Seeking Alpha

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan calls his latest budget proposal "an invitation to the...

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan calls his latest budget proposal "an invitation to the president of the United States, to the Senate Democrats to come together to fix these problems." Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen says it's a "total uncompromising" blueprint and dead on arrival. Hollen adds a warning to the markets as well, noting that despite the healthy performance of stocks recently, the impact from another stalemate will likely reverse those gains very quickly.
Comments (137)
  • Paul Ryan think he won the election
    12 Mar 2013, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • Chris Van Hollen is a real piece of work... Master of the markets.
    12 Mar 2013, 09:05 PM Reply Like
  • The Republicans are just supporting their top priority: making sure Obama doesn't get a third term.
    12 Mar 2013, 09:16 PM Reply Like
  • Here's the actual budget document. It's much higher level than I would have expected...very light on details....

    12 Mar 2013, 09:33 PM Reply Like
  • Last time I checked, the Republicans won the House of Representatives in last year's election.
    12 Mar 2013, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • "An invitation to the President", what a joke when he wants to totally defund the Health Care Act while knowing that will not happen while Obama is president. We just had an election that, at front and center, was this same issue. He lost, get over it or I guess it will be the same old stuff that will continue to be a negative for equities as no compromise will be done if he maintains his stance.


    Lets start whittling away at their benefits before you start trying to convince the people of this country that we need to have "an adult conversation" on how they want to go back to status quo where health care is 18% of our GDP. SOLVE the problems, both sides!
    12 Mar 2013, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • Dunno bout you, but I'm already seeing increases in health care cost. They've also banned me from using a high deductible. And the bait and switch shell game with pools will only intensify.


    It is entirely possible we will have both more uninsured and less supply eith higher prices. That always happens when someone tries to micromanage a large and complex system that is non- linear, chaotic (in the math sense), and driven by group psychology. Always.
    12 Mar 2013, 10:42 PM Reply Like
  • just guessing here but methinks "the plan" is to keep Social Security intact "however ridiculous it sounds."
    13 Mar 2013, 04:42 AM Reply Like
  • Just put everyone on Medicare. Get US employers out of the health care business. Allow non deductible private insurance if someone wants to pay for it but have everyone pay for Medicare. Forget exchanges for low cost insurance that won't pay for anything.
    13 Mar 2013, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • I agree that's the right thing to do - Medicare for all. We will get there.
    13 Mar 2013, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • That sounds like the Canadian plan. Talk to Canadian folks to find out about how atrocious a system it is, and imagine how atrocious the US system will become. One may have to wait in line for months to see a specialist if nothing is life threatening.
    13 Mar 2013, 05:48 PM Reply Like
  • > One may have to wait in line for months to see a specialist if
    > nothing is life threatening.


    That's how most HMOs in the U.S. work today -- plus they ALSO charge you an exorbitant rate on top of the horrible wait time.


    At least the Canadian model is cheaper. :-)
    13 Mar 2013, 05:55 PM Reply Like
  • Re:"...At least the Canadian model is cheaper. :-)..."; this is a broad statement. One has to substantiate it with a scholarly and up-to-date comparison of the Canadian and US tax rates/systems, at the three levels, individual and corporate-wise, plus other local taxes, excise, customs, fees, etc., and don't forget they have a Value-Added Tax (VAT) too.
    13 Mar 2013, 06:08 PM Reply Like
  • > Re:"...At least the Canadian model is cheaper. :-)..."; this is a
    > broad statement. One has to substantiate it with a scholarly and
    > up-to-date comparison of the [blah blah blah]


    Yet all /you/ have to do is "talk to Canadian folks" and issue conjecture? Seems a bit unbalanced. I'd like to see your scholarly and up-to-date comparisons, please. :-)


    For my part, how about this as a start


    Your turn.
    13 Mar 2013, 06:13 PM Reply Like
  • Why would you want to see a specialist ASAP if nothing is life threatening?
    13 Mar 2013, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • Do the poor get free medical care in Canada? That would be against Paul Ryan's values.
    13 Mar 2013, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • Nobody should get free medical care.
    13 Mar 2013, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • Seriously ? How do you know what is or isn't life threatening if you don't go to a specialist ?


    I lived in Canada for years - taxes are super high, free medical care was great for the kids' sniffles but terrible for serious issues.... which had to get fixed in the U.S.


