Posts Tagged ‘ republicans ’

Republicans’ logic on the sequester

The news on our next of many fiscal crises is that the Republicans in the House do not want to make a deal to stop the sequester. The sequester, you will remember, is the law that cuts about $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years. It was enacted in 2011 in order to get Republicans to agree not to make the US default during the debt limit crisis. The sequester will deeply and indiscriminately cut both domestic programs and defense spending starting in March. Mostly everyone agrees that these untargeted, indiscriminate cuts are a terrible way to reduce spending and will do great damage to the economy. However, Republicans will let them go through because they are better than any likely alternatives.

The important thing to remember here is the Republican caucus’ fiscal priorities. They go something like this:

  1. Lower taxes on the rich as much as possible
  2. Cut spending (primarily on the poor/young) as much as possible
  3. Protect defense spending
  4. Anything else

Many Republican defense hawks do not like the defense cuts in the sequester. Democrats thought that including these cuts in the sequester would bring Republicans to the table to negotiate a reasonable compromise on the debt. It appears they miscalculated.

Even though the majority of Republicans are uneasy with the military cuts, they are not about to negotiate with Democrats and trade the military cuts for getting rid of tax loopholes. Republicans hate revenues even more than they love defense spending. The money to be gained from closing those tax loopholes is reserved (in Republicans’ minds) for reducing tax rates later on down the line. With all the revenue from cleaning out the tax code, President Marco Rubio will be able to pass huge tax cuts for the rich, wiping out all the tax increases Obama passed in the fiscal cliff deal.

Republicans can’t just cancel out the sequester entirely because that would mean they would have to cancel out the domestic cuts as well, and obviously objective #2 is higher than objective #3.

Will the Republican re-branding effort work?

The Republican Party is looking to revamp its image after performing much more poorly than expected in the 2012 elections and after seeing their favorability ratings (especially those of Congressional Republicans) reach new lows. Several well-known Republicans (who are likely to run for President in 2016) have made high-profile speeches designed to reset public perceptions of the party, including: Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor. Though all the speeches have contained some criticisms of the party, none of them have actually suggested re-thinking any of the Republican Party’s favored policies, (with the notable exception of Rubio on immigration policy). Instead, all the speakers simply said some version this:

Asked what voters were saying to Republicans on Election Day, Ryan suggested that they did not understand what his party was about.

“We have to do a better job of explaining and demonstrating why our ideas are better” on such issues as fighting poverty and helping people move up “the ladder of life,” Ryan said.

So how is the Republican Party going to re-vamp itself if it doesn’t actually change any of its policies that people hate? Simple, Republicans believe they don’t have to change anything to get more people to vote for them next time, they just have to sell their unpopular policies better. Are they right? Here’s the scary thing: I think they are.

Republicans can continue to hold policy positions abhorrent to the American people and win elections as long as they frame them the right way. One dirty little secret of politics is that it often doesn’t matter what you’re saying as how you’re saying it.

For instance, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were always in favor of forcing rape victims to carry their rapist’s children to term. Those positions, and the public’s disapproval of them, were a constant throughout their campaigns. They were both favored to win their campaigns until they stated these positions in an offensive and callous manner. Crucially, it was not the fact that these men believed and proposed unpopular policies that doomed their candidacies. It was the way they articulated these policies that made all the difference. Had their campaigns steered away from highlighting these facts, both men could today be US Senators.

However, the best example of this phenomena may be John Huntsman.

John Huntsman

You may recall that among all the flashy crazies in the 2012 Republican Presidential field, there was a fairly minor candidate, John Huntsman, the former Governor of Utah.  Republicans never really liked him too much, but he was the candidate nearly every “centrist” “independent” thinker, reeeeeally wanted to win the Republican primaries, because supposedly he was the “moderate” who would bring the GOP back to its senses.

Huntsman is the perfect example of the sad political truth that Republicans can be as extreme and “severely” conservative as they like, so long as they present their beliefs in a way that makes them seem sane, thoughtful and caring. Dressing up terrible policies in this way will ensure that independents and even very intelligent centrists will long for you to wisk them away to that bipartisan nirvana that your tone implies but your substance completely precludes. Consider:

Jon HuntsmanHuntsman had an economic agenda that was to the right of Mitt “47 percent” Romney. Huntsman’s tax policy entailed a massive redistribution of wealth from poor to rich. Under Huntsman’s plan, Mitt Romney, Warren Buffett and many very wealthy people would have paid something less than 1% in taxes (from their current 15% tax rates). Further, Huntsman (like the rest of the field) said he would not accept even one dollar of tax revenue in exchange for 10 dollars of spending cuts, putting him to the right of everyone in America who isn’t an anti-tax ideologue. He also endorsed savage spending cuts that would have devastated our civil society and social safety net.

