Paul Ryan is confusing me

I'm very confused. Paul Ryan has just released an overhaul plan for federal programs that help the poor. Why has he done this? This is the same guy who was the only Republican (almost) to put together a budget, and that budget slashed poverty abatement programs. And now he's for giving the poor a lot more help than his budget envisioned? I'm trying to make sense of this.

• Perhaps Ryan wants to have a better poverty plan than "cut, cut, cut" prior to announcing his intention to run for president. That would make sense. Let's call this Option 1.
• Maybe Ryan always cared about the poor, but he got so wrapped up in being the budget guru that he forgot about it. Let's call this Option 2.
• Maybe Ryan is seeing others in the GOP, such as Mike Lee, taking a lead in poverty issues, and he doesn't want to lose his status as the top idea man. Let's call this Option 3.
• Maybe Ryan is just a juggernaut when it comes to policy. He sees a vacuum, and he's driven to do something about it. Let's call this Option 4.

Does this have anything to do with the midterm elections? Maybe, but I don't see how. A major overhaul of federal poverty programs isn't on the agenda of either party. That is part of what confused me--this doesn't seem to be connected to the upcoming elections.

I hate this sense of not knowing the strategy behind this proposal. Maybe it will become clearer. What's more likely is that the plan will fizzle, sort of like the Ryan budget did.

Oh, I just realized one additional option, which we'll call Option 5. Paul Ryan is incoherent in his thinking and ideas.

Good, Now I'm not confused anymore. I can always fall back on this option. Phew, that's a relief.

Image: huffingtonpost.com

Extras. A post containing an interesting graph showing how benefits phase out as income rises. A post about how we have only 3% chronically poor. Is Ryan's plan a big program for a small number? Some good points there, but I have lingering questions about all the non-chronically poor, such as the poor children, poor elders, and poor disabled that are also mentioned in passing. That sounds like it adds up to loads more than 3%.

Budget FAIL x 2

Ryan budget - FAIL
Senate Democratic budget - FAIL

NO SURPRISE.

I could leave it at that, but the topic deserves serious consideration, so I'll tell why both budgets are rotten, and thereby do more honor to budgeting than either party did. The GOP budget is a return of the usual Ryan chicken scratch. If this budget was a TV character, it would be wandering around dazed and with amnesia, unaware that it was rejected in the 2012 election. It contains all the usual Ryan touches: repeal of Obamacare, block-grants in place of Medicaid, and voucherizing Medicare ten years from now. Yawn. No, wait, I think they dropped the additional tax cuts for "job creators." So maybe there's only pervasive amnesia.

The Democratic budget is fairly similar to Obama's budget of 1.5 years ago, but with less stimulus spending--only $100 billion instead of $400B. The Dems are feeling their oats after the election win so the ideal balance is no longer 1/3 tax increases to 2/3 spending cuts. Instead it's 50/50. But in fact, there are no spending cuts, just slower spending growth. The deficit eventually slims down below 3% of GDP, but only if growth is significantly robust. In fact, the spending grows on average 4.7% per year, so we better have strong growth, or we'll have some mighty large deficits.

Of course, we don't really have to worry about the Dems spending as much as they say in their budget. It's as likely to pass as the GOP version. They are both losers, dead-on-arrival partisan toilet paper. We are on track to follow the prediction I made early this month--a status quo Continuing Resolution. Bigger yawn.

I think I'll take a nap for a few years, then wake up and see if the same predictable fake budgets are walking around like unfulfilled specters haunting the Capitol. Then I'll vomit.

Image: theblaze.com

Extra. The WSJ sugar-coats the Ryan budget and invents a new euphemism for a Medicare voucher system:

 "The idea is to revamp Medicare's benefits and premium structure so these relics from 1965 work like normal insurance and give seniors the incentive to take a larger role in their own care."

Yes, I'm sure that medical insurance for seniors can be just like auto insurance. That will totally work.

And good news of just desserts. Obama's approval rating is considerably lower, especially with independents. I interpret this as unhappy moderates (like me).

Continuing resolutions and continuing stonewalls

I like to write about significant issues, not the outrage du jour (currently whether or not the White House threatened Bob Woodward and all the petty partisan point-scoring around that non-issue).

So I won't be writing much for a while. It's strange to have written almost 400 posts, and now have nothing to say. But I don't want to endlessly repeat my complaint that neither party will seize the wide-open middle ground and actually propose a centrist spending plan.