    Friends with heart attacks are stabilized and sent home rather than fixed.
    13 Mar 2013, 08:22 PM Reply Like
  • Just let the poor die? Put Congress on Medicare and things will be faster.
    13 Mar 2013, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • Mike, Do you have parents on Medicare? Can you ask them if they like it?
    13 Mar 2013, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • After you pay the co-insurance Medicare is great - but then again it isn't covering the whole nation..... it's only about 16% of the population, what's your point MI ?
    13 Mar 2013, 10:12 PM Reply Like
  • If it is great, why not give it to the whole nation?
    13 Mar 2013, 11:56 PM Reply Like
  • MI - lots of things are great... you buying?


    your comments are getting silly
    14 Mar 2013, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • Macro :"Do the poor get free medical care in Canada? That would be against Paul Ryan's values. "


    So now you are spreading more lies? Can't make you point without them?
    14 Mar 2013, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • "Nobody should get free medical care. "


    You never paid so much for something until it was free!
    14 Mar 2013, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • The Canadian system is "cheaper" because you get less care. Look at cancer survival rates and waits for diagnostic tests if you don't believe that they give less care in Canada.
    14 Mar 2013, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • Mike, It is telling that you think giving Medicare to all Americans is a silly notion. Most developed nations have that already.
    14 Mar 2013, 01:13 PM Reply Like
  • Pen, Don't blame me, I am just quoting Ryan. He said that his budget reflects his values, which includes massive cuts to Medicaid.
    14 Mar 2013, 01:15 PM Reply Like
  • Pen,


    "Much of the appeal of the Canadian system is that it seems to do more for less. Canada provides universal access to health care for its citizens, while nearly one in five non-elderly Americans is uninsured. Canada spends far less of its GDP on health care (10.4 percent, ver-sus 16 percent in the U.S.) yet performs better than the U.S. on two commonly cited health outcome measures, the infant mortality rate and life expectancy."

    14 Mar 2013, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • No Macro, you are NOT just quoting Ryan. Distorting and quoting are not the same thing.
    14 Mar 2013, 01:39 PM Reply Like
  • Yep, Macro, government medicine types often like to quote those 2 statistics but they really don't reflect the state of the medical system. Cancer survival rates and waiting times for diagnostic tests however DO reflect the quality of the medical system, and the US beats Canada hands down. So too do we beat the Canadian system on access to the latest drugs and treatments. For that matter the US market is the DRIVER in medical inovation, but drugs and procedures.
    14 Mar 2013, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • Got it Pen, infant mortality and overall life expectancy are not the key indicators of the health of a nation - waiting times are.
    14 Mar 2013, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • Pen, Which part of my post about Ryan do you dispute?
    14 Mar 2013, 03:09 PM Reply Like
  • Infant mortality and overall life expectancy are effected by many factors and the quality of the healthcare system is the last in line to effect them. Thus they are not good indicators of the quality.


    Cancer survival rates however are impacted by many different aspects of a healthcare system and thus are good indicators of quality. And yes, waiting times ARE a good indicator, or do you think indicators of service are not important? The fact is that Canada controls costs in part by waiting long enough so that some people DIE before treatment.
    14 Mar 2013, 03:18 PM Reply Like
  • It would be simpler to answer which part I agree with, and you did get his name right.
    14 Mar 2013, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • " Infant mortality and overall life expectancy are effected by many factors and the quality of the healthcare system is the last in line to effect them. Thus they are not good indicators of the quality."


    Of course. that's why medical professionals everywhere use those two metrics as the right ones.


    "Cancer survival rates however are impacted by many different aspects of a healthcare system and thus are good indicators of quality. And yes, waiting times ARE a good indicator, or do you think indicators of service are not important? The fact is that Canada controls costs in part by waiting long enough so that some people DIE before treatment. "


    That must be why overall life expectancy is higher in Canada, all those people dying while waiting to treatment. Reality is, if you have a life threatening situation you get first priority in Canada.
    14 Mar 2013, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • Only if you have the money to come to the US and get care. Like for instance the PM of Newfoundland who came to the US to get care.
    14 Mar 2013, 03:29 PM Reply Like
  • Life expectancy is primarily drive by diet and exercise, not quality of medical care. Infant mortality is primarily driven by culture and economic status of the mother prior to birth and NOT quality of medical care. And its also grossly distorted by differing measures of what exactly IS infant mortality AND by the fact that the US goes to great lengths to try and save underweight and premature babies that many other countries list as still-born.
    14 Mar 2013, 03:33 PM Reply Like
  • Got it Pen. Canadians are doing better in life expectancy as a country because they are all coming to the USA to get treatment. Besides, any measure that shows USA is lagging Canada in healthcare is automatically suspect because we KNOW that if the Govt provides something it must be wrong.


    Say, you are a funny guy, you know? I really can't debate with someone who is going to say that all evidence to the contrary, the whole world must be lying just to make Govt run healthcare look good.


