• Comment (6)

Paul Ryan Leads the GOP with 'Path to Prosperity'

March 20, 2012 RSS Feed Print

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled Tuesday a budget for the federal government that puts America back on a "Path to Prosperity."

The Ryan budget is a blueprint for reform of the U.S. federal government, proposing changes in everything from Medicare to the United States Department of Defense. It caps discretionary spending on education, transportation, and other government programs at $1.029 trillion—which is about $18 billion less than the White House is seeking in President Barack Obama's budget for the coming year.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]

There will be those who say the cuts Ryan is seeking are "draconian," calling them "catastrophic"—which is how Democrats describe anything that is not a cut in the defense budget—but the current economic reality is such that the United States cannot keep spending at the rate has under Obama, to the point where the government's debt is just about equal to one year's GDP.

Among the highlights are a proposed reduction of the six current rates at which personal income is taxed down to just two—10 percent and 25 percent. If enacted, that alone should be enough to get the engine of the American economy going again at full speed, creating jobs and bringing the nation back from the edge of a financial abyss.

But the Ryan budget does more. It seeks to keep tax revenues roughly where they have been since end of World War II as a percent of GDP—at just about 18 percent. The Obama budget, on the other hand, wants the government to take more than a fifth of the value of the goods and services produced here in the United States every year. It also eliminates the so-called Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT, that was originally designed to keep millions and billionaires from avoiding paying any tax and now ensnares millions of middle-class Americans—or would if Congress didn't pass an patch to that tax each year—and lowers the tax rate on the majority of small business profits to 25 percent. 

[Read the U.S. News debate: Is Obama's Corporate Tax Plan A Good Idea?]

It also lowers the federal income tax rate on larger corporate employers from 35 percent and cuts it to 25 percent, the average among the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations.

A lower corporate tax rate more in line with what is levied in the rest of the world would help restore America's competitiveness in the world market. Ryan's initiative won applause from the leaders of the bipartisan Reforming America's Taxes Equitably Coalition, which advocates for such a change to the U.S. tax code.

"On April 1, the United States will have the dubious distinction as the world 'leader' with the highest corporate tax rate at 35 percent," the coalition's cochair Jim Pinkerton said. The Ryan proposal "would level the playing field for the U.S. economy and allow American businesses to invest and keep jobs in the United States."

[See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]

"Lowering the corporate income tax provides a real opportunity for bipartisan cooperation on an issue that is critical to the competitiveness of our economy.  Following a similar proposal in President Obama's State of the Union, we hope that an agreement can be reached—even in an election year," said Elaine Kamarck, the coalition's cochair and a former member of the Clinton-Gore administration.

The Ryan budget still leaves some important questions on the table but, in the main, it is a positive step forward toward a balance budget, which by some estimates should be reached in about a generation. There are those, however, who want to see it reached much faster and are backing an approach spearheaded by Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky's and Utah's Mike Lee that would get the budget in balance in a decade.

[Check out the U.S. News Economic Intelligence blog.]

These groups, which include Freedom Works, Tea Party Patriots, and Let Freedom Ring (where I am a senior fellow), are asking for a budget that balances quickly and doesn't raise taxes. "We believe that no budget that fails to meet these two standards can reasonably call itself conservative.  At kitchen tables across America, families are making tough choices as they balance their own budgets. The very least Washington can do is to do the same," they said in a letter recently sent to Capitol Hill.

Either way, the GOP approach to the issue—to present a budget that balances—is in sharp contrast to Obama's latest, which never balances. Never. Not in a decade. Not in a generation. Not ever. And in an election year that's a pretty salient point.

Tags:
Mike Lee,
Paul Ryan,
deficit and national debt,
federal budget,
Obama administration,
Rand Paul,
Republican Party

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Bill Hedges of MO:

What is sad about you calling President Obama, "buma" is that if you ever met up with President Obama, he would give you total respect as a citizen of the U.S.A., and shake your hand, never knowing your disrespectful attitude toward his chance at the Presidency, in spite of 60% of the population voting for him. He did not have wealthy beginnings, and had a many tough times in his youth. Nevertheless, he managed to become a Senator and a President. He was (and is) a good student and a kind and generous man, as many of his friends in from high school and college would tell you, and he has the respect of many countries in this World because he is treating leaders and their statesmen with dignity.

Judging by the disrespectful way you call other commentors uncivil, discourteous, and insolent names, merely because they disagree with you, indicates that you may not be respected by many of those whom you insult, and you are not respecting your own potential for dignity.

I cannot help but notice that, in spite of your disrespectful language, how many commentors actually insult you with name-calling? I have, personally, not read one person's comment who has called you an insulting name. What is up with you? We can disagree without referring to others insultingly, and without name-calling of your fellow commentors.

ann keenan of MI 12:05AM March 31, 2012

Yes friend Hedges, the Senate is supposed to take up bills passed by the House. (Pelosi House passed a slew of bills that sat in the Senate and died. This is a bi-partisan failure.) When will the House pass a budget bill the Senate will even consider? If the Dems did roll over and submit, you'd just call them a party of no principles. It's time for serious folks to advance serious proposals, not proposals that are already doom for failure. The only difference between us friend Hedges is I blame both parties, you just blame Dems. This is a bi-partisan failure. A pox on both parties.

bing of AL 7:28PM March 22, 2012

path to prosperity ? it;s only a path to prosperity if your one of the people who;s on the upper rungs of the economic ladder.

the lad from janesville is once again bringing out this clunker,after slapping a different nameplate on it.

to cut to the chase.it;s just another assult on lower and middle class people.

bruce b of NV 4:28PM March 21, 2012

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

JFK's Virtuoso Turn at the Bully Pulpit

Kennedy presented a radical idea: Peaceful coexistence.

Mary Kate Cary

A Democracy in Crisis

Can the country long survive an ever-growing government?

Latest Videos

advertisement