tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6239651629852354286.post6986704234419137820..comments2013-02-28T10:03:22.257-05:00Comments on From Corn Fields to the Capitol: Dream on David BrooksUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6239651629852354286.post-40378758814263135642013-02-27T13:59:23.160-05:002013-02-27T13:59:23.160-05:00The State Department line item is on page 23.
Tha...<i>The State Department line item is on page 23.</i><br /><br />Thanks, not sure how I missed that.<br /><br /><i>Perhaps I was a bit hyperbolic</i><br /><br />A bit? One-seventh is 14%. Thus, Paul would leave funding at 86% of its current level. Your rhetoric of "almost no legitimate role for the federal government or nearly any government" is completely over the top. <br /><br /><i>instead of having government provided healthcare...</i><br /><br />Largely except for the military, government does not provide healthcare. Unlike, say, education where teachers are employees of government, the same does not hold true for doctors. Rather it pays for health care. Paul Ryan has only changed the method by which that payment would occur. The role remains unchanged. <br /><br /><i>And it would reduce the size</i><br /><br />No, it would not. Ryan's plan pegs voucher increases to the consumer price index rather than inflation specific to the health care sector. At its most draconian, Ryan's plan would simply maintain the status quo in expenditure on a per capita basis. Given demographic realities, overall expenditures would continue to grow. <br /><br />In fact, this really reflects the nature of the debate. Reducing government -- lamentably -- is not even on the table (Rand Paul's plan excepted, but then again AFAIK no bill has been introduced based on his plan, and thus such thinking is restricted to 1% of the Senate). Rather all we are talking about is reducing the rate at which government grows. Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6239651629852354286.post-54391867743464556332013-02-27T09:06:31.025-05:002013-02-27T09:06:31.025-05:00The State Department line item is on page 23.
Per...The State Department line item is on page 23.<br /><br />Perhaps I was a bit hyperbolic, but Paul's plan lops off one seventh of the federal budget. That is a dramatic redefinition of government breaking with decades of broad, political consensus.<br /><br />As to Ryan's plan, a voucher system is a change to the role of government because instead of having government provided healthcare, which allows the Medicare to negotiate better rates on procedures, individuals would buy into the private market, which would almost assuredly mean higher healthcare costs. And it would reduce the size because the voucher system, to my understanding, doesn't have a mechanism to account for growing healthcare costs which means the government will be paying less and seniors will be paying more out of pocket. So Paul Ryan's plan would change the role and size of government.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04621444962752348431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6239651629852354286.post-33687937432767972302013-02-27T08:18:32.250-05:002013-02-27T08:18:32.250-05:00ugh, "place"=plan.ugh, "place"=plan.Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6239651629852354286.post-34878377080014896732013-02-27T08:17:53.220-05:002013-02-27T08:17:53.220-05:00Thanks for the pdf, but I don't see anything i...Thanks for the pdf, but I don't see anything in it about the State Department budget (although I do see the bit about international assistance/foreign aid). Perhaps you can direct me to the specific cite?<br /><br />In any case, Jason's DCExile post says that Paul wants to cut $500 billion. Given that the federal budget was around $3.5 trillion when Paul released his place, that's still a long ways away from "almost no legitimate role for the federal government or nearly any government." Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6239651629852354286.post-32143278180097330672013-02-27T07:38:40.436-05:002013-02-27T07:38:40.436-05:00What is the basis for your State Department claim?...<i>What is the basis for your State Department claim? Who has proposed this? </i><br /><br />See <a href="http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/rand-paul-at-the-benghazi-hearing/" rel="nofollow">this</a>, citing <a href="http://dcexile.blogspot.com/2011/02/budget-proposals-reckless-plans-real.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>. I can no longer find it on the wayback machine but would be happy to send you the pdf via email. In fact, I'll do it right now.