Economics is certainly an important area of policy, but maybe Huntsman was a social moderate? Not really. Huntsman endorsed a personhood amendment to the Constitution, which would completely outlaw abortion. On immigration he was about Rick Perry status: pro-border fence and not in favor of citizenship for undocumented migrants, though he did support in-state tuition for the children of undocumented migrants. On gay rights, I guess he was to the left of the other candidates in supporting civil unions, but still to the right of America which now supports gay marriage.

Many of my friends who were quasi-Huntsman supporters could probably say “O but he at least supported science.” Yes, he did famously tweet “I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.” Bravo! Did he propose doing anything about climate change? No. And that is exactly the rhetorical bait-and-switch that Republicans are trying to pull off. They distract you by saying “yes, we understand your issues and have the same concerns as you do,” while at the same time pushing the same policies they always have!

Saying you favored Huntsman for President (if you were a moderate, centrist or liberal) was the equivalent of saying that when politicians took food from starving children’s mouths you’d much rather have Huntsman do it while saying “sorry I wish I didnt have  to do this” rather than Romney sneering as he snatched it from their grubby little 47-percenter paws. Yea, I guess the change in attitude would be nice, but maybe we just shouldn’t cut food stamps.

The point

Jon Huntsman gives us an important lesson about how the beltway media and many voters judge candidates and parties. It is often far too confusing and takes too much effort to dig through the policy weeds and hold politicians accountable for the true consequences of their policy proposals.  And oftentimes people can strenuously disagree about the impact of relatively straight-forward policies (like how Paul Ryan was able to claim that his plan to nearly completely eliminate domestic discretionary spending somehow wouldn’t get rid of the FBI, Head Start, the school lunch program, etc).

And so, voters and the media tend to weigh tone and politicians’ assertions much more heavily than they things they’re actually proposing to do. Its easier that way and it makes people think that they’re actually sizing up the candidates themselves. Only that doesn’t tell you the whole story. If Republicans can start talking like Jon Huntsman instead of like Todd Akin, then they can pass Akin’s policies and all the while, centrists will claim “aw, they’re not so bad!” Its a brilliant plan and as Huntsman shows us, it just might work.

Yes, Republicans are to blame for the polarization in Congress

Of course since I’m a Democrat I’d think this, right? But hear me out, there is very good evidence showing that Republicans have become radically conservative over the past few decades. Democrats, on the other hand, have remained a centrist party and in many ways also have gotten more conservative. Our current problems with political polarization are almost entirely to blame on a Republican Party that has marched steadily to the right for over three decades. Additionally, anyone who says “both sides have become extreme lately” is clearly wrong.

A new study by two political scientists provides a good visualization of this trend:

Starting roughly in 1976, Republicans started becoming an unprecedentedly conservative party. In good years the GOP becomes more conservative, in bad years it becomes more conservative, without fail. Contrast that to the Democratic Party, which was about the same distance from the political center in the mid 60s as they were in 2009-2011. (Unlike with Republicans, electoral victories tend to move Democrats closer to center, while those representatives left after electoral defeats lend to be more liberal)

This is a nice graph of this trend, but more importantly, here are concrete examples of this phenomenon.

Health Care

The health care plan passed by Democrats in 2010 was much more conservative than the one proposed by Clinton in the early 1990s or any of other earlier Democratic plans. In fact, Obama’s plan was first proposed by Republicans in response to Clinton’s plan and first enacted into law by Republican Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. Today, Republicans say that same health care plan represents the death of liberty in America. Clearly on this issue, Republicans have moved to the right to oppose a plan they once favored and Democrats have moved right by passing a plan that Republicans once favored.

The Environment

You may remember that it was Republican Richard Nixon who first created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Today, it is the Republicans who are talking about repealing the EPA or putting coal and oil executives in charge of the agency. This is clearly a major rightward turn for the party.

In the debate over man-made climate change, Republicans have gone from proposing solutions to the problem to denying that it even exists. A cap-and-trade solution to limiting carbon emissions was (you guessed it) originally a Republican idea. The 2008 Republican Presidential nominee John McCain even went around the country advertising cap-and-trade as his solution to climate change. In 2009-2010 Democrats moved and adopted cap-and-trade instead of their old idea of a carbon tax. Predictably, Republicans now say cap-and-trade is the greatest job-destroyer in America. On this issue (again) both parties have moved right.