Here's what will happen with the biggest issue in Washington, the federal  government budget:

• The GOP will continue their typical non-specific (Ryan) budget proposals, with lots of dollars removed from social programs, but no details on how that will translate to benefit reductions.
• The Dems will continue their proposals for larger budgets fueled by tax increases on the wealthy and budgetary sleight-of-hand to hide the growing deficits in the proposal.
• There will be NO POSSIBILITY OF RECONCILING these proposals.
• Just before a government shutdown on March 27, Congress will reluctantly pass a Continuing Resolution that follows the same budget we have now, with no replacement for the sequester and no reforms on the huge Medicare expenditures.
• The only bit of uncertainty is how long the Continuing Resolution will cover--six months or one year.

THIS IS PITIFUL. Our elected officials have reduced themselves to one decision: how long to keep the status quo going. We aren't getting much for the salaries we pay them.

The only silver lining is that neither the GOP nor the Dems can implement their respective destructive programs. So these doldrums are the price for avoiding the catastrophe we'd have from following one or the other partisan fantasy. I can live with that, but I'll need a new hobby since blogging on politics will be mighty sparse. Suggestions?

Better than blogging

Image: maxshertz.com

Extra. There is still one blogger who's doing well. Kudos to Jonathan Bernstein at Plain Blog (a good example here).

Update 3/17/13. The length of the Continuing Resolution isn't even in doubt. It will be 6 months, which takes us to the start of the 2014 fiscal year.

Bad news for spending cuts, Part 2

Is the GOP still in disarray? They've been very quiet about their strategy related to the debt ceiling. Perhaps there are huddles going on right now, and in a few days or couple weeks we'll hear what the Republicans actually want. Right now, however, it's still unclear.

A GOP talking point after the fiscal cliff settlement was that tax increases outnumbered spending cuts by 41:1. Well, duh, it was a tax bill. The GOP couldn't get spending cuts into the bill because they had no leverage, and they wasted all the negotiation time haggling over tax issues, not spending. They could have tried to trade cooperation for some cuts, or a debt ceiling increase for cuts, but that wasn't their focus.

Now, they want to avenge their defeat, but their first plan sucks. They say they won't vote for a debt ceiling increase without an equal amount of spending cuts. However, they won't specify what spending cuts they want. There are some logical reasons for this:

1. They don't want their name on painful, unpopular cuts.
2. The Democrats will demagogue against cuts that the GOP proposes, and try to gain electoral advantage on the issue.
3. It's the president's responsibility to provide a roadmap for the future spending.

However, logic isn't going to force Obama to take on these risks. He can run out the clock on the debt ceiling, and then there won't be any alternative on the table when we reach the debt ceiling. With no plan, the GOP will look rather bratty if they plunge us into default, so they definitely have an interest in coming up with one.

They also need to have a real plan, not a fuzzy plan like the Ryan budget. They can't propose Medicare vouchers because that's a non-starter. They will have to breathe deep and plunge into some real budgeting. Along with the blame, they would also pick up some credit.

I'd be surprised if Boehner or Ryan will do this. It's possible, but they haven't gotten much into the nitty-gritty before. Perhaps some senators will do it, though the gang of six or eight has been shrinking. Still, this seems like a potentially great project for some policy-oriented wonk, elected or not.

Perhaps in a few weeks we'll be flooded with plans, including a couple good ones. This SHOULD happen, because there's a veritable vacuum right now, and nature is supposed to abhor a vacuum. Just don't expect anything from Obama. He's obviously going to be involved in the negotiations (if any), and he'll take enough hits that way. He's got little to gain by going first on cuts, and he's not a visionary on these issues. Anyone waiting for his leadership is naive or has an axe to grind.

The GOP: Too scared to be scissors. The Dems: Paper all the way.

Image: uncyclopedia.wikia.com

Negotiation box scores

The Atlantic Wire had a neat summary of the negotiation offers, and I think I'll steal the idea. It'll be fascinating to see the evolution of the offers through these summaries. Here goes:

_______________________________________________________
Boehner/Ryan 11/14/12

• New revenue only through GDP growth.
• All the spending cuts in the Ryan 2012 budget. (source)

_______________________________________________________
Boehner 11/15/12

• Ok, maybe some new revenue.
• All the spending cuts in the Ryan 2012 budget. (source)

______________________________________________________
Obama 11/29/12

• $400 billion in entitlement cuts.
• $1.6 trillion in tax revenue.
• $50 billion stimulus program. (source)

______________________________________________________
Boehner 12/3/12

• $800 billion in tax revenue.
• $600 billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts.
• $300 billion in savings from programs like farm subsidies.
• $200 billion to slow growth of government, including Social Security.
• $300 billion cut to federal agency budgets. (source)

______________________________________________________

The first partially serious offer is Boehner's on 12/3. By the way, Boehner's new revenue would come only from high earners, according to the Washington Post. Look for more box score updates!

Image: businessinsider.com