Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Even as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) proudly touted his "fact-based budget" and decried Democrats' "budget gimmicks" yesterday, he prominently cited the think tank's absurdly rosy numbers, drawing widespread mockery from economists, budget experts, and health care wonks. Even the developer of the model that Heritage used to crunch the numbers can't figure out how Heritage reached its conclusions.
"The Heritage numbers are insane," MIT economist Jonathan Gruber said in an interview with TPM.
The numbers stand in stark contrast to analysis from the independent Congressional Budget Office, the gold standard used by both parties to determine the costs of legislation, which shows an increase in the deficit's share of the economy in the plan's first decade thanks to its massive tax cuts and then much tougher financial burdens for seniors in future decades as their health care benefits dwindle.
"CBO is what they use on the budget side -- as a matter of procedure, any numbers from the Heritage Foundation or anybody else are essentially worthless," Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, said in an interview. "You can assert whatever you want to assert, but you can always find some half-baked tax think tank that will make up any number you feel like."
"The idea he'd go to Heritage for that kind of support indicates he didn't like what the CBO was going to tell him," Stan Collender, a former budget aide for both the House and Senate, told TPM. "This is the same guy who said his budget has no gimmicks in it turning to the rosiest scenario he could get."
The Heritage analysis bases its numbers on a "dynamic" model that it says takes into account the explosive growth unleashed by tax cuts. As a number of commentators have noted, it's the same approach that led them to conclude the Bush tax cuts would reduce the deficit and create millions of new jobs -- instead they exploded the deficit and unemployment worsened, eventually skyrocketing.
From who? The Dimwits who haven't passed a budget in two years?? Cry us a fucking river whydonchya?
The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
Editorial Board Blog
Paul Ryan's plan for entitlements: A profile in courage?
Paul Ryan, the Republican congressman from Wisconsin, offered a detailed plan for entitlement reform on Tuesday, putting a political bulls-eye on his back. Would he fit John F. Kennedy's criteria for a 'profile in courage'?
By Clayton Jones
posted April 6, 2011 at 2:20 pm EDT
In 1956, then-Sen. John F. Kennedy released a book under his name entitled "Profiles in Courage," detailing the acts of eight senators in US history "whose devotion to principle lead them to unpopular courses," as he put it. The book was a big hit, winning him the Pulitzer Prize and launching Kennedy to the presidency.
Now some media and politicians are wondering if Rep. Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, would be a "profile in courage" for his bold and detailed plan to reform Medicare and Medicaid. Or is his plan, released Tuesday, an act of political folly, like putting a bull's-eye on his back for daring to reform popular social programs?
Mr. Ryan is one of the few politicians that President Obama is said to both admire and fear for his intellect, and perhaps his courage. Mr. Obama himself, by running for the White House as a black man, is widely respected for his courage, even if his own intellect sometimes makes him appear professorial.
Ryan's courage may be seen simply in the context of the lack of courage within his own party. Republicans have long been afraid to be very specific about reform of the big social programs, especially Social Security. Even Ryan didn't include the retirement program in his reform plan, partly because it is still perceived as the "third rail" of politics and partly because it is in less dire need of financial reform than the two big health programs.
If his plan should be remembered for its courage, it is in saying that America's fiscal black hole is the most important issue facing the country, more important than any specific spending program. The deficit can't be taxed away or merely chipped away, but needs wholesale change, he is saying.
Like Martin Luther, Ryan has now had a "here I stand" moment, achieving a high profile, at least. It can make him either a forgotten martyr someday or perhaps lead to a chapter about him in a future "Profiles in Courage" book perhaps written when another Kennedy runs for office.
Posted at 09:45 AM ET, 04/06/2011
Paul Ryan favors substance over gimmicks
By Jennifer Rubin
Rep. Paul Ryan (R- Wis.) resisted the urge to budget by headline or to resort to gimmicky process. In putting together a very serious budget document, one so serious that liberal critics could only mischaracterize the bill or shriek. We heard plenty of Repeal the 20th century! Destroy government! Starve six million old people !
There were exceptions to the hysteria. The Post editorial board raised legitimate questions about the details of the Medicare reform proposal. Meanwhile over at Slate, Jacob Weisberg wrote:
And before they reject everything in Ryans plan, liberals might want to consider whether some of what he proposes doesnt in fact serve their own ultimate goals. . . . ts hard to make a principled liberal case for the program in its current form. To do so, you have to argue that government-paid health care should be a right only for people over the age of 65, and for no one else. Medicare covers doctor and hospital bills at 100 percent, regardless of income. This gives doctors and patients an incentive to maximize their use of the system and waste public resources. Choosing to pay 100 percent of Warren Buffetts medical bills while cutting Head Start reflects a strange set of social priorities, to say the least....