Taxes

It used to be, taxes were just the way we paid for the things we wanted government to do. Democrats and Republicans went back and forth over how taxes should be structured and over their levels sometimes, but no party has ever denounced taxes as a moral evil and as antithetical to American values the way the current Republican Party is. Every Republican president up until Bush Sr. raised taxes at some point in his Presidency (to my knowledge). Now to do so would be blasphemy.

Democrats have also moved to the right on the issue of taxes.  Democrats raised taxes under Clinton before Bush Jr. lowered them in 2001  and 2003. Now Democrats don’t even want to raise all of our taxes rates to the place they were under Clinton, they only want to raise taxes on those making more than $200,000/year. On this issue as well, both parties have moved far to the right. Republicans now see taxes as the devil and Democrats refuse to raise taxes on 98% of the population!

Immigration

In the 2000s, some Republicans favored compassionate and fair immigration reform. Now, you’d be hard pressed for a Republican spouting anything less than “round ’em all up,, shove  ’em in jail and post automatic machine guns to mow down anyone trying to cross the border.” Republicans are even against giving citizenship to children who were brought to the US as children have lived here almost their entire lives and agree to go to college or serve in the US military (a bill called the DREAM Act).

Under former President Bush, many Republicans favored an even looser version of the DREAM Act. This version would have only required prospective DREAMers to graduate high school and did not include many other provisions restricting access to this benefit. Democrats still favor the DREAM Act, but Republican support for it has all but disappeared.

Conclusion

Looking only at issues overlooks procedural ways the Republicans have increased polarization, such as how they now filibuster every small issue that gets brought up in the Senate, where before only major issues were seen as deserving of a filibuster.

As should be obvious, Republicans have moved sharply to the right over the past couple decades. I cannot think of any issue where  the Democrats have similarly moved to the left (except on gay rights, I suppose). As studies show and party rhetoric confirms, Republicans are mostly responsible for the polarization and dysfunction in our government today. The solution to these problems involves finding someway to change the Republican Party.

What the filibuster is and why it’s important

In civics class, every child learns that it takes 51 votes to pass something in the Senate, with the Vice President breaking ties if necessary. Of course, those civics lessons no longer apply to today’s Senate. Because of the Senate’s rules surrounding filibusters and cloture, it now takes 60 votes to pass a motion in the Senate. These rules directly contradict of the intentions of the framers of the Constitution and have made the Senate increasingly dysfunctional and ineffective.

I’ve written before that for the good of the country, the filibuster needs to be gotten rid of. Since its in the news again, here is a rundown on what the filibuster is and why you should care.

What, exactly, is the filibuster?

The filibuster is a Senate rule that allows unlimited debate on an issue before the Senate. This unlimited debate can only be ended by the votes of 60 Senators (called invoking “cloture”). From the mid 1800s to the mid 1900s the filibuster was primarily used by lone Senators or small groups of Senators to block or call attention to legislation they disapproved of. Since 2009, the filibuster has been used to block the Senate from voting on any bills or nominations unless they have 60 votes. Predictably, this has result in intense and debilitating gridlock in Congress.

Where did the filibuster come from?

The filibuster is not in the Constitution. It came about (like anything else) by accident. As Ezra Klein writes:

In 1806, the Senate, on the advice of Aaron Burr, tried to clean up its rule book, which was thought to be needlessly complicated and redundant. One change it made was to delete something called “the previous question” motion. That was the motion senators used to end debate on whatever they were talking about and move to the next topic. Burr recommended axing it because it was hardly ever used. Senators were gentlemen. They knew when to stop talking.

That was the moment the Senate created the filibuster. But nobody knew it at the time. It would be three more decades before the first filibuster was mounted — which meant it was five decades after the ratification of the Constitution.

This extremely powerful and controversial rule was created by accident and should never have come into existence.

When did the Filibuster achieve its current form?

As I said, the filibuster didn’t always function like it does today. In the earliest days, it was a tool for a single Senator (or group of Senators) to use to oppose a particular bill that he didn’t like. After Senators tried to block the Treaty of Versailles from being considered, “cloture” was developed. In its early days, cloture allowed 67 Senators to cut off debate on a motion, ending a particular filibuster. Most famously, the filibuster was used by Southerners to block civil rights legislation in the 1950 and 1960s.