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06325732717974974062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6239651629852354286.post-14193469485845985182013-02-26T17:24:10.585-05:002013-02-26T17:24:10.585-05:00So Paul Ryan's roadmap, which sees the size of...So Paul Ryan's roadmap, which sees the size of the federal government continue to grow by trillions and does not achieve a balanced budget for decades, is evidence "we face an environment where a healthy portion see almost no legitimate role for the federal government or nearly any government"? How does that make any sense? Seems to me to be a rather gaping chasm between the rhetoric of barely seeing the need for any government and the reality of proposing one that spends many trillions of dollars. <br /><br /><i>When you don't try to shore up Medicare, but rather advocate making it a voucher program or when you suggest we cut about 70% of the State Department's budget, you are going beyond the proper size and role of government as it has been understood for the past 80 years.</i><br /><br />No, you aren't. Changing how Medicare is provided is not a challenge to the role and size of government. Even if Ryan's plan was adopted the role of government -- paying for old people's health care -- would be the same, and the size will only grow given that Medicare spending continues to increase under pretty much any scenario. Proposing that Medicare be abolished, now that would be a challenge and notable departure from the status quo. <br /><br />What is the basis for your State Department claim? Who has proposed this? <br /><br />As for the cuts, a 9% cut would take these agencies back to the same level as...2009. Why is that not feasible? And you realize, of course, that federal spending even with the sequester continues to increase right? That even with the sequester that the feds will still be spending over $2 trillion more in 2023 than currently? Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6239651629852354286.post-47626937006034960902013-02-26T16:48:50.258-05:002013-02-26T16:48:50.258-05:00Certainly the size and the role of the federal gov...Certainly the size and the role of the federal government have been and likely always will be debated, but from Paul Ryan's Roadmap to the policy proposals of Sen. Paul we're talking about a wholesale redefinition of the government as it has existed since the 1930s. When you don't try to shore up Medicare, but rather advocate making it a voucher program or when you suggest we cut about 70% of the State Department's budget, you are going beyond the proper size and role of government as it has been understood for the past 80 years.<br /><br />Certainly there are those in Congress who are, like yourself, celebrating the cuts. While I think your celebration is misguided, you can't make the cuts more responsible. Rather, those on the Hill celebrating strike me as a group of Neros.<br /><br />The 20% was incorrect and updated. But the practical budget cut is greater than the top line of 5% to 7% because we're already a third of the way into the year, which is to say the necessary budget rescission will exceed the top line number by a substantial margin.<br /><br />As to Sen. Paul cutting 20% of his office's budget I would say it's easy to cut. It's hard to make sure you can still deliver services.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04621444962752348431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6239651629852354286.post-51843214238318919422013-02-26T15:50:57.636-05:002013-02-26T15:50:57.636-05:00we face an environment where a healthy portion see...<i>we face an environment where a healthy portion see almost no legitimate role for the federal government or nearly any government.</i><br /><br />Really? Who believes this? What is your evidence for this statement? <br /><br /><i>honestly, that's no longer a settled question in the United States.</i><br /><br />If you are referring to the size and role of government, when has that ever been a settled question? If you are referring to the value of government, who has ever questioned the need for having one?<br /><br /><i>There is a happy tone that Congress would almost indiscriminately cut the budgets of departments and that doesn't allow the apartments to shift money around to make the cuts less dire for essential services.</i><br /><br />Maybe it's just me, but I haven't seen anyone celebrating the fact that the cuts are indiscriminate. Personally, I do celebrate the cuts, but I see them as a second best solution that preferably would be more precise. But in this era of continuously growing government, I'll take federal spending cuts where I can get them. <br /><br /><i>it's more like 20% to the affected agencies</i><br /><br />Source? I have seen 9% bandied about, but not the 20% figure. In any case, I saw the other day that Rand Paul cut spending in his office by over 20% -- $600,000, but who knows, maybe his is the only office in the federal government capable of delivering services with fewer resources and everyone else is already operating at peak efficiency. Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.com