Archived Story

Want austerity or growth?

Published 9:50am Friday, March 15, 2013

Finally. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have each prepared a budget for fiscal 2014. It is about time.

The President is late on providing his budget, having tied up his budget folks in small things like working to avoid the sequestration budget and restoring a small portion of the Bush eviscerated tax base.

The House and Senate budgets could not be more different. Paul Ryan, the architect of the last few House budgets including this latest version, has arguably presented the most radically destructive budget in the last half century. His budget, assured passage in the Tea Party House, argues for the type of austerity that has resulted in Europe’s continued recessions; the budget attacks the most vulnerable in our society with cuts to food stamps, child nutrition and Medicaid.

The Ryan budget reduces tax rates to only two brackets, 10 percent and 25 percent, and protects revenue by unstated reductions in middle class tax deductions like the mortgage deduction (though specifically Ryan intentionally offers few specifics of the deductions to be ended).

The Ryan budget once again attempts to end Medicare in exchange for vouchers to seniors that save the federal government funds while passing costs on to retirees.

Do we really need to hurt the middle class even more than this economy already has? Must we, the richest nation in history, turn our backs on the poor, the hungry and our children?

Is a balanced budget more important than our values as a society?

If there are any compassionate conservatives left, and that is a doubtful proposition at best in the age of Republican Radicalism, they should speak out against this silly and absurd budget, one designed to appeal to the Ayn Rand crowd more than the American people.

Who are the winners in the Ryan budget?

Isn’t that obvious from the recent past of the Republican Party?

The winners are the richest Americans who get their taxes cut from 39.6 percent to 25 percent while the middle class pays the bill with the loss of tax deductions.

Mr. Ryan, as vice presidential candidate last year, argued that the 2012 election was a referendum on the two different approaches to government by the two major political parties. Yet his budget suggests that he has completely ignored that referendum with a plan that hurts the economy, the middle class, and the poorest Americans.

In contrast the Democrats have proposed a budget designed to expand the economy, create jobs, and invest in re-building our crumbling infrastructure. Their emphasis is on jobs and growth more than on austerity and attacks on the social safety net.

The Democrats argue, as Presidential candidate Romney did in his budget, that growing the economy is a better plan to fund government costs than shrinking the economy to balance a budget.

The truth is simple; you cannot shrink your way to a successful economy, as republicans have proposed.

And you cannot protect our aging society by ending the Affordable Care Act and limiting federal contributions to Medicare, as republicans have proposed.

Nor can you keep the nation competitive if we do not ensure our highways, ports, and airports are safe, modern, and able to accommodate the demands of commerce and private travel.

We are left with two unequal proposals.

The Republican plan is simply looking in the rear view mirror to drive forward; it is failed politics and failed policy.

The Democratic plan has won the support of the American people though the test of election and offers a path forward.

Unfortunately, until republicans suffer still more in the election booth they seem determined to ignore the voters.


Jim Crawford is a retired educator and political enthusiast living here in the Tri-State.


  1. mikehaney

    Ryan continues to be a strong leader [on entitlements], tackling Medicare’s abject failures head on. His signature solution of a premium support model for Medicare is the hallmark of his budget. Moving to a patient-centered model would free retirees from relying on the unstable and unsustainable government-run Medicare program and restrain costs through the competition rather than price-fixing. The sooner this transition is made, the better.
    The Ryan budget’s main weaknesses are a lack of Social Security reforms—the biggest federal spending program—and maintaining Obama’s tax hikes.
    The Senate budget, under the helm of Senate Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray (D–WA), makes no attempt at balancing the budget—ever. Instead, the Senate budget would ramp up spending immediately and raise taxes yet higher while continuing chronic deficits that rise higher in later years. The Senate budget would leave the nation even worse off beyond the 10-year budget window by failing to curb the growth in entitlement spending.
    Medicare is the fastest-growing entitlement program, and Obamacare’s newest entitlements—the Medicaid expansion and health care subsidies—dramatically worsen federal health care spending, increasing it by now $1.8 trillion over a decade. And yet the Senate budget does nothing to correct course.
    Both the House and Senate budgets have their weaknesses. However, the House budget would shrink deficits quickly and then eliminate deficits completely by balancing the budget in 10 years.

    (Report comment)

  2. mikehaney

    Crawford–The Democratic plan has won the support of the American people though the test of election and offers a path forward.
    If I was a sow in the barn yard and watched the old guy feeding me every day, he’d have my vote. History will show though that by feeding in the trough will eventually cook your bacon.

    (Report comment)

  3. mikehaney

    Crawford–In contrast the Democrats have proposed a budget designed to expand the economy, create jobs, and invest in re-building our crumbling infrastructure. Their emphasis is on jobs and growth more than on austerity and attacks on the social safety net.
    Dems have a budget? I’ll put that alongside,Holder–(didn’t know about fast and furious),Who closed the Whitehouse tours?–(Obama–I didn’t, SS–I didn’t),Whitehouse–Couple hundred illegals released; agency responsible when under oath–over 2200 illegals released.
    Someone needs to be assigned to Washington on standby holding a knuckle busting ruler. I’m sure our older readers remember those. :)

    (Report comment)

  4. mickakers

    Jim Crawford; There is a great deal of truth in your comments, however, a word of caution is in order. Socialism can be carried a bit too far. There is a danger of creating a dependent society. The primary concern should be establishing jobs in order for members of society to earn a living wage and promote self-esteem. I must concur with Mike Haney’s thoughts. The Democratic Party has lost moral creditability due to they’re support of the killing of the unborn (the most helpless members of our society) and the endorsement of Same Sex Marriage (how childish and ludicrous), dose not even enter into the realm of common sense. My party and yours, has fallen on hard times.

    (Report comment)

  5. mikehaney

    So according to this article the republican party should drop their morals and principles and become like the lying, immoral left for political gain.

    (Report comment)

Editor's Picks

DNA group has second meeting

More than 40 people attended the second Death to Negative Attitudes (DNA) meeting on Thursday at the Ro-Na Theater. Many of the same people along ... Read more

Barker selected as Memorial Day Parade honorary grand marshal

The selection committee has chosen Hardy Barker as Honorary Grand Marshal of the Ironton Memorial Day Parade, the oldest continually held Memorial Day Parade in ... Read more

Global Warming?

  Temperatures still climbing despite subzero conditions nationally   Despite a cold snap that seems to be gripping the entire nation, experts like Ohio State ... Read more  | 4 comments