Over at Investors Business Daily, the essential John Merline puts the Paul Ryan/GOP budget plan—the one being castigated as the second coming of Herod's babykilling hit squad and worse by spendthrift critics—into the awful perspective it deserves.
When expressed in terms of percentage of GDP (far right), Ryan's plan is higher than historical averages when it comes both to outlays and revenues. When stacked up against Bill Clinton's 2000 budget using constant 2005 dollars, Ryan's plan pulls in the same amount of money while spending 50 percent more.
If that's what passes for "thinly veiled social Darwinism"—President Obama's phrase—the English language is as broke as the federal treasury.
To put the dime's worth of difference between the Ryan plan and Obama's for spending over the next decade, take a look at this chart by Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy.
Total projected spending for 10 years under the Ryan/House GOP plan runs to $40 trillion. Under Obama's framework, it comes to $45 trillion. The only real difference between the two is that Ryan zeroes out spending on The Affordable Care Act.
Under the Congressional Budget Office's "alternative scenario," which is based on likely renewal of certain policies, historical spending patterns, and a passing engagement with reality that is largely missing from legislative and executive branch budget plans, we'll spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years.