    This is the problem with trying to engage in a rational debate with the far right.
    14 Mar 2013, 03:40 PM Reply Like
  • All evidence to the contrary? You presented no real evidence, there are studies that show what I am talking about, there is even an Ontario Supreme Court case that backs up my point on wait times in Canada.
    14 Mar 2013, 03:52 PM Reply Like
  • Pen, Wait times are not the marker of good health care. Life expectancy is, and the whole world is aligned on that. Except the far right, of course.
    14 Mar 2013, 03:54 PM Reply Like
  • MI - you can only get what you can afford in the real world so do you think the US can afford Medicare style healthcare for everyone ?
    14 Mar 2013, 03:56 PM Reply Like
  • Macro: "Wait times are not the marker of good health care." So you claim that waiting a long time to get tests, so that you can then wait a long time to get medical procedures doesn't indicate the quality of a healthcare system? Such a silly assertion.
    14 Mar 2013, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • <sigh> Okay, here are some facts Macro.



    "The authors begin by examining the evidence on health outcomes. They note that the infant mortality rate and life expectancy are affected by many factors other than the health care system. For example, low birthweight-a phenomenon known to be related to substance abuse and smoking-is more common in the U.S. For babies in the same birthweight range, infant mortality rates in the two countries are similar. In fact, if Canada had the same proportion of low birthweight babies as the U.S., the authors project that it would have a slightly higher infant mortality rate. Thus, the authors conclude that differences in infant mortality have more to do with differences in behavior than with the health care systems."


    As for the equitable distribution of health outcomes:
    "Finally, the authors examine whether Canada has a more equitable distribution of health outcomes, as might be expected in a single-payer system with universal coverage. To do so, they estimate the correlation across individuals in their personal income and personal health status and compare this for the two countries. Surprisingly, they find that the health-income gradient is actually more prominent in Canada than in the U.S."
    14 Mar 2013, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • I need my hung toenail looked at right now! Otherwise the healthcare system must be falling apart.


    As for the other post, I know all the excuses about healthcare equivalency between USA and China. Fact is, we have a market test right here in the USA. Seniors love Medicare, which - gasp! - is Govt run.


    It works rather well.
    14 Mar 2013, 04:56 PM Reply Like
  • Um, no not exactly AND doctors are increasingly not taking new patients!
    14 Mar 2013, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • And of course Macro, gotta love liberals who refuse to see anything but what they suppose to be true. Why don't you go back and invest in your ultra-safe triple leveraged funds.
    14 Mar 2013, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • Penn, Are you sad that Obamacare is now the law? Paul Ryan is.
    14 Mar 2013, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • Most Americans are sad that Obamacare is the law.
    14 Mar 2013, 07:13 PM Reply Like
  • Most meaning the royal most?
    14 Mar 2013, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • No, most meaning a MAJORITY. Obamacare has NEVER been popular and its more unpopular than ever. Even some of its supporters now want relief from its provisions.
    14 Mar 2013, 07:18 PM Reply Like
  • Pen, You are a funny guy. Say, did you hear that on a far right wing talk show or did you just make it up?
    14 Mar 2013, 07:44 PM Reply Like
  • Yeah, the Washington Post is such a right wing rag!
    15 Mar 2013, 06:44 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia:


    Sorry for the delay in responding.


    Your link tells a story of the US health care system being more expensive. But it does not answer our question of whether your statement: "...the Canadian system is cheaper...".


    I researched more at this link that shows a detailed description of the Canadian system at


    Scroll down to the bottom, a table shows that the as a % of expenditure paid by governments, US paid 45.5% into its healthcare system, versus the Canadian paying a whopping 69.8%!!!


    Of course, one has to take into account of the vastly difference of the two countries. Canada was brought up in the Victorian era and has few blacks in its demographics, vastly different approach in immigration policies, banking, and that there are no private Canadian colleges, only provincial to the point that they foot the bill (in the US even a 'State' U like the University of Michigan only nominally receives a grant of $500M from MI). Canadians in general pay higher taxes at all 3 levels, plus numerous fees, and VAT's.


    And so, respectfully, after this research, I am still UNABLE to determine if your statement "the Canadian system is CHEAPER" is indeed, valid.


    Your turn, sir/madam
    16 Mar 2013, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • MI:


    There are many occasions when one seeks to see a specialist in less than life-threatening situations. Case in point, a woman suspects some ailment developing with some symptoms and would like to consult a specialist. A guy developing some hearing loss would like to find out what is going on. The Canadian system acts like that rationing line up ticket at your US postal service, take a token and start waiting. Very frustrating because when that appointment date months ahead is approaching you might find that you could not make the appointment, and you go back to the end of the queue!


    You want that? Huh?
    16 Mar 2013, 07:31 PM Reply Like
  • I wouldn't mind as I make my appointments. I also do not believe that I am special, and I am perfectly happy to wait my turn. Instant gratification was never an issue with me. Has served me very well in life.
    17 Mar 2013, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • Says the guy who experiences wait times as they are in the US and not as they are in Canada.
    17 Mar 2013, 03:25 PM Reply Like
  • I am sure you live in Canada, Pen?
    17 Mar 2013, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • My wife has lots of Canadian relatives and one of my employees lived in Canada before coming to work for me.One thing that amazed him here was that he had a CHOICE of doctors.
    17 Mar 2013, 04:31 PM Reply Like
  • So you have no experience with wait times in Canada.


    17 Mar 2013, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • I know what the wait times are both by the results of various studies and accounts of people who have experienced them. But then I am sure there are no facts that will dissuade you from your belief that everything is rainbows and unicorns in the Canadian medical system.
    17 Mar 2013, 07:10 PM Reply Like
  • Teutonic: Like most Americans, you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to the Canadian health care system. I am a Canadian and recently needed to see a neurologist and the wait time was a seven working days. I needed an MRI and that was a two week wait. My medical issue is not even close to being life threatening. I can see my family doctor on a same day basis if the problem is urgent with a wait of less than four days for routine appointments. Bills to me personally total $0.


    No one in Canada ever goes into debt because of a needed operation. Those who want quicker access to medical care and have the money to do so, can go to the U.S. where the rich do receive preferential care.
    17 Mar 2013, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • Re: "...go to the U.S. where the rich do receive preferential care...".


    Absolutely, an American would brag about his or her Ivy-educated, whereas in Canada supposedly with no Ivy League Colleges (beside the hidden 4), and they often frown upon those who brag having gone to those 4.


    Everybody is equal in a self-style self-righteous socialist utopia!


    Really? Pierre Trudeau, Robert Stanfield, and William Lyon Mackenzie King all got their M.A. from Harvard, as did Paul Martin with his M.A. from Princeton.


    Talk about the rich and powerful getting special treatment in the USA!
    17 Mar 2013, 08:06 PM Reply Like
  • "everything is rainbows and unicorns in the Canadian medical system. "


    Not at all.
    17 Mar 2013, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • Eagle, the whole premise of these right wing extremists is that they want to preserve preferential treatment for the rich. I prefer it too, for non-essentials. For something essential like education and health, I abhor preferential treatment for the rich.


    Just for the record, I attended two Ivy Leagues and would definitely be considered as rich in the USA. (I am an US citizen.) So no class envy here. Just plain decency.
    17 Mar 2013, 10:42 PM Reply Like
  • Clearly MI you didn't look at the study I presented a link to. In the USA you get better medical treatment and it is also more equitably distributed as well (well slightly).


    And, yes, its so much better if everyone is equally miserable!
    18 Mar 2013, 11:06 AM Reply Like
  • Given that before Obamacare 49 million Americans had no health insurance tells me that your study on equitable healthcare in the USA is ... OK, you can put in the right negative epithet here.
    18 Mar 2013, 11:10 AM Reply Like
  • Well, first that number is highly debatable, and second it isn't particularly relevant to healthcare, as MOST of those people had no insurance because it was too expensive given their good health (a problem made worse by Obamacare btw).


    But then you didn't really look at the study because you don't want any actual facts, cause you know it all already.
    18 Mar 2013, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • Pen, I am fairly well informed on matters of healthcare in particular and social safety nets in general. I also know that debating with you on the virtues of social safety nets is futile, as you do not want any. So why don't I quit, and you reminisce about the fact that Obamacare is the law?
    18 Mar 2013, 11:26 AM Reply Like
  • And MI pulls out yet another strawman. Can you actually debate without distorting people's positions? Or even just making them up out of whole cloth?
    18 Mar 2013, 11:33 AM Reply Like
  • There is no debate. Obamacare is the law. In another 30 years there will be Medicare for all. You need to deal with it Pen.
    18 Mar 2013, 11:34 AM Reply Like
  • And there you go again.
    18 Mar 2013, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • You are still not dealing with it Pen.
    18 Mar 2013, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • MI,


    I am certainly dealing with the fact that Obamacare has done nothing to help me. It has made my own health insurance more expensive with no real additional benefits. It has pushed up my taxes, again with no real benefit. And it will make goods and services that I depend on more expensive.


    So its not ME who isn't dealing with it.
    18 Mar 2013, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • Me, me, me.


