Tea Party and the Right  
comments_image Comments

GOP Timebomb: How Republican Star Paul Ryan's Radical "Roadmap" Would Dynamite Social Security and Medicare

Republicans are elevating Rep. Paul Ryan, whose disastrous conservative economic "roadmap" will gut the social safety net and put money in the hands of the rich.
 
 
Share
 

Republicans announced last Friday that Rep. Paul Ryan (WI), chairman of the House Budget Committee, will deliver the GOP's response to President Obama's State of the Union address tomorrow. According to reports, GOP leaders chose Ryan because he is supposedly a " champion  of slashing government spending." The seven-term Wisconsin congressman gives Republicans a " chance to emphasize their core message: government spending must come down to reduce the nation's annual deficit and long-term debt." House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said Ryan -- who has been given " stunning and unprecedented" power to shape the budget -- is "uniquely qualified to address the state of our economy and the fiscal challenges that face our country." Ryan is known as the GOP's numbers guy in the House, and he laid out last year what he calls a " Roadmap" to fiscal health. But as the Washington Post's Ezra Klein notes, "The more they elevate Ryan, the more they elevate Ryan's Roadmap. And that document is a   timebomb for them."

PRIVATIZING ENTITLEMENTS:   Ryan's Roadmap puts Americans on the path of privatizing entitlement programs, such as   Social Security. The  plan boasts about "the creation of personal investment accounts for future retirees" that are "the  property of the individual." (Emphasis in the original document). "Individuals will be able to join the investor class for the first time," the Roadmap says.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) notes that "the Ryan plan proposes large cuts in Social Security benefits -- roughly 16 percent for the average new retiree in 2050 and 28 percent in 2080 from price indexing alone." It "initially diverts most of these savings to help fund private accounts rather than to restore Social Security solvency." CBPP also notes that the Roadmap " would eliminate traditional Medicare, most of Medicaid, and all of the Children's Health Insurance Program" by creating a private voucher system that won't keep up with the cost of health care.

By 2080, under Ryan's plan, the Medicare program would be reduced by nearly 80 percent below its projected size under current policies. CBPP  summed up Ryan's plan: The Roadmap's cuts "would be so severe that CBO estimates they would shrink total federal expenditures (other than on interest payments) from roughly 19 percent of GDP in recent years to just 13.8 percent of GDP by 2080. Federal spending has not equaled such a low level of GDP since 1950, when Medicare and Medicaid did not yet exist, Social Security failed to cover many workers, and close to half of the elderly people in the United States lived below the poverty line."

MIDDLE CLASS TAX INCREASES:   Citizens for Tax Justice found that Ryan's Roadmap would raise taxes on 90 percent of taxpayers and   drastically lower them for the richest Americans.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) recently reported that the rates for the middle class would be higher than those for the rich under Ryan's plan. "Middle-class families earning between $50,000 and $75,000 a year would see their average tax rate jump to 19.1% (from 17.7%) under this plan -- an increase of $900 on average," EPI says, while at the same time, "Millionaires would see their average tax rate drop to 12.8%, less than half of what they would pay relative to current policy."

As EPI's Andrew Fieldhouse   concluded, under the Roadmap, "a long tradition of progressive taxation would be abandoned; millionaires and Wall Street bankers would pay significantly lower tax rates than middle-class workers. ... Income inequality would soar." In another giveaway to the rich, the Roadmap calls for a total repeal of the estate and corporate taxes and would introduce a national sales tax. Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ)   said this idea "would eat up a much larger percentage of total income for poor and middle-class families than wealthy families" because the former "spend most or all of their income on consumption," while "high-income families are able to save much more of their income."

 
See more stories tagged with: