What's Worse Than 'Ruinous'?

Paul Ryan's budget plan deserves a serious response from Democrats.

In 2003 Paul Ryan was one of 207 Republicans in the House of Representatives who voted for the Medicare prescription drug benefit championed by President George W. Bush—a reckless expansion of a huge program that was already heading for bankruptcy. Yesterday Ryan, who now chairs the House Budget Committee, did partial penance for that budget-busting blunder with a plan that includes ambitious Medicare reforms as well as $5.8 trillion in spending cuts during the next decade.

At a time when Democrats and Republicans are squabbling over whether to cut $33 billion or $61 billion in spending this year—neither of which would make much of a dent in a deficit that is expected to hit $1.6 trillion—Ryan's plan may seem breathtakingly bold. But while it is admirably forthright in some respects, it dodges several important questions. It's too bad there is no opposing party to keep the Republicans fiscally honest.

Compared to President Obama's budget proposal, the Ryan plan is a model of restraint, calling for $6.2 trillion less in spending and $4.4 trillion less in new debt over 10 years. Even so, it would not balance the budget until 2040 or so, and it would increase the federal debt, currently about $14 trillion, to more than $23 trillion by 2021. As the Cato Institute's Chris Edwards notes, spending continues to rise during the next decade under the Republican plan, albeit at a slower pace than Obama envisions: 34 percent vs. 55 percent.

Ryan proposes making Medicare solvent by changing it, beginning in 2022, from an open-ended entitlement to a system of premium subsidies that the government would pay to private insurance companies. While Democrats predict that retirees would be stuck paying more and more for their coverage as the subsidies failed to keep pace with health care inflation, Ryan argues that competition among medical plans and clearer price signals will help control costs. This is an argument worth having.

Likewise the debate about Medicaid, which Ryan would transform into capped block grants, saving $750 billion over 10 years while giving states more flexibility in helping low-income families obtain health care. In light of Medicaid's unsustainable fiscal path, complaining that Republicans are mean to poor people does not qualify as a counterargument.

When it comes to the third major entitlement program, Social Security, the Ryan plan punts, calling for "common-sense reforms to keep the program solvent" without actually proposing any. It does euphemistically note that the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (on which Ryan served) suggested "a more progressive benefit structure" (i.e., smaller benefits for richer retirees) and "reforms that take account of increases in longevity" (i.e., a higher retirement age). Since Democrats such as Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) already are accusing Ryan of seeking to "destroy the Medicare program," it's doubtful they will be the first to speak candidly on the subject of Social Security.

Similarly, people who think reducing spending by less than 2 percent would be "ruinous" (as The New York Times described the $61 billion in 2011 cuts approved by the House) will need new adjectives to condemn Ryan's impossible dream of returning "non-security discretionary spending" to a level that seemed perfectly adequate three or four years ago. Democrats who do not like Ryan's mix of cuts should be attacking the "non-security" part of that formulation, since his plan takes only $78 billion, spread over five years, out of a massively bloated Pentagon budget that far exceeds the resources necessary to defend the country. But this laughably inadequate gesture of restraint tracks what Obama already has proposed.

"Ending corporate welfare," which the Republican plan claims to do, is another potentially fertile area for Democratic counterproposals. Why "reform" agricultural subsidies, for instance, when they should be eliminated entirely? And do Democrats think the Republicans have identified every objectionable business subsidy in the $3.8 trillion budget?

Ryan has taken a serious stab at fiscal restraint. It deserves a serious response.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.

© Copyright 2011 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    potentially fertile area for Democratic counterproposals

    One can dream.

  • SIV||

    "Ending corporate welfare," which the Republican plan claims to do, is another potentially fertile area for Democratic counterproposals.

    Democrats totally support "corporate welfare".

  • ||

    If you can't nationalize, then subsidize.

  • Realist||

    What the hell...it's all control.

  • The Fringe Economist||

    "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

  • Corporate Drone||

    Some corporations are more equal than others.

