According to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, tax collections increased 4.7 percent in fiscal year 2012 to $13.5 billion, beating the … Legislative Fiscal Bureau’s February estimate by $320 million.
In California, the twice-failed Govern Brown is going for the trifecta. Despite massive tax hikes, the state is running a $6 billion annual deficit, its cities are declaring bankruptcy one after another, and the state pension system is in critical condition, having been raped by the malevolent, corrupt alliance of Democrats and their public sector union cronies.
Why is it that it never occurs to liberals to cut spending?
Revealing rhetoric from Obama during Clinton’s first term. Juicy tidbit:
Obama argued that the talk of values was empty without social action, and without a vigorous government role: “It’s not easy to live up to your ideals, it requires sacrifice. It may require taxes on the part of the society. It may require that you go without certain luxuries that you become accustomed to.”
It appears from the MSM, comments in blogs and political forum threads that one of the few tools Obama has left is to define Ryan and his Medicare plan as extremist. I’m going to cobble together a bunch of articles and videos together to help you blunt the tidal wave of false talking points. If you encounter a liberal parroting the Mediscare party line, send them to this thread or cut and paste what you need. Cheers!
Update: Obamacare carves out money out of Medicare to pay for Obama’s projects. In 2008, he said such actions ‘Ain’t Right’:
My fave. DSW getting Blitzed by Wolf; he’s relentless….go to around the 3:00 mark to see ole Deb get flustered that Wolf isn’t buying her lies:
Obama promised entitlement reform in his first term.
He had a Super Majority. What happened? They still have no plan like Ryan does:
Even when Ryan originally made the proposal, Obama liked it….indeed he called it an entirely legitimate proposal:
You heard correctly. Obama thought it was worth considering.
When Mr. Ryan’s ideas had no chance of enactment, liberals praised his sincerity. President Obama lauded “a serious proposal” worthy of “healthy debate” in 2009. When the House GOP dared to include it in their budget, liberals responded with varying degrees of hysteria. Mr. Obama recently savaged premium support as “social Darwinism,” and that was the subtle part.
His proposed spending and revenue levels are above historic averages. His Medicare reform has strong bipartisan support. His tax reform plan is similar to one proposed by Obama’s own bipartisan debt reduction commission.
Ryan’s budget, which passed the House last March, would set the federal government on course to spend an average of 20% of GDP over the next decade. That’s slightly higher than the post-World War II average of 19.8%.
His tax plan would produce revenues averaging 18.3% of GDP. That, too, is somewhat higher than the 17.7% post-war average. What’s more, Ryan’s plan would set tax and spending rates higher than every Democratic president before Obama.
By this measure, what’s radical is Obama’s tax and spending plans.
His last budget, issued in February, would set federal spending over the next decade at 22.5% of GDP, on average, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
>snip<
But under his plan, Medicare spending in the near term would track levels set by Obama. Unlike Obama, however, Ryan wouldn’t use any of those near-term savings to finance ObamaCare, but would direct all that to extending the Medicare Trust Fund.
And starting in 2023, Ryan would offer retirees — who are today 55 or younger — the ability to choose from a range of private insurance options, as well as traditional Medicare, with the government providing a fixed level of premium support.
The thinking is that this will unleash competitive insurance market forces, keeping costs down, while providing greater control over federal spending. But Ryan’s plan would let Medicare spending continue to climb over the long term, just not as fast as projected under current law.
Despite efforts by Democrats to cast it as a Medicare killer, Ryan’s Medicare reform actually has a strong bipartisan pedigree, attracting the support of Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., as well as former Democratic Sen. John Breaux, who developed a similar “premium support” reform as part of President Clinton’s bi-partisan Medicare commission.
>snip<
Ryan’s plan also is similar in its basic outline to ideas put forward by Obama’s own Simpson-Bowles debt commission. One of the fiscal panel’s proposals had three brackets — 8%, 14% and 23%.
That commission was emphatic about the need for tax reform, saying that since 1986, “Washington has riddled the system with countless tax expenditures, which are simply spending by another name.”
First, if Ryan is an extremist and his proposals are so unpopular, how has he won election seven times in a Democratic district? His lowest share of the vote was 57 percent — in his first race. He routinely wins over two-thirds of the vote. When Obama swept the nation in 2008, he carried Ryan’s district by four points. But at the same time, Ryan won reelection with 65 percent of the vote, meaning that a fifth of Obama voters also voted for him.
Ryan has pointed out to me that no Republican has carried his district for president since Ronald Reagan in 1984. “I have held hundreds of town-hall meetings in my district explaining why we have to take bold reform steps, and I’ve found treating people like adults works,” he told me. “All those ads pushing elderly woman off the cliffs don’t work anymore if you lay out the problem.”
Second, Democrats know that Ryan has Reaganesque qualities that make him appealing to independent, middle-class voters. Take the cover story on Ryan that the Isthmus, a radically left-wing Madison, Wis. newspaper, ran on him in 2009. “Ryan, with his sunny disposition and choirboy looks, projects compassion and forcefully proclaims dedication to his district,” the story reported. “And he’s proved he is not unyieldingly pro-corporate, as when he recently joined in condemnation of AIG ‘retention’ bonuses.”
1. No one over the age of 55 would be affected in any way.
2. Traditional Medicare fee-for-service would remain available for all. “Premium support”—that is, government funding of private insurance plans chosen by individuals—is an option for those who choose it. No senior would be forced out of the traditional Medicare program against his will.
