LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman questions the Paul Ryan U.S. budget proposal on several grounds. He says the Ryan proposal depends on projections by the Heritage Foundation for its assumption that the tax cuts would generate higher revenues by creating a booming economy. The Heritage Foundation projection is for revenue increasing by $600 billon over the next 10 years as a result of tax cuts. Krugman cites a different view from the Congressional Budget Office estimate for the Ryan proposal, which shows assumed savings from spending cuts will go not to reduce the deficit but to pay for tax cuts, with bigger deficits in the next decade. He says the spending cuts excluding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid- but including defense- go down from 12% of GDP in 2011 to 6% of GDP in 2022- meaning that cuts in public services will need to cut to the bone. The Medicare part of Ryan's proposal does not say how spending on medical care will be reduced. The voucher or premium support Ryan envisages is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cover only one third of the cost of insurance premiums for Medicare equivalent care by 2030. Krugman cites the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which says the Ryan proposal achieves two thirds of its $4 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade by cutting programs that primarily serve low-income Americans. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
David Brooks says the Paul Ryan Budget proposal is a bold step forward that is badly needed in this debate on health care, even though it has some grave weaknesses which need to be corrected. It is a bold step forward because he says Democrats say they want no middle class tax increases, or are not willing to say what kinds of tax increases they support, and yet they believe the Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security programs are worth preserving. This is'nt based on reality. He cites the weaknesses, beginning with the one discussed in David Leonhardt's column in the New York Times on April 7, 2011. Too many Americans pay too little into Medicare taxes and expect to collect several hundred thousand dollars more in Medicare benefits. The example given in Leonhardt's column is from a study that shows 56 year olds with average earnings pay about $140,000 in dedicated Medicare taxes over a lifetime, and then go on to collect $430,000 in benefits. Middle class and affluent boomers can't get off paying their share like everybody else. Its just the right way for their children and the nation's children. Ryan's plan excludes older people reaching retirement in ten years. The other major weakness is that the cuts are too deep. Things like the Pell grants which Ryan proposes to cut back to 2008 levels need to be preserved, and more money has to go into science, education and research and early childhood education for the U.S. to be competitive with China and India. The Ryan proposal places cuts that would be required so that tax revenues need to be at 18% of GDP. The number where a larger consensus exists is for tax revenues at 20% of GDP (also supported by business and the Wall Street Journal's editorial columns). This would preserve programs that are most productive for the economic future of the U.S. Ryan's proposal lets the hope for reducing costs of medical care rest entirely on future retirees deciding how much medical care (tests, procedures etc) they consume through larger cost sharing. Yet a structure and framework is needed to manage these costs effectively, and some combination of incentives to retirees to control costs and an effective structural framework is needed. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Portugal asks the European Union for a financial bailout on April 6, 2011. This comes after serious funding difficulties in the financial markets for Portuguese debt.

LyrArc Article Gist
Questions remain about how the U.S. budget battle and possible shutdown of government will affect the political support for the Democrats and Republicans.

LyrArc Article Gist
Dionne cites comments by Bowles and Simpson saying the Paul Ryan U.S. budget proposal falls short of a serious bipartisan effort for deficit reduction for a number of reasons. The reasons cited by Bowles and Simpson are: The proposal exempts defense spending from reductions, does not apply savings from tax expenditures to deficit reduction, relies on much larger reductions in domestic discretionary spending than the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction plan, and at the same time making reductions in safety-net programs that could in their words "place a disproportionately adverse effect on certain disadvantaged populations." This should give moderates in this debate time for pause and reflection says Dionne.