  • ||

    GE (eom)

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    Nah, the GOP thinks we are all retarded.

    Ryan's cuts still mean $10 trillion in deficit spending over the next ten years, a fact pointed out in the article, which makes the time frame for elimination of our debt is to be measured in decades, if not centuries.

    We cannot begin to pay down our debt when our leaders refuse to restrain spending to the break even point.

    This problem will not be fixed until the states, not Congress, get together and pass a balanced budget amendment. It's up the TEA Party and the rest of the fiscally conservative movement to take control of enough State Houses and Gov positions to make a Constitutional Convention a reality and stop the madness in DC. The answer is found in the local scene.

  • Jerry||

    When these plans talk about 2022 or 2040, it's a lot of wishful thinking. And of course Ryan won't be around to make sure his plan will actually be implemented.

  • Sober guy||

    The guy is 41. Will he meet some untimely death only you know of ? If you can see the future we should go to the track.

  • ||

    A Balanced Budget Amendment? So throw in one more clause to those already ignored?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    They might listen to it for awhile...if we're lucky. If it has a time of war clause or a supermajority-gets-out-free provision, nothing will change. No one will vote against the deficit, or we'll keep cooking up wars to excuse our excess spending.

    Maybe repeal the 17th Amendment? (Not likely, I know.)

  • Realist||

    "Nah, the GOP thinks we are all retarded." There is good reason for that, "we" elected a sack of shit with big ears!

  • P B||

    Stop insulting sacks of shit!

  • Sack of Shit||

    Thank you

  • Obama||

    Hey...bro.

  • rather||

    What's in the 100 billion the Tea Party proposed?

  • Rachel Maddow||

    Try not to confuse the GOP with the tea party.

  • Wind Rider||

    Done wonders for your career!

  • db||

    The GOP certainly seems confused about who brought it to power in 2010.

  • mofo||

    " In light of Medicaid's unsustainable fiscal path, complaining that Republicans are mean to poor people does not qualify as a counterargument."

    That does not mean it wont be used. Used to death, i might add.

  • ||

    I keep wondering where all the people like me are. You know, the ones who think per capita federal spending should be taken back to 1922.
    That would be a good place to start.

  • ||

    They all voted themselves raises that they are loathe to give up.

  • ||

    Which would you prefer to go by, "extremist" or "radical?"

  • Realist||

    I am with you. That's two, don't expect many more!

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Make that three.

  • ||

    ML, you must be a Marxist of some kind. I'd like to take the federal government's spending levels back to about 1795.

  • Wind Rider||

    "Serious" discussions out of DC? With actual counter proposals?

    Pass some of that shit over here, Jacob, I'd like a few hits, dude.

    When inadequate is described as draconian (which is the likely strategy Dems/libs/progressives will take, ain't a damned thing going to get done.

    And no matter what goes wrong, it will always be (fill in here)'s fault, the bastards.

  • ||

    Any budget that doesn't start with the revenue number and figure out what can be done only with that number, needs to be tossed in the circular file.

  • Wind Rider||

    a yep.

  • Wind Rider||

    Heh - also read a 'straight' AP piece about the kerfuffle - apparently several of the leeches - er - politicians, seems they're whining that the economy will be harmed by a government 'shutdown'.

    It's much more likely that those douchenozzles are actually pissing their depends at the very real prospect that if there was a 'shutdown', barely anyone would even fucking notice, and realize how useless those fucktards actually are.

  • Draco||

    We cannot begin to pay down our debt when our leaders refuse to restrain spending to the break even point.

    Why do you care about paying down "our" debt? Seriously. Please explain to me why this is keeping you up at nights. As noted on my blog, Alexander Hamilton certainly wasn't worried about it.

    I can truly understand why you'd want to pay down your personal mortgage and credit card debts. So do I.