    It's all about you, right Pen?
    18 Mar 2013, 01:18 PM Reply Like
  • And the millions of people just like me.
    18 Mar 2013, 02:34 PM Reply Like
  • Of course, the millions of people who are not like you, who do not have health insurance or have very poor coverage health insurance, their welfare doesn't matter.


    Me, me, me!
    18 Mar 2013, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • The millions of people who work for medical device manufacturers, depend on medical devices, who work for lower paying jobs whose hours will be cut (or whose jobs will go away), the folks who work or might work in small businesses who won't have a job, or who will get lower wages and the millions of retirees and other investors who have the taxes increased, and the many others who have had their taxes (or will have) increased because of Obamacare. All for benefits that are less than was promised if they got any benefits at all from the law.
    18 Mar 2013, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • Oh, MI, there you go again. Woe is the poor, unwashed masses... Nothing is stopping those w/o health insurance or with sub-standard coverage from getting it / better coverage on their own dime. They might be required to WORK for it, maybe even needing to have 2 or 3 jobs...


    Stop taxing me more and more because people are too damn lazy to get a job.
    18 Mar 2013, 02:53 PM Reply Like
  • Right. Obamacare would ruin USA as we know it, though the same thing in the form of Romneycare improved the economy of Massachusetts.
    18 Mar 2013, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • You might want to look at how it worked in MA, and that was with the federal government subsidizing it too.
    18 Mar 2013, 02:58 PM Reply Like
  • I did. It worked very well. Of course the Federal govt has to subsidize social safety nets. That's why they are called _social_ safety nets as opposed to _private_ safety nets. So what's your point?
    18 Mar 2013, 03:00 PM Reply Like
  • So you think that MA has a good insurance market? Hmm, well they covered fewer people than they planned, it cost the state, the feds and companies far more than they planned, lots of insurance companies left the market and the state had to consider (not sure if they did it or not) freezing all rates. But then if you start from the premise that all goverment actions are good and work, I guess it worked.
    18 Mar 2013, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • I presume you live in Massachusetts too, as you do in Canada?
    18 Mar 2013, 03:27 PM Reply Like
  • Macro Investor :"I presume you live in Massachusetts too, as you do in Canada? " That's the best you got?
    18 Mar 2013, 03:40 PM Reply Like
  • No, but why waste the better stuff on you?
    18 Mar 2013, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • Oh, come one MI, your retorts should at least rise to the level of "Your mother was a hamster ..."
    18 Mar 2013, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • Pen, Is there any social safety net you like that benefits people poorer than you?
    18 Mar 2013, 05:02 PM Reply Like
  • Because clearly if I don't like Obamacare I must hate poor people?
    18 Mar 2013, 05:50 PM Reply Like
  • The House will pass a budget like it has for the last 3 years, that budget will not become law. If the Senate passes a budget, a big if, since they haven't in 3 years, the Senate budget and House budget will go to committee where a compromise budget bill will be hammered out and voted on by both Houses. That is the way the process works, so I don't see why everyone is bent out of shape. The Republicans have a budget they feel matches their values, what did everyone expect, the Republicans create a budget that the Democrats love. This is a process, lets wait to see what of anything gets sent to the President.
    12 Mar 2013, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • "Bent out of shape". For 4 years nothing has been done on a bi-partisan basis and if you are an investor, what do you think about Aug 2011 where the US got a downgrade and a massive sell off immediately occurs. We pay these folks to get the job done and they have failed miserably. Tht is why I am bent out of shape as I expect results that benefit this country. You apparently have much lower expectations than I and perhaps that is the problem.
    12 Mar 2013, 08:34 PM Reply Like
  • What do you think the Republicans should have done, created a budget the Democrats would have fallen over themselves to approve. I don't think that is what their constituents sent them to Washington to do. They were elected too and they have a right to advocate what they believe in.


    If the Democrat controlled Senate passes a budget, which they haven't done, then the process can play itself out and we will have a bi-partisan budget. If you want to know why nothing has gotten done in Washington, look at the Senate, not the House.


    My bent out of shape comment referred to being upset over Ryan's budget, it is not becoming law, as Ryan said, this is the first step. Now if the Democrats pass a budget, the negotiating can begin.
    12 Mar 2013, 08:47 PM Reply Like
  • This is Washington right? If Ryan said cut all loopholes like Boehner did the dems would still not be happy. It's about politics and destroying your opponent for the power ... And yes the repubs do it too.
    12 Mar 2013, 09:10 PM Reply Like
  • > Democrat controlled Senate


    Also known as the Republican fillibustered Senate.


    Just sayin.... :-)
    12 Mar 2013, 09:12 PM Reply Like
  • > What do you think the Republicans should have done,
    > created a budget the Democrats would have fallen over
    > themselves to approve. I don't think that is what their
    > constituents sent them to Washington to do.


