Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
|
The article projects that Ryan's plan would raise the average taxpayers bill by $2160 IF ALL THE DEDUCTIONS for the average taxpayer were eliminated, which the author says "admittedly, this is an extreme scenario."
Instead, he says, if that were not done to make the plan revenue neutral, cuts would have to be made from federal discretionary spending such as transportation (25%), assistance to poor (16%), education and social services (33%), and all the other government services except protected expenditures. This would not be a tax hike, but a "jump in the amount of money taxpayers would have to spend to educate their children, fix their cars, deal with e.coli outbreaks, and handle all of the other services that the federal government would no longer provide"(which is a strange jump from cutting services to no longer providing them). Most of these "services" are not granted in the Constitution for the central government to provide. Constitutionally, they are State, local, and individual responsibilites.
The author talks about how Ryan's plan projected to current level of medicare coverage would have cost the average person an extra $64 per month in premiums. Except that under Ryan's plan, there would be bidding for insurance coverage which he projects would lower cost of coverage compared to today's cost, so would actually save money, not raise premiums.
The article is typical static scoring that projects on the basis of the status quo. Costs remaining the same and the Federal Government maintaining the responsibility of "all those government services." It doesn't account for the shrinking costs for such "services" being provided by local treasuries rather than the big federal pockets, and the ensuing necessity to tighten cost controls (or loosen them in States like California which prefers to spend as wildly as the feds).
In effect, Ryan-like plans, which cut federal services, devolve power from central government to local government, which is the real, ultimate goal (vector).