Along the way, the filibuster evolved from being something that a single Senator or group of Senators might use to block a single bill and instead because a tool the entire minority party in the Senate would use to block the majority from doing what it wanted. This turned the balance of power in the Senate on its head, giving the minority party a veto over what got done in the Senate. Today, this forces an electorally victorious Senate majority to beg its defeated opponent for the right to pass legislation the minority opposes.

When it seemed that the number of filibusters was getting out of hand in 1975, the Senate lowered the number of votes required for cloture to 60. In that session of Congress, there had been about 40 filibusters.

Via the Washington Post

Now, the minority party in the Senate stages nearly 140 filibusters per session of Congress. Nearly every act of Congress, no matter how minuscule, is subjected to a filibuster. In this environment, its no wonder people complain about Congress not doing anything to help the American people.

Why the filibuster is important

Voters elect a party to power and expect them to govern. If they govern well, voters will reward them at the next election. If they govern poorly, voters will punish them. Republicans figured out in 2009 that if they simply block everything the majority party wants to do, then it starts to look like the majority party is doing a very bad job at governing. Few bills are passed, and the ones that are have to be loaded down with pork in order to scrounge up enough votes to get to 60. Americans’ problems start to go unaddressed and it starts to look like the majority party is doing a very bad job. So who do voters reward? The minority party.

In short, the filibuster allows the minority to sabotage the majority party, and by extension the will of the people and the good of the country, and then reap the rewards from voters’ dissatisfaction. Obviously, this is not how a democracy should work. Since it is nearly impossible to amass 60 votes in the Senate, this dynamic will be near-constant in the years  ahead.

Would the Framers have liked the filibuster?

Obviously no framers were around to see a filibuster, but many of the filibuster’s defenders claim that the framers would have liked having it around.  This claim doesn’t make any logical sense. After all, the framers had the opportunity to create the filibuster and they didn’t. Turns out that this claim doesn’t make any historical sense either. The framers thought about creating a super-majority requirement for the Senate and specifically rejected it. Again, from Ezra:

In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton savaged the idea of a supermajority Congress, writing that “its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of government and to substitute the pleasure, caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

In Federal 58, James Madison wasn’t much kinder to the concept. “In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule; the power would be transferred to the minority.”

In short, the filibuster was a historical accident that was never intended to exist. It makes it impossible to legislate for our country and should be gotten rid of immediately by changing the rules for the Senate.

Long-term electoral trends in the United States

Its time to take a break from the rough-and-tumble of everyday politics to take a wide look at our political system. This post will tell you what our government is likely to look like for the foreseeable future. There are many factors which determine who makes up our government, and I’ll break down the know-able factors here and tell you which party is likely to control the government over the next decade or so. We’ll look at the Presidency, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate.

The Presidency

The US President is chosen by the Electoral College, which gives roughly proportional votes to the winner in (almost) every state. Importantly, the person who wins the nation-wide popular vote  is almost always the winner of  the Electoral College vote. These votes are close mirrors of each other, so it is important to look at the overall national voting trends when determining how future Presidential elections will play out.

National voting trends favor the Democrats. Democrats are overwhelmingly the party of young and minority voters, while Republicans are the favorite of white and elderly voters. Research shows that voters tend to stick with whatever party they join at their first vote. It also shows that “age cohorts acquire a propensity to vote or not to vote that proves ‘sticky’ over time.” (PDF, page 19) These facts suggest that young voters, whose turnout was especially high and especially Democratic in 2006-2008 (and looks to be close to the same this year), will continue to vote often and vote Democratic in the future. (more after the break) Continue reading

Paul Ryan has a debt-reduction plan like Bush had a plan for post-Saddam Iraq

That is to say, Republican Representative Paul Ryan has no debt-reduction plan. He has a wish list, an outline maybe. There are certainly bullet points. But Paul Ryan and his Republican Party have no plan to make a dent in our debt.

So why isn’t Ryan’s much-discussed budgetary “Roadmap” a “plan”? Because it doesn’t actually say how it will achieve the debt-reduction it promises! Like Bush, Ryan will give you all the good stuff up front: “Saddam’s military will be no match for the US” or “We’re giving out big tax cuts!” but when it comes to the next step, they’re both a bit clueless: “Wait, we have to do something with Iraq after Saddam’s dead?” and “Wait, I have to pay for my tax cuts and then find trillions more to reduce the debt?”

Ryan is very specific about how he will increase the debt. He says that he will vastly lower taxes for the richest Americans. For example, Ryan would reduce Mitt Romney’s tax rate to about 0% by getting rid of the taxes on capital gains. Ryan is very detailed and specific about this how to increase debt and income inequality. But when it comes to getting rid of debt, Ryan’s got nothing. Ryan is the Donald Rumsfeld of budgets.