3. Overall funding for Medicare under the Ryan-Wyden plan is scheduled to grow at the same rate as under President Obama’s proposals. Is this “gutting Medicare” and “ending Medicare as we know it”? In reality, it’s the market giving seniors cheaper, higher quality choices they can take if they wish, with the traditional program remaining an option.
Both ObamaCare and Ryan’s plan make changes to Medicare: ObamaCare via of government rationing, and Ryan via direction of privatization. The ObamaCare law creates a new panel, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will be composed of 15 unelected government officials. They will be charged with rationing care to seniors, primarily by underpaying doctors and hospitals.
Obama has cut Medicare more than Romney and Ryan would. According to the most recent estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare will reduce Medicare spending by more than $700 billion between 2013 and 2022, relative to prior law. These cuts directly affect current retirees. By contrast, both the Romney and Wyden-Ryan plans only affect retirees younger than 55.
The approach advocated by Ryan and Romney gives seniors more control over their own health dollars, allowing them to choose the plan that provides the best value for their money.
Combine these three points, and Team Romney can say that, if you’re a senior citizen who is worried about Medicare, your best bet is to vote for the Republican ticket. The Republicans will protect the system; the Democrats are taking half a trillion from it over the next decade to fund a new entitlement.
It is true that Democrats are licking their chops. And that they will claim a vote for them is a vote to save Medicare. But that’s misguided.
Put another way: BecauseObamacare already messes with entitlements, there is greater urgency for reforming the entitlement system. That is, Obama and Biden are the ones who touched entitlements, and Romney and Ryan are coming in to fix them.
Obamacare emphasizes government control and central planning. The law empowers a panel of 15 unelected government officials, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, to make changes to the Medicare program that will reduce Medicare spending: primarily paying doctors and hospitals less, as is done with the Medicaid program. Over time, liberal health-policy types hope that IPAB can be used to introduce rationing into Medicare, using the panel to determine what types of procedures and treatments that Medicare will and will not pay for.
The Wyden-Ryan plan, co-authored by liberal Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) and Paul Ryan, preserves the Obamacare targets for future Medicare spending, but employs an entirely different mechanism: premium support and competitive bidding. Seniors would enjoy exactly the same benefits that they do now, but along with the traditional Medicare program, they would enjoy the option of choosing among a selection of government-approved private insurance plans.
Soviet style control vs. Free Market? Are you kidding me? Some idiots actually prefer the care of the state. Morons marinated in Koolaid.
More…. Clinton’s Man says Ryan’s plan is the way to go:
Through the candidates’ statements this week and through this new ad, Romney and Ryan have made clear they’re going to inform voters about this and force the Democrats to defend themselves on Medicare.
That won’t be easy for the Left, since the Romney campaign’s charges are true, and it is beginning to become apparent that the Democrats are totally unprepared for the coming fight. Their defenses so far fall into roughly three categories: Ryan did it too, the Obamacare Medicare cuts aren’t very serious, and finally what can only be called frantic distractions. Even as pure demagoguery (let alone as efforts at actual substantive arguments) all three are exceptionally weak defenses, and suggest the Democrats could be in serious trouble.
Love the irony: the one perceived ‘weakness’ of Ryan will become the Democrats’ biggest weakness. Ivory Tower echo chambers can do that to a group.
This election represents the last exit ramp before the death spiral. (Yes, yes, I know: too long for a campaign button.) Obama has spent the last four years making things worse. More debt, more dependency, more delusion. For Act Two, he’s now touting the auto bailout as a model for … everything!
“I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.”
In the last three years, he has “created” 2.6 million new jobs — a number that does not even keep up with the number of (legal) immigrants who arrive each month. Obama does not “create” jobs, he creates disabled people: in the same period as 2.6 million Americans signed on with new employers, 3.1 million signed on at the Social Security Disability Office.
Obama is the first president in history to create more disabled people than workers. He is the biggest creator of disabled people on the planet. He has disabled more people than the Japanese tsunami. More Americans have been disabled by Obama than have been given cancer by Mitt Romney. “Ask yourself, ‘Are you more disabled now than you were four years ago?’ Obama 2012.” Followed by the wheelchair logo with the Obama “O” where the wheel should be. In the Democrats’ Dependistan, the wheelchair ramp is downhill all the way.
Emperor Maximus has some sage advice for Team R&R on messaging over there.
Have you seen the latest jobs report? Major buzzkill: creeping unemployment, anemic growth, and the recovery’s totally stalled.
But not here: The District is booming! “Washington may have the healthiest economy of any major metropolitan area in the country,” says New York Times D.C. bureau chief David Leonhardt in Sunday’s Gray Lady. “You can actually see the prosperity”!
Yes we can! Construction cranes dominate the downtown skyline, and your average homeless guy can barely grab a stretch of sidewalk before yet another boutique store pops up to bounce his bedroll.
True, if you venture outside the Death Star’s orbit to visit the colonies for Thanksgiving or Christmas, you’ll see a lot of boarded-up storefronts. You might even feel a twinge of shame when Matt Drudge feeds you headlines like “D.C. Leads List of Most Shopaholic Cities in America.”
Read the rest. Makers are being lorded over by the Takers.
The regulator for government-run housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac said on Tuesday that using taxpayer-funded bank bailout money could encourage defaults and not make a big improvement in reducing foreclosures in a cost-effective way for taxpayers.
“The anticipated benefits do not outweigh the costs and risks,” said the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s head Edward DeMarco, who has come under intense pressure from the government to agree to the plan.
The regulator’s decision drew an immediate rebuke from the Obama administration and Democratic lawmakers. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner disputed the agency’s conclusions and urged DeMarco to reconsider his decision.
Let’s hope he can keep the agency from giving away more free money.