    Indeed, most of their constituents do support something along the lines of Obama's approach:


    Regardless, I'm sure that their constituents didn't intend for them to completely obstruct the normal business of the government until they get more spending cuts and tax cuts...
    12 Mar 2013, 09:15 PM Reply Like
  • yep and ten years ago it was the reverse.... around and around we go.
    12 Mar 2013, 09:20 PM Reply Like
  • If a bill passes the House, how is that obstructing the normal business of Washington?


    This is the start of negotiating, you don't give anything away in your first salvo.


    As for your remark concerning Republican filibusters, filibusters did not prevent a Senate budget, the Democrats not drafting one stopped the creation of a budget. Could it be they don't want to make any of the hard choices needed, the spending cuts or the tax increases. Could it be they prefer the Republicans draft a bill and then criticize what the Republicans have put their name to. It is easier to criticize the other guy than come up with a solution yourself. Let' wait and see what the Democrats come up with, they will have to sign on to more taxes or cuts, what will it be. Let's also wait to see what Senate Republican participation they allow, my guess is none.
    12 Mar 2013, 09:41 PM Reply Like
  • The stock market is up big over the last 4 years. Seems to me, gridlock has served investors well.
    12 Mar 2013, 10:03 PM Reply Like
  • Regardless, I'm sure that their constituents didn't intend for them to completely obstruct the normal business of the government until they get more spending cuts and tax cuts...


    Ah, geeze I'm trying hard to remember my civics classes....... Lets see - President submits a budget..... (hasn't happened this year)...... House passes a budget (seems they are working on it)...... Senate passes a budget...... goes to a process of reconcilliation..... budget back to the House for a vote..... then over to the Senate..... then over to the President for his signature.


    Is that the normal process your referring to? The one that has died in the Senate each year for the past three?


    So the President can now ignore the law and not submit a budget - and at the same time he tells various departments to not enforce laws (in regards to illegal immigrants). Hmmm. You know its this type of behavior we used to refer to as outlandish when brandishing countries as Banana Republics and lecture said country about the importance of institutions and judicial integrity, etc, etc.


    How times have changed.
    12 Mar 2013, 10:23 PM Reply Like
  • Per the Constitution the bill must originate in the House. Sheez. It's just a free for all mud wrestling match and nobody respects any limitations of civilization. All power and violence.
    12 Mar 2013, 10:48 PM Reply Like
  • It gets worse.... the only way to fund the government is to then pass smaller appropriation bills which then can be earmarked with all sorts of goodies over a long period of time and you could probably squeeze in some other government mandates.


    So in essence you buy cooperation (and budget expenditures) with earmarks and you don't have to deal with folks reading the budget or critiquing those expenditures.


    So not passing a budget is a strategy to pass some earmarks, frivolous expenditures, and bills that wouldn't stand on their own.
    12 Mar 2013, 10:54 PM Reply Like
  • Budget, smudget. Show me a recipe for growth in excess of collapsing credit and I'll start paying attention to the fraudsters in D.C.
    12 Mar 2013, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • Paul Ryan has done far more to keep Democrats in power than anyone else. Don't knock him. It is because of Republicans like him that the Democrats will keep winning national elections. He completely refuses to listen to the public-at-large, which I think is really good for Democrats.
    12 Mar 2013, 09:13 PM Reply Like
  • From the article:


    > The budget's goal would be to eliminate all but two income tax
    > brackets, one at 10 percent and the other at 25 percent


    And I'm sure Mitt Romney's will be the 10 percent bracket. :-)


    > Still, Ryan defended the generally unflinching conservatism of his
    > budget. "That means we surrender our principles? That means
    > we stop believing in what we believe in?"


    Perhaps Mr. Ryan would do well to note the difference between "surrender" and "compromise"?


    > The tax cuts would be financed by closing loopholes and
    > deductions in the tax code.


    Does he say *what* loopholes and deductions would be closed?? I suspect some very fuzzy math is involved here...
    12 Mar 2013, 09:26 PM Reply Like
  • To answer my own question, now that I've looked at the document, no, there is no mention of what loopholes to close or what deductions to eliminate.



    In fact, the only "loophole" ever mentioned is this one:
    "Close the loophole that allows discretionary spending limits to be circumvented through advance appropriations"


    And while this might be a noble goal, it is hilarious that one of the primary ways that this budget is expected to stay revenue-neutral is *never even discussed*.