Ryan promises a total of about $5 trillion in tax cuts for the richest Americans over the next decade (in addition to the Bush tax cuts). He says he will pay for this with……. well, he doesn’t actually say how he would pay for it. He says that his plan “eliminates nearly all existing tax deductions, exclusions, and other special provisions” to pay for itself. Really? Which ones? There are a lot of tax breaks that are very near and dear to voters in the country. But of course Ryan won’t say which ones he will eliminate. Its a long road to eliminating an astounding $5 trillion in tax breaks but Ryan won’t say how he plans to get there. Not even a hint.

The weirdest part of Ryan’s budget is his goal to cut spending. Ryan wants to cut spending by $5.3 trillion more than President Obama over the next decade. Only, whenever anyone tries to figure out what, exactly, Ryan is going to cut, Ryan becomes defensive and extremely ambiguous. You see, the trick in Ryan’s budget is that he never actually names programs that he wants to cut. Like with getting rid of tax breaks, Ryan has a broad goal for spending reduction, but few plans to get there.

Turns out, this technicality is a big advantage for Ryan. He can say the popular thing: “I’ll make massive cuts in spending” and whenever anyone asks: “Well wait, will you get rid of my favorite program?” Ryan can respond: “No! We’ll get rid of another program (but I’m not telling you what it is).”

As comical as this sounds, this is actually how Ryan is framing his budget “plans.” Recently, President Obama gave a speech outlining how Ryan’s plan would affect major federal programs saying,

“If this budget became law and the cuts were applied evenly … over 200,000 children would loose their chance to get an early education in the Head Start program,” Obama said. “There would be 45,000 fewer federal grants at the Department of Justice and the FBI” to combat violent crime.

Obama said hundreds of national parks would close.

Predictably, Republicans responded by saying “Where did Obama get these specifics? He imagined them.” Well, yea, what was he supposed to do when handed a plan that makes radical changes to America but contains no specifics? In fact Obama anticipated this come-back and said:

“Republicans may say, well ‘we’ll avoid some of these cuts,’” Obama said. “But they can only avoid some of these cuts if they cut even deeper in other areas.”

Which is exactly right. Eventually the hammer has to fall somewhere or not at all. And for every program you protect, another gets hit twice as hard. Either you’re cutting spending or you’re not. If you are, then real people are going to be hurt and if not, then then you’re not actually reducing the debt. If Paul Ryan is serious about his budget then he needs specifics. For an example of a serious budget with specifics, here’s a good starting point.

(For a overview of Obama’s a Ryan’s budgets, look here)

(Here’s more on Ryan’s spending cuts conundrum from Ezra Klein)

Comparing the budgets of Obama and Republicans

Recently, Congressional Republicans and President Obama released their budget proposals for this year and coming years, as Ezra Klein notes, “budgets are a moment when the two parties can’t hide,” where “we can see the decisions the parties make when they’re forced to choose between competing priorities and constituencies.” They are important documents, in other words. So without further ado, here is my summary of Obama’s and Congressional Republicans’ budgets:  (Obama’s is available here and Republicans’ is available here)

Obama’s Budget

Obama’s  budget is cautious but probably does enough to stabilize America’s debt through a mixture of tax hikes on the wealthy and some already agreed-to spending cuts. Mainly, Obama’s budget consists of three parts: 1) some increased spending on infrastructure and education 2) spending cuts to domestic spending and defense totaling $2.7 trillion 3) $1.6 trillion in new tax revenue from corporations and the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

First, the increased spending will go to areas where, by all accounts, the funds are sorely needed. The American Society of Engineers has given the US a grade of a “D” overall for the condition of its infrastructure, which once led the world. Obama has proposed spending billions more to upgrade the nation’s roads, bridges, railways, passenger rail systems and internet connections over the next six years. This money will put Americans to work building systems that will repay our investment many times over.

Second, Obama will cut spending, mostly by the amounts already agreed to in the as part of the debt ceiling negotiations with Republicans last year. This will cut defense spending, domestic discretionary spending (an umbrella term covering most federal programs), federal pensions and agricultural subsidies by $2.1 trillion. Medicare and Medicaid will also be trimmed for $360 billion, mostly through cuts agreed to in the debt ceiling negotiations and also by changing some tax treatments that will shift Medicaid costs to the states.