    But the US debt is nothing at all like a mortgage or a credit card debt. The government can always pay interest and principal no matter what happens, because it can create money at will. You and I can't say the same, of course.

    Now, I am not for debt growth that spirals out of control, because that would lead to hyperinflation (not bankruptcy, which is impossible unless Congress chooses it through an act of sheer ). But there is absolutely no reason to ever "pay the debt down to zero." The US debt is an essential part of our fiat monetary system, and to have a growing money supply that keeps pace with a growing economy, there will almost always need to be budget deficits.

    Look at the back page of any issue of The Economist and see the chart of major countries and whether they run surpluses or deficits. The only ones who run surpluses are countries like Norway which are pulling wealth out of the ground (oil) and selling it. All of the rest run deficits, nearly all of the time. And the world doesn't come to an end.

    In fact, the Chicken Littles we see on the libertarian and conservative forums would have bet you and me anything, 20 years ago, that if we ever reached the levels of debt and deficit we have now, that the US would be at the end of its rope - would never survive. "The bond vigilantes!!!" And yet here we are.

    Meanwhile, the Ryan plan is a reasonable first step to getting the budget and entitlements under control. But nothing like it can pass until the Republicans control the Senate or the White House.

  • ||

    But the US debt is nothing at all like a mortgage or a credit card debt. The government can always pay interest and principal no matter what happens, because it can create money at will. You and I can't say the same, of course.

    Huh? You mean that through the FED printing money the government has another means to tax us, the FED of course taking their cut for helping hide the damage.

    BTW, money that can be printed out of thin air is not money. Real money is a commodity that can be exchanged in lieu of direct barter.

    ---------------------------------------

    In fact, the Chicken Littles we see on the libertarian and conservative forums would have bet you and me anything, 20 years ago, that if we ever reached the levels of debt and deficit we have now, that the US would be at the end of its rope - would never survive. "The bond vigilantes!!!" And yet here we are.

    Here we are, thanks to emerging technologies that have helped stave off our inevitable collapse, but I give it no more than a year before our economy implodes and we have rioting on the streets.

    You give yourself away by bringing up Hamilton, who was a monarchist and a schemer who loved peddling influence and ignoring the US constitution.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Hamilton came up with some pretty messed up stuff. Central bank (not in the Constitution), long term debt, subsidies for industries (not in the Constitution, I don't think), and implied powers.

    Anything Hamilton came up with should be questioned on that basis alone.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    As noted on my blog...
    Hehehe.

  • Mike M.||

    Are you truly unaware of what is going on in countries like Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland right now, where their interest rates for borrowing have gone up through the roof and their debt is rapidly degrading towards junk status?

    It's true that the Fed can mitigate the problem by endlessly printing money and monetizing the debt, but they can only postpone the day of reckoning, not put it off forever. Not only will interest still continue to take up an ever larger share of the federal government, but they have put the U.S. Dollar in grave danger of losing its status as the world's preferred trading currency, which is one of the major factors which has kept the U.S. the world's strongest economy.

  • Draco||

    Mike, I am not unaware of this. What you need to be aware of, though, is that Greece is to the EU what Illinois is to the USA, from a monetary point of view. US states can very much go bankrupt - they are not issuers of fiat currency. Same with Greece.

    When the EU monetary union was formed, individual "nations" ceded their rights to issue sovereign fiat currency.

  • Scott66||

    If the only thing you care about is the technical definition of bankruptcy then you have a point. If you care about such things as standard of living then you are an ostrich with your head stuck in the ground.

  • Really?||

    Because having debt at almost 100% of GDP is a bad idea. You can hand-wave all you like, but that is just plain common sense.

  • Draco||

    I agree with you. We wouldn't want debt at 100% of GDP - nowhere near it. That's why I said "if you want a growing economy." When the economy grows, GDP grows, by definition. You have to size your deficits just right.

  • ||

    The government can always pay interest and principal no matter what happens, because it can create money at will. You and I can't say the same, of course.