    Faith-based economics? :-)
    12 Mar 2013, 09:37 PM Reply Like
  • Here goes the budget boy again now; he must have been taking a moonlight job at the 'Country Club' as their page boy of late taking orders again.
    12 Mar 2013, 09:31 PM Reply Like
  • And to all of this criticism, the alternative? Oh, that's right, it's coming . . . so we're told.
    12 Mar 2013, 09:52 PM Reply Like
  • You all crack me up. There are no real cuts in anyone's budget, only a slowing of the increase in spending. Even with the sequester, the 2013 budget is still larger than the 2012 budget. Even with the Ryan budget, this country will continue borrowing for another ten years. You all need to stop drinking the kool aid. This is not our money, it is borrowed money, that is fueling all these feel good entitlements. And the more the government does, the less individuals are likely to worry about taking care of themselves and their own.
    12 Mar 2013, 10:35 PM Reply Like
  • Thank you.


    And our President says his appointees cannot be trusted with 3% discretion in managing some small stemming of the hemmorhage.


    Flatten it where it is inflation and per capita adjusted. Put automatic adjustments on entitlements. Flatten taxes and eliminate all deductions. Set a target deficit ratio and let the economy catch up.


    We can run deficits and monetize with printing indefinitely. The world won't collapse. It's just that you are thereby putting the tax on the poor.


    Since they have no power and nobody rich seems to think fortune or grace were involved and their riches reflect "merit" I predict this is exactly what will happen.
    12 Mar 2013, 10:57 PM Reply Like
  • With all due respect to Paul Ryan. Last year he put together something fairly detailed - whether or not you agreed with it - it at least existed. This just looks like a political document.


    We need a real proposal to revamp our government and drastically improve our fiscal situation over a short period of time


    Real proposals to combine and eliminate agencies. Real proposals would include an ALTERNATIVE approach to health care - ie, identify what parts of health care will never really operate as a market (ie emergency care), and propose regulations for that market segment. Then reform hospital and non-profit pricing practices which exist for the sole purpose of negotiating with insurance companies - but them are used to hammer those at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. Throw in some reform of all non-profit organizations in terms of their tax free status and executive pay and you might start to actually impact costs. Oh, and let Medicare negotiate with Pharma companies over price. You know common sense things.


    And along those lines - how about eliminating all deductions. Zero, zilch, nothing. 3%, 10%, and 22% federal income tax rates at $0, $35K, and 125K. Capital gains at whatever your normal tax rate is. No more carried interest, no more deductions for all kinds of nonsense - just earn and pay. No government meddling in how you should be living. Want to buy an electric car be my guest. Want to have 12 kids be my guest. Want to contribute to charity be my guest.


    Then freeze federal employee pay for real - for three years - no step increases, no GS level raises, no location raises, no nothing! Re-evaluate in three years when compared to the private sector and keep the freeze if needed to at least level the pay between the private sector and those SUPPOSEDLY performing "public service".


    Revamp the military over the next 2-3 years - get out of Afghanistan - start closing overseas bases - reduce commands. Let our allies know we aren't going to police and monitor the whole world!


    If we don't do something drastic fairly soon - we'll be sitting in 10 or 20 years deciding which program we want - SS or Medicare. And those two plus the military and debt payment will comprise the entirety of the federal government!!!


    Then we could turn our attention to beginning to restore our freedoms and liberties..... before the drones start to monitor your every move (literally, between drones and the black boxes in your car - we will be tracked virtually everywhere).
    12 Mar 2013, 10:39 PM Reply Like
  • Ok Congressman Ryan I am interested in this statement from your budget:


    "Restore competition to the energy sector with the goal of energy independence".


    Does this mean eliminate ALL subsidies for ALL energy companies including oil and gas? I doubt it!


    Oh and BTW Mr. Ryan this is supposed to be a budget proposal, not a manifesto for your 2016 presidential campaign! This document is nothing but political talking point non sense.
    12 Mar 2013, 11:12 PM Reply Like
  • I call BS. The market is happy with sequester, gridlock and an impotent otherwise dangerous president. He is rightly embarrassed to have been exposed as chicken little on 5% budget cuts.
    13 Mar 2013, 12:46 AM Reply Like
  • Guys, look, we all know that the Ryan budget is not going anywhere. So don't get too excited.
    13 Mar 2013, 12:51 AM Reply Like
  • And neither is the one from Patty Murray (D) looking for a $1T in taxes.


    These things look like philosophical statements not budgets.... Dems want taxes and Repubs want spending cuts.....
    13 Mar 2013, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • And if the Senate can pass something, then we can hope that a compromise can be hammered out in committee.


