Leonhardt points out in a great column that’s making the rounds.

Good-Bayh

Evan Bayh announced his retirement from the Senate today. Good riddance. Even though, per Nate Silver, Bayh is a relatively valuable vote when he bothers to vote with his party (rather than undermine it), he’s actually the worst kind of entitled “centrist” whose principles change with the political winds; the worst kind of legacy politician whose celebrity gave him near-perfect electoral security while accomplishing absolutely nothing; and — wouldn’t you know it? — the worst kind of turncoat, who waits until the day before the filing deadline to announce his retirement. Screwing over the Democratic Party: the only legacy Bayh can be proud of.

Josh Marshall sums up Bayh’s oh-so-high degree of integrity nicely:

[L]et’s not paper over the fact that he says our national government is broken. And his decision is to walk away.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like The Senate?

Since we can’t just get rid of the damn thing (outrageous!), Christopher Beam offers eight ways to reform Senate rules, none of which will ever happen, because of Senate rules:

[T]he odds of streamlining the Senate anytime soon are low, thanks to a central paradox: Changing the rules surrounding the supermajority (60 votes) requires an even greater supermajority (67 votes). As of now, the political will simply isn’t there.

Blogs and Pieces

Enough about the “Snowmaggedon” already:

• At the Atlantic, Michael Kinsley makes a great point about the difference between condescension and simply, you know, believing you’re right. Marc Aminder, meanwhile, breaks down Sarah Palin’s paradigm, which is basically appearing as a victim of condescendsion. Imagine that.
• At ThinkProgress, Matt Yglesias throws some cold water on the popularity of the Tea Party movement and tears to pieces Marc Thiessen’s gross dissembling on torture. Thiessen’s angry response is laughable.
• Nate Silver, writing at FiveThirtyEight, proves a point that can’t be made often enough: Obama’s policies have, on the whole, been more popular that not. “[T]he votes taken by the Republican Congress have far more often been out of step with those of the median voter.”
• In New York politics, uncertainty abounds. Governor David Paterson will resign very soon, or he won’t. Hiram Monserrate, who probably slashed his girlfriend’s face with broken glass, may finally be expelled from the State Senate, or not.
• Hipster puppies!