Editorial: Ryan budget plan gives America its serious starting point
Published 05 April 2011 04:50 PM
Paul Ryan isnt always right, and he may not be right about everything now.
What he is, though, is serious. The House Budget Committee chairmans comprehensive proposal would cut more than $6 trillion in spending from President Barack Obamas plan and, Ryan says, reduce the nations public debt by nearly $5 trillion over 10 years.
If you quibble with his methods, dont dismiss them as madness.
Ryan, with this proposal, steps into a leadership vacuum. Obama effectively stiffed his own bipartisan debt commission, ignoring its recommendations on reforming the tax code and, most urgently, the big three entitlements Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that are splashing red ink over federal budgets far longer than any of us can imagine...
Talking points memo? LOL! Widespread condemnation? LOL!
Serious, more than can be said of the Democrats...
What's next? Going to reference the Heritage Foundation? 
Are you saying we can't expect to be at 2.8 percent unemployment by the end of the decade? Bummer.
States would have additional flexibility to design and manage their programs to achieve greater efficiencies in the delivery of care. Because of the magnitude of the reduction in federal Medicaid spending under the proposal, however … states would probably need to consider additional changes, such as reducing their spending on other programs or raising additional revenues. Alternatively, states could [save money by] cutting payment rates for doctors, hospitals, or nursing homes; reducing the scope of benefits covered; or limiting eligibility… f states lowered payment rates even further, providers might be less willing to treat Medicaid enrollees. As a result, Medicaid enrollees could face more limited access to care…. Beneficiaries could face higher out-of-pocket costs, and providers could face more uncompensated care as beneficiaries lost coverage for certain benefits or lost coverage altogether.
America's budget: The CBO scores Paul Ryan | The Economist
Talking points memo? LOL! Widespread condemnation? LOL!
Serious, more than can be said of the Democrats...
CSMonitor, Washington Post, and the Editorial page of the Dallas Morning News? Such heavy hitters who clearly have no ideological self-interest in the matter.
Though perhaps you can explain to me Annie how I'm suppose to take such a budget seriously that decides that everyone needs to make sacrifices except the Pentagon and the richest of the rich? Anyone who decides to talk about the budget but won't even cut the defense budget cannot be taken seriously. Simple as that.
Paul Ryan's Absurdly Optimistic Budget Projections Draw Widespread Ridicule | TPMDC
Even as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) proudly touted his "fact-based budget" and decried Democrats' "budget gimmicks" yesterday, he prominently cited the think tank's absurdly rosy numbers, drawing widespread mockery from economists, budget experts, and health care wonks. Even the developer of the model that Heritage used to crunch the numbers can't figure out how Heritage reached its conclusions.
"The Heritage numbers are insane," MIT economist Jonathan Gruber said in an interview with TPM.
The numbers stand in stark contrast to analysis from the independent Congressional Budget Office, the gold standard used by both parties to determine the costs of legislation, which shows an increase in the deficit's share of the economy in the plan's first decade thanks to its massive tax cuts and then much tougher financial burdens for seniors in future decades as their health care benefits dwindle.
"CBO is what they use on the budget side -- as a matter of procedure, any numbers from the Heritage Foundation or anybody else are essentially worthless," Bruce Bartlett, a former Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, said in an interview. "You can assert whatever you want to assert, but you can always find some half-baked tax think tank that will make up any number you feel like."
"The idea he'd go to Heritage for that kind of support indicates he didn't like what the CBO was going to tell him," Stan Collender, a former budget aide for both the House and Senate, told TPM. "This is the same guy who said his budget has no gimmicks in it turning to the rosiest scenario he could get."
The Heritage analysis bases its numbers on a "dynamic" model that it says takes into account the explosive growth unleashed by tax cuts. As a number of commentators have noted, it's the same approach that led them to conclude the Bush tax cuts would reduce the deficit and create millions of new jobs -- instead they exploded the deficit and unemployment worsened, eventually skyrocketing.
Are you saying we can't expect to be at 2.8 percent unemployment by the end of the decade? Bummer.
Says he who uses TPM as 'all'. Well please don't ban me for a difference of opinion.
wow, talk about gall......
By 2021, unemployment would hit 2.8% under their projection, well below the 5% - 6% range that the Federal Reserve considers the maximum desirable rate achievable without dangerous inflation.
wow, talk about gall......
Huh?
By 2021, unemployment would hit 2.8% under their projection, well below the 5% - 6% range that the Federal Reserve considers the maximum desirable rate achievable without dangerous inflation.
of his post, the number is clearly ridiculous, no doubt, just that greenbeard would even stick his toe in on this like so..