    It does this by reducing the value of debt holders. This isn't in any way free. Inflation is a tax and the most regressive tax possible.

    A direct tax would be less damaging than inflation.

    We're also close to the tipping point. If the Fed wasn't already buying treasuries we'd already be having failed auctions. There's not as much time as you think. It may already be too late.

    The question is however.. if the tea party gets 'reasonable' cuts they want.. do we just end up saving the Fed?

    In fact is the possibility of a Ryan plan passing indicative that the Fed knows their ass is on the line? The Fed is monstrously powerful, but I don't think the Fed could survive a currency collapse. (which would be the only good to come from it)

  • Draco||

    I agree that hyper-inflation is a terrible, terrible thing. Not least because I have positive net worth.

    But a slow and steady target of 1-2% inflation is not especially problematic.

    And deflation is the worst horror of all - because it tends to bring all economic activity to a halt. You won't buy because you think the price is bound to fall. Not good.

    So far, the Fed has been doing a decent job. We're all still here, most of us have jobs, and there's no hyper-inflation.

  • ||

    Most of have jobs? 20% (real statistics)is most of us?

    The Fed has been doing a decent job?

    Of funneling wealth to the connected through cartelization.

    Of bringing instability to our economy.

    Of giving us the Great Depression.

    Pull your head out of your ass.

  • ||

    Hyper inflation is just the end-game. The damage is done by normal inflation.

    Inflation is redistribution from poor to rich, or workers to employers and from currency holders to bankers, and especially the fed.

    There's absolutely no aggregate benefit from inflation. It shifts the burden onto workers whose wages are continually worth less. It destroys savings, which is investment capital. It causes bubbles.. which is essentially all the stock exchange becomes under chronic inflation, a permanent bubble with oscillating booms and busts.

    The Fed is a pernicious scheme to grift the American public.

    There is no valid economic or ethical reason for central banks or fiat currency or currency monopoly.

    Do you ever ask yourself why over time stocks should appreciate for no reason? Why did real estate over time should appreciate for no reason? Why do precious metals over time should appreciate for no reason?

    They aren't worth more. A house is worth a house. What has changed is the value of the money chasing the house. A stock with a given dividend is worth the same as it was yesterday. What's changed is the value of the currency chasing it.

    But the average person just wants to provide service and be compensated. The Fed exists to rape that guy. The sports fan who works hard and votes his red team or blue team and thinks that should be enough. And it should. And without a government monopoly it would be. Just as it was between the second and third central banks.

  • Virginia||

    "ignores interest on the debt"

    nothing to see here.

  • ||

    It at least starts a conversation. Don't expect anything meaningful from the Democrats. They are still working from the USSR/China blueprint which has been so successful - unless you're not a member of the politburo or disagree.

  • ||

    Until we rid "Government" of bought and paid for, corrupt politicians and replace them with business people, nothing will ever change.

    www.anon-tools.no.tc

  • Michael||

    And what's to prevent those business people from turning into corrupt politicians once in position? It's the system that corrupts -- reduce the size and scope of government and you reduce the corruption.

    But that never happens without revolution, so ... yeah.

  • cynical||

    Good call, bot. Cut out the middleman for efficiency's sake.

  • ||

    Some tid bits:

    1. We are currently at or near the Thatcher Point. That point in the taxing of the economy where you can't get more money by raising rates as people will modify their behavior to avoid the increases.

    2. We are in debt. Serious, nation weakening debt.

    3. We have a government that is entangled in a morass of entitlements that are unending at the top, but non helpful on the ground. Medicaid's enrollment rules are contradictory and often exclude children with expensive diseases, whose care exceeds the gross income of both parents.

    4. We have a government controlled by people who think that all money belongs to them and that all moral goodness derives from Government. They think that those who resist paying more are evil, note the references to starving and dying children, homeless and hungry elders, and such as the only responses the Government crowd reacts with in response to ANY cut in the budget. The other side is a bunch of evil immoral infidels.