Third, Obama will end the Bush tax rate cut for the top 2% of earners, raising their top marginal rate to 39.5% from 35%. He will also implement the “Buffett rule” which states “that no household making more than $1 million a year pays less than 30 percent of their income in taxes.” These small changes are to make sure that the richest Americans pay their fair share for deficit troubles that their tax breaks caused. Obama also proposes a $61 billion “Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee” which would compensate taxpayers for their extraordinary support  of the financial industry in the 2008-2009 crisis. He will also plans to close some tax loopholes for the rich and corporations to make up a total of $1.5 trillion in new revenue (he names some specific ones).

Comparison of taxes and spending cuts in past deficit deals by Ezra Klein

Taken as a whole, Obama’s plan is very moderate. It is more conservative than most past bipartisan deficit deals. It also tries to spread the pain of deficit reduction somewhat evenly across all facets of society. Civil servants, the rich, the poor and the elderly all have their favored programs or tax breaks trimmed to make room for the deficit reduction that experts agree the US needs to undertake. His budget is far from perfect, but it would preserve the American social contract and social safety net, unlike Republicans plan.

Republicans’ Budget

Congressional Republicans’ budget (authored by Rep. Paul Ryan), is a very radical document. Ryan seeks to eliminate basically everything the US government does besides Medicare, defense and Social Security. He would also give out a massive $4.6 trillion tax cut, aimed at the richest Americans. Then, because their first two actions mostly balance out deficit-wise, Republicans would try to eliminate almost every tax break on the books to balance the budget. So let’s pull this apart:

First, Republicans will eliminate almost everything the federal government does except defense, Medicare and Social Security. The military is the only area of the budget that gets larger under Ryan’s plan, everything else goes under the ax. The cuts are painful and they start immediately. By 2050 there will be almost nothing left. Pell Grants-gone. National Parks-gone. Energy and health research-gone. Highway and transportation funding-gone. Homeland Security-gone. Food stamps-gone. Early childhood education- well, you get the picture. Over  the first decade this is how the cuts will fall:

The poor will bear of 2/3 of Republicans’ budget cuts in the first ten years, and more in the years to come. In fact, between 14 and 27 million people will lose Medicaid health coverage in the first ten years of this plan, as estimated by the Urban Institute.

Second, in a sharp contrast to his cuts to the poor, Ryan and the other Republicans plan to give out trillions of dollars to the rich in tax cuts. Ryan’s plan would drop Mitt Romney’s tax rate to near 0% (no wonder Mitt thinks this plan is “marvelous”) and would plaster the rich with money, even as it cuts trillions in spending from the poor. Take a look:

Ryan's tax cuts go overwhelmingly to the rich

So if you make a lot of money, you come out as a big winner in Paul Ryan’s plan. If you don’t make very much, then you are  in for a world of hurt if  this budget gets passed.

Third come the “mystery meat”  in Paul Ryan’s budget, as Paul Krugman says. See, Ryan has a problem because at this point in the budget process he has made the debt a lot worse by passing huge tax breaks and only made up for it with some big spending cuts. Now he has to try to cut the national debt.  So, Republicans propose that we get rid of almost every tax break in the book to pay down the debt. Only, they don’t tell us what breaks they want to cut. They leave those trillions in cuts up to our imagination. Seriously. To get the kind of deficit reduction he promises, Ryan would have to eliminate lots of tax breaks that benefit the poor and the middle class like the child tax credit, earned income tax credit, the tax free status of 401(k) and other retirement plans, the mortgage tax deduction, etc. That means that the last chart I posted will be completely different once Republicans are done.

Most low and middle income earners will probably end up paying more under Republicans’ plans than they do now because their tax breaks will be eliminated. But won’t tax breaks for the rich be eliminated as well? Nope. The biggest tax break for the rich (the lower tax bracket for capital gains) will actually be expanded. Rich people will no longer have to pay anything on their income from stocks, bonds and property, dropping Bill Gates’ Warren Buffett’s and Mitt Romney’s tax rates to about 0.

The only debt reduction in the Republican budget is the elimination of tax breaks and loopholes, which Republicans leave completely unspecified. The rest of the budget is not an attempt to come to grips with our debt, but an attempt to radically remake American government and society. Republicans would literally destroy the American social safety net in order to write huge checks to the millionaires in our country. The losers in Republicans’ budget are clear: anyone who is poor or middle income stands to lose all of their support from the government and see their taxes raised. The winners are the rich. They will see their taxes vastly reduced and all they will have to worry about are those Tiny Tims who come to their door asking for money around Christmas every year.