Government Spending

The Ryan/GOP Budget Plans: Dessert First, Spinach Later, Defense Always

|

Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy has an entry up at The New York Times' latest Room For Debate, which is about Paul Ryan's recently released GOP budget.

De Rugy's take?

Paul Ryan deserves praise for his continuous efforts to address the explosion of Medicare spending. Also, his proposed tax reform would make our system flatter and less burdensome, both steps in the right direction. However, reducing taxes today is not as noble as it seems if lawmakers aren't willing to cut spending enough to ensure that future generations don't foot today's bill. Sadly, this plan doesn't make the hard choices necessary and continues to kick the can down the road…

It would increase spending from $3.6 trillion in 2013 to $4.9 trillion in 2022 and wouldn't balance the budget for 28 years….

This plan is a "dessert now, spinach later" policy. In this proposal, the elderly would get the dessert now, and one day, younger people will have to eat all the spinach. Given the inevitable negotiations and compromises to come, Chairman Ryan should have offered a much stronger starting point — one that recognizes we all need to eat some spinach, now and later. Otherwise no one will get any dessert.

Whole entry here.

In a National Review/The Corner post about the new Republican Study Committe budget plan, which would balance the budget in five years, de Rugy notes that the RSC, like Ryan, just can't seem to truly deeply madly put defense spending on the table. "It exempts defense from scheduled sequestration cuts," she notes, which is a bad move politically and fiscally. Politically because the GOP comes across as having weird priorities and fiscally because defense is where a huge pot of money is and is traditionally the part of the budget that can be cut relatively effectively.

Above and to the right is a chart showing national defense spending in constant 2005 dollars.

As de Rugy has noted elsewhere, assuming full sequestration cuts (which isn't going to happen if the GOP and Obama get their way), we'd go all the way back to 2007 levels of funding for the Pentagon.

Which ain't so bad, especially considering the United States accounts for about 45 percent of all military spending globally.

NEXT: Sheldon Richman on How to Lower Gas Prices

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.

  1. Which ain’t so bad, especially considering the United States accounts for about 45 percent of all military spending globally.

    With as much money as comes out of this for police training and equipment, does that mean the US police forces amount to one of the bigger militaries in the world?

    1. It’s not enough, there are terrorists out to get us all over in Iran and Iraq. I am concerned Obama won’t spend enough on the military.

      1. plus dont forget demon-terrorists who will occupy jewgate

  2. we all need to eat some spinach, now and later. Otherwise no one will get any dessert.

    If you don’t eat your meat, you can’t have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat?

  3. As de Rugy has noted elsewhere, assuming full sequestration cuts (which isn’t going to happen if the GOP and Obama get their way), we’d go all the way back to 2007 levels of funding for the Pentagon.

    And as we all know, America had only the best military in the world in 2007. We must demand better than that!

  4. I’m Popeye the Sailor Man / Popeye the Sailor Man / I’m strong to the finich, cause I eats me spinach / I’m Popeye the Sailor Man! I’m one tough gazookus, which hates all palookas / but takes on the up and square / I biffs ’em and boffs ’em , and always out-ruffs ’em / but none of them gets nowhere! / If anyone messes to risk, me fisk / It’s bop and it’s wham, understand? / So keep good behavior, I’m Popeye the Sailor Man / Popeye the Sailor Man / I’m strong to the finich, cause I eats me spinach / I’m Popeye the Swab-Wailor Man!

  5. defense is where a huge pot of money is and is traditionally the part of the budget that can be cut relatively effectively.

    That may once have been true, but now the DoD budget is a vast welfare program and re-election slush fund, so good luck getting any cuts.

    1. Yes. Funny how large concentrations of government money tend to do that.

  6. Politically it’s way safer to push the punishments and restrictions onto people who are less sympathetic and less attuned to the debate. Thus avoiding any additional commercials depicting Paul Ryan catapulting seniors from their wheelchairs off a cliff.

    Why push pain onto cranky and entitled seniors when you can give them goodies and pile the pain onto a diffuse group that’s not really paying attention right now?

    Since the proposal is more likely to work as a symbol than an actual policy, they decided to make a halfway decent policy that excessively guards against any impression that the youngest House budgetmaker hates old people.

  7. Britain Deserves Better

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.