    5. When we decide to spend money, we never say "OK, this seems to be a valid, interstate need, now what gets cut to pay for it?" We never hear them say "This program seems very useful, but is it more useful than providing medicine to poor children?"

    If we want to help the poor, we need to structurally reform the government's entitlement structure to make it more coherent with the larger financial realities it faces.

    We need a government to honestly weigh programs in a comparative sense, so we get this infinite expansion of government under control.

    Then we can have a real, honestly balanced budget.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I'm certainly thinking about modifying my behavior to cut taxes. If things get really bad, I'll probably just go Galt.

  • Realist||

    Everything Ryan proposes is back loaded. He doesn't want smaller government he wants different priorities.

  • Invisible Finger||

    +1

    Paul Ryan should be ignored with extreme prejudice until he proposes large defense budget cuts.

  • Tony||

    There's nothing more partisan insidery than saying things like "this is a serious proposal, and Democrats should use it as a starting point in discussions." It's obviously not serious because it can't pass out of Congress. It's also not serious because it relies on fantasy Heritage Foundation predictions of future employment numbers and CUTS TAXES for the wealthy and corporations even more than they already are, while purporting to be about debt-reduction. As he said, it's not a budget, it's a cause. And that cause is to dismantle the 20th century and impose an embarrassingly stupid little dogma on the country that only Republicans and libertarians are allowed not to have grown out of by college. What baffles me more than anything is the idea that Paul Ryan and his cohorts never had a simple conversation with someone who had grown out of Ayn Rand cultism so as to be put back on the path toward mature thinking?

  • Odd||

    I became a libertarian after leaving the hallowed university halls. I was ready to think for myself. Thanks, though...

  • Corporate Drone||

    Arf arf arf!

  • ||

    Fat, drunk, and economically ignorant is no way to go through life son.

    It's necessary to leave some production capital alone if you want economic growth. How many more years of the results of Disney Economics do we have to suffer through before you wake up?

    Your problem is what you think is illogical, and disproven empirically, so you must resort to faith rather than reason. And like many faitholders you think religious assertions will impress people whose congnition is reason based. In fact it rarely even occurs to you that anyone else actually thinks critically. Hence you project religion onto others. Surely they must do like you do, fit their facts to their ideology!

    But it's not so.

    Austrians aren't Austrians because of faith. They are Austrians because it's the inevitable result for anyone who thinks.

    It's not like we were not all indoctrinated with the same Keynesian statist revisionist crap that you were.

    We were.

    But to maintain that dogma you have to turn of reason. That we won't do or can't do.

  • Tony||

    I'm not the one applying half-assed Keynesianism as the justification for more looting for the rich and corporations. That would be libertarians and Republicans when they say tax cuts cause economic growth and jobs.

    But the only thing completely lacking in evidence is the very dogma-like voodoo bullshit you guys believe. You think it counts as evidence when good things occur in a country that happens to have a partly capitalist system and bad things occur in one with a partly socialist system, not realizing they are all on a continuum, and that if nothing else we have direct policy actions in the recent past that completely contradict the libertarianish fake-Keynesian justifications for them (like Bush tax cuts).

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Pretty sure Reagan's who trickle-down economics thing has nothing to do with Keynesianism. Nevertheless, we support tax cuts for everyone, not just the rich.

    Ironic that you accuse Ayn Rand of being a cult figure when she hated all forms of religion, wanted rational individuals, and merely believed that she was correct (and that anyone rational would pretty much agree with her). And it's ironic because you're worshipping at the altar of the state.

  • Tony||

    Ironic that you accuse Ayn Rand of being a cult figure when she hated all forms of religion

    Yeah, like Stalin.

    wanted rational individuals, and merely believed that she was correct (and that anyone rational would pretty much agree with her).

    The simplest logic is apparently the most correct: "I am right because I proclaim myself rational. QED."

    And it's ironic because you're worshipping at the altar of the state.