    I am all for compromise, i just reject the notion that the Republican are the problem, plenty of blame to go around.
    13 Mar 2013, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • Passing something in Senate requires the leap of faith - Harry hasn't been able to pull it together for years.
    13 Mar 2013, 01:39 PM Reply Like
  • A prolonged and protracted shutdown, though painful to some but medicinal to all after all, may be the only 'solution' to force a compromise; be prepared.
    13 Mar 2013, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • I have a potential compromise that should please everyone. Repos get tax cuts, on anyone making less than $100k. Above $100k, the current tax rates remain unchanged. So Repos should be happy with their main priority, tax cuts. Dems get to spend as much as they want. You like this compromise, Larry?
    13 Mar 2013, 02:20 PM Reply Like
  • The compromise is no meaningful tax increases, and no meaningful spending cuts. It was reached years ago.


    All this "debate" in Washington is to make Republicans look like they're fiscal conservatives to their base, and make Dems look like libs to their base. They're all the same though.
    13 Mar 2013, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • Nope. ;-)


    Under that scenario I would not get a tax cut, but let me add, I don't feel over taxed, so I am fine not getting a tax cut.


    The spend as much as you want is main issue, too many people in this couintry living off the Government.. I have no problem supporting the truly needy, but too man people are feeding at the Government table.
    13 Mar 2013, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • You want a compromise or not? If you are insisting that it is only a compromise if the Repos get everything they want, then it is not much of a compromise, no?
    13 Mar 2013, 02:29 PM Reply Like
  • Macro,


    That wouldn't be a true compromise. If you said R's could cut tax rates for everyone, and D's could spend all they want, that would be compromise. You cannot give one a "blank check", then put stipulations on the other side of the compromise.
    13 Mar 2013, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • John, You are right. It is not a fair compromise. Let's do this. Republicans get to cut taxes as much as they want on people making less than $100k, and Democrats get to increase spending as much as they want on people making less than $100k. Fair deal?
    13 Mar 2013, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • Take out the $100k stipulation, and let 'er rip (both sides). This would seem more universally 'fair'. Your 'compromise' is too class war-ish.
    13 Mar 2013, 03:52 PM Reply Like
  • Come on John, we also need to be fiscally responsible. We an't have everyone pay no taxes and feed off of the Federal trough.
    13 Mar 2013, 04:26 PM Reply Like
  • We have had multiple tax increases and no real spending cuts, hardly even any slowing of spending increases. To be fiscally responsible we have to slow the growth of spending.
    14 Mar 2013, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • Is that why the budget deficit has been dropping for 3 years in a row?
    14 Mar 2013, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • Any drop in the deficit is due to the pathetically slow pace of economic improvement and tax increases, not due to any spending restraint. And it is very short term, as projected spending blows up in the next few years.
    14 Mar 2013, 09:58 AM Reply Like
  • Ah, I see. Deficit reduction only counts when it is derived from spending cuts. Why not just say it is not at all about deficit reduction then? It is all about cutting spending on the needy, isn't it?
    14 Mar 2013, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • Well, I think I said I am fine not getting a tax cut, I believe the Republicans were looking to reduce all the tax brackets down to two, the top being 25%. Which would mean a tax cut for those making over $100,000. Under your scenario only those under $100K would get a tax cut. If we forego a tax cut for those over $100K, which I am fine with, I have compromised.


    As for spending, we can take some measured small steps, that many people would not even notice, to slow down the growth of spending. Slow down the growth of spending and get some growth in the economy the deficit would be in much better shape rather quickly.
    13 Mar 2013, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • Larry, Did yo know that the deficit has been falling for the past 3 years?
    13 Mar 2013, 03:16 PM Reply Like
  • Did you know that anyone that has looked at the rate of Government spending, economist, independent Government Commissions, etc, have stated Government spending cannot continue on the current path. Put simply, there will not be enough people working to pay for everyone getting a check.
    13 Mar 2013, 03:45 PM Reply Like
  • I didn't know that. Perhaps you are talking of the far right loonie tunes here? Mainstream economists believe that now is not the time to cut spending.
    13 Mar 2013, 04:27 PM Reply Like
  • And which "main stream" economists said that? Paul Krugman?
    14 Mar 2013, 09:01 AM Reply Like
  • Well, a Nobel Laureate economist would be considered main stream, don't you think? But there are so many others. Basically anyone who is educated knows that you do not cut when the economy is going down the drain.
    14 Mar 2013, 09:26 AM Reply Like
  • I trust a man with a sweatervest and a cat.
    18 Mar 2013, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • When they did ObamaCare they should of redone the tax code with it. If they revamp and simplify the code, to really get comprise, they will throw everything into chaos again.


    A consumption tax will allow the government to control jobs, consumer spending, etc, the same way the Fed controls capital spending. It also taxes the rich far more than the poor.
    13 Mar 2013, 03:17 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)