Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican Alternative Budget Proposal, and their half-hearted attempt

While the Republican budget proposal is more attractive than Obama proposition , the GOP attempt is half-hearted at best. It doesn't even come close to addressing the drastic need of fiscal responsibility in Washington DC.

This is a quick comparison of the CBO estimates of the two budget proposals. First the Obama budget proposal with CBO estimates.

PCT-Obama's original estimate had the deficit growing to $6.96 trillion from 2010-2019, a GDP of $22.86 trillion in 2019, and publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP of 67.2%, According to the Budgetary Office the deficit created by the President's budget will exceed the original estimate of $6.96 trillion by $2.3 trillion, rising to a total of $9.27 trillion in 2019, a GDP of $20.97 trillion, and publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP of 82.4%.

Republican proposal.



Click on image to enlarge.

The Republican alternative budget creates $ 36.91 trillion in spending from 2010-19, while creating $30.93 in revenue. Giving you a deficit total of $5.98 trillion over ten years. Compared to the Obama budget proposal which creates a deficit of $9.3 trillion from 2010-19. Giving you a 3.6 trillion dollar difference. Average yearly deficit spending for the Republican budget is a little over $500 billion. Returning to Bush levels of spending after 2012. (Yeah, that's really forward thinking.)

The amount of publicly held debt under the GOP budget rises to 65.1% of GDP versus the 82.4% under Obama.

While substantially cheaper the GOP, as of yet, has not addressed the catastrophic mandatory spending problem. Their proposals for reform are somewhat ambiguous and can be found on pages 23, 24, and 25 of the budget PDF. Here are their total numbers on spending for mandatory programs as well as a comparison to the Obama estimates.

Republican estimate from CBO data,



Click on image to enlarge.

Obama estimate from CBO data.



Click on image to enlarge.

Republican plan, total mandatory spending from 2010-19 totaling $20.65 trillion (Interest not included). Obama plan, total mandatory spending for the same time period, $23.74 trillion (Interest not included). A little over $3 trillion in savings within a ten year margin. The outlays for mandatory spending still grows at a very rapid rate even under the GOP plan. While the Republican idea is far better, it is painfully clear that this is a band aid fix and more can be achieved.

Now here is the proposal I really find intriguing, which is some badly needed reform to the tax system.



Click on image to enlarge.

On overall taxes, the GOP plan will create a total of $30.93 trillion in receipts that will be garnered from tax payrolls. Whereas the Obama plan will generate $34.21 trillion from tax payrolls circa 2010-19. Approximate difference between the two is a savings from tax cuts and reform of $3.28 trillion to the American people over a ten year period.

For the most part the GOP is asking Americans to accept the Bush spending parameters as the new way to operate government. Their new billion is half a trillion and that is unacceptable. This phase planning should be far more aggressive, especially with the time frame we are looking at. While still better than the Progressives "budget," the GOP is once again making us choose them as the lesser of two evils. A choice I am tired of having to make.

Please note: For a good take on the Far-Left's criticism of the GOP budget plan, please visit the Progressive blogs, The Political Animal and Crooks and Liars. You will see the wearisome memes of "Tax cuts for the rich," whereas nary a mention of the absurd and obscene the spending in the Obama budget or the money the average American will be saving under the GOP plan.

While they are hardly even worthy of being called credible critiques, I was still hoping they could at least give me a half-assed attempt at some intellectual honesty. Unfortunately, all you get is an eye opening look at how much of a bubble these infant minded buffoons live in.