    It would be if I were, but I am not a mirror to your extremism. I don't worship anything.

  • ||

    That would be libertarians and Republicans when they say tax cuts cause economic growth and jobs.

    They do cause growth and jobs. That's not even arguable, are you suggesting otherwise?

    The conservative Keynesian neglects that debt still must be paid. So lowering taxes but failing to lower spending will net you a positive swing but just delays the pain.

    Government spending is what causes unemployment. Spending is the root cause. If an enterprise requires government subsidy to survive, it's tautologically unsustainable and must live at the expense of enterprise which is self sustaining. Thus overall the economy and employment suffers. If an enterprise does not require government subsidy to exist, but receives it anyway, then it's just looting straight up. Unfortunately what was initially merely looting becomes in time unsustainable. Every government protected racket eventually requires subsidies to survive even if they did not to begin with.

    Either way capital in economically sustainable enterprise which can result in further sustainable enterprise and employment is diverted to unsustainable. Real wealth is squandered, and that is the capital required to increase productivity. Real prospects decrease.

    Either way there is not economic justification for spending. The only justification can be other concerns that outweigh economic growth.

    But the only thing completely lacking in evidence is the very dogma-like voodoo bullshit you guys believe.

    There's voodoo but it's in continuing to believe a myth that is logically incoherent and empirically demonstrably wrong.

    That's faith.

    not realizing they are all on a continuum

    It's not us who insists the current problems are failures of a non-existant free market;) That's your shtick. We know we're experiencing the failures of a planned markets.

    e have direct policy actions in the recent past that completely contradict the libertarianish fake-Keynesian justifications for them (like Bush tax cuts).

    We have evidence that 1) Bush was a socialist/fascist in practice and a huge spender and was partially responsible for the recession. 2) Obama is thrice as bad and responsible for further decline and nearing us to a currency crisis. 3) Ultimately they neither could have done what they did without the Fed, which is the root problem. The fed is the engine behind the welfare/warfare state.

    The bad news is the Ryan plan even if it passed is not enough to turn things around, but is probably enough to save the Federal reserve.

  • Tony||

    They do cause growth and jobs. That's not even arguable, are you suggesting otherwise?

    But they have a lower multiplier effect than increased government spending--things like food stamps having the highest, and among tax cuts, those that are most progressives (the tax cut with the highest multiplier is a payroll tax holiday). Tax cuts for the wealthy are comparatively useless, and if you care about the deficit, should be the first thing you look at to rescind. But the point is, this entire argument is Keynesian. You're trying to argue for a multiplier effect. That is:

    Government spending is what causes unemployment. Spending is the root cause. If an enterprise requires government subsidy to survive, it's tautologically unsustainable and must live at the expense of enterprise which is self sustaining.

    This is nonsensical. Government spending obviously can increase employment. It can be a military draft or some other bureaucracy or filling in holes. A paycheck is a paycheck.

    If an entity requires government subsidy, hopefully it's because it was made an economic demand via the democratic demand of the people. Otherwise it could be crony capitalism. But just because government creates demand doesn't mean the demand is illegitimate. It's just another buyer--the only one that works on the democratic behalf of the people. It's useful.

  • ||

    But they have a lower multiplier effect than increased government spending

    Wrong

    If an entity requires government subsidy, hopefully it's because it was made an economic demand via the democratic demand of the people. Otherwise it could be crony capitalism.

    It's always crony capitalism. And the subsidy results in lower multipliers than par over time even if the multiplier was self sustaining before. Again, the auto industry, health care, education are prime examples. Artificially inflated real prices bid up costs at previous stages of production. Costs adjust to prices, always.

    You're part right in that the only logical reason for a subsidy is for a service that needs to exist but the market can't provide. It destroys wealth and jobs but if it's needed it's needed. So the question is how to best do it the least destructive way possible. The best way is a simple subsidy, because prices aren't hidden and at least you don't undermine competition as a price reducing mechanism.

