WASHINGTON — Paul Ryan, a six-term Republican congressman from Wisconsin who is the ranking minority member of the House Budget Committee, has yanked himself from obscurity by doing something no one else in Congress or apparently the White House has done: design a specific plan to control long-term government spending and budget deficits. That he stands virtually alone is a damning commentary on our politics.
Many public policy problems are genuinely hard. How to guarantee job creation? Provide financial stability? Improve inner-city schools? There are no panaceas. By contrast, solutions to the long-term budget imbalance are obvious: cut spending or raise taxes. Given the predictable retirement of baby boomers, it was no secret that promised government benefits would overwhelm the existing tax base. This problem could have been fixed.
It hasn't because our political culture is so wedded to public opinion that it can't (or won't) govern. To govern is to choose, and our leaders recoil from unpopular choices. Americans want generous benefits and low taxes, so that's what the system — led by either Democrats or Republicans — provides.
President Barack Obama continues this tradition. His administration's long-term budget projections show skyrocketing debt. In 2008, federal debt held by the public equaled 40 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). The administration has it rising to 77 percent of GDP in 2020, 99 percent in 2030 and 218 percent in 2050.
In reality, not choosing is a choice: to govern by crisis. Someday, the debt and associated interest payments (projected at $840 billion in 2020, a seventh of federal spending) may trigger a financial backlash. Lenders won't lend or will demand much higher rates. Congress would then be forced to cut benefits or raise taxes. The unstated hope is that the crisis occurs on someone else's watch.
Ryan rejects this consensus. He would make choices now. Here are some features of his plan:
Social Security: For those 55 or older today, the program would remain unchanged. For those younger, benefits would be reduced — with no cuts for the poorest workers. Workers 55 or younger in 2011 could establish individual investment accounts that would be funded with part of their payroll taxes. Government would guarantee a return equal to inflation.
- It's déjà vu all over again with...
- Robert Bennett: How I came to write a weekly...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: The pros and...
- Kathleen Parker: Obnoxious attempt to...
- George F. Will: A liberal squeeze play to...
- Readers' forum: 'Obamacares'
- Would repossessing federal lands help fund...
- John Florez: Let's make education's Common...
- Letter: Lee's financial bungle reflects...
37 - Letter: Obama throws a curveball
31 - It's déjà vu all over again...
31 - Thomas Sowell: Raising taxes on rich...
26 - Letter: Age really matters regarding...
21 - Obama and Romney should speak truth on...
21 - Kathleen Parker: Obnoxious attempt to...
18 - Readers' forum: 'Obamacares'
17






DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
— About comments