    Everything else is fatuous special pleading. Subsidies must lower efficiency and therefore must destroy capital and jobs compared to unsubsidized (free market) enterprise.

    *by 'subsidized' I do not mean merely subsidies. I mean targeted tax breaks, loans, tariffs, government cartel or monopoly protection (what we usually call 'utilities' or 'regulatory capture', like it's accidental lol) including intellectual property laws.

    The only thing I do agree on is that we should subsidize people. But the personal subsidy should have no strings. As a practical matter if we reject collectivism so much as to reject all coercion to this extent I think it's politically unviable. (although people would of course be better off on the whole if we did)

    But you go further and want to subsidize enterprise which I will never agree, and which exposes you as a crony capitalist/fascist if it needed further demonstration. You're no different from the neocons. You're all special pleading for your own interests.

  • ||

    The "Wrong" link didn't work for some reason. I know you won't read real data, but others might.

    http://sfb649.wiwi.hu-berlin.d.....05-039.pdf

  • ConfederalRepublicBy2030||

    Let's make it simple to ensure that everybody from places that have no Americans in them, like Berkeley or Harvard, understand.

    There's a canyon. You stick a log from one side to the other. Put too many people on it, and it breaks. Bam. Everyone's dead, which is a pretty big deal. It's called 'gravity', Harvard alumni. That's why when your balls don't drop, it's not physics' fault.

    The federal government MUST be a small, non-organizational entity. It should never exist as a body that has its own interests. Ever. And that requires extraordinary reductions in size and scope.

    I want Ron Paul for president, but modify him a little bit -

    1) He's willing to use the Army to detain, try, and execute local, state, and federal officials for treason in any part of the US, hamlet to metropolitan city, that does not reduce itself to near-minarchist proportions. End of story. We've all seen what compromise does. You do not compromise. Period.

  • ConfederalRepublicBy2030||

    *2) He stops being so fucking nice. God. Nicest politician ever. Rip into those statist mother-fucking, cock-sucking, ball-gobbling shitstains.

  • Jim||

    You're not going to get anywhere with this. I was ranting at people all day yesterday about how this "proposal" was nothing but statist political theater, but you'd be amazed how many people on this website still believe that gov't is the answer.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Truth is truth, no matter who believes it.

  • ||

    Dialog on this or any plan between the sides instead of name calling would be nice for a change. The plan leaves Medicade to the States, history has proven many states can be cruel, ie Arizona! I don't believe we are a cruel country.

  • ||

    Arizona is cruel? Why, because they are sick of being invaded by ignorant peasants who bankrupt their schools and hospitals and bring down wages for every blue-collar worker in the state?

    If you want to argue the merits of a strong federal government versus the states, at least use a real example, like the Jim Crow laws.

  • Inkfarmer||

    I don't see any substantial reforms to corporate welfare coming from within Congress. The whole system is built on corporate welfare, and everyone in the legislative (and executive)branch is tainted.

  • chaussures converse||

    which the Republican plan claims to do, is another All Star Converse potentially fertile area for Democratic counterproposals. Why "reform" agricultural subsidies, for instance, when they should be eliminated entirely

  • daiti||

    ( http://www.2kuu.com )
    Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
    Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel Women sandal is $30
    DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $35
    Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12
    ( http://www.2kuu.com )
    Jeans price is $34
    Paypal accept,Door to Door services!
    5 days arrive your home or you
    ur friends’ adress by EMS,DHL,UPs
    click my link under here!

  • scarpe Nike Store||

    is good

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • aisile||

    ai sile

  • xiingguan||

    This movie has some nike sb skunk dunks for sale of the same flaws I saw in another attempt at a faithful adaptation of a work of fantastic literature long thought unfilmable, Zach Snyder’s 2009 version of Watchmen...That is, it kobe 7 for sale struck me as a series of filmed recreations of scenes from the famous novel

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement