The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Ryan's "Roadmap for America's Future"

1) A plan to deal with budget problems that says virtually nothing about military spending is neither brave nor serious. That would be enough to disqualify it from the "serious" bracket, but there's more.

2) A plan that proposes to eliminate tax loopholes and deductions, but doesn't say what any of those are, is neither brave nor serious. It is, instead canny -- or cynical, take your pick. The reality is that many of these deductions, notably for home-mortgage interest payments, are popular and therefore risky to talk about eliminating.

3) A plan that exempts from future Medicare cuts anyone born before 1957 -- about a quarter of the population, which includes me -- is neither brave nor serious. See "canny or cynical: take your pick" above.

4) A plan to reconcile revenue and spending, which rules out axiomatically any conceivable increase in tax rates, is neither brave nor serious. Rather, it is exactly as brave and serious as some opposite-extreme proposal that ruled out axiomatically any conceivable cut in entitlement spending or discretionary accounts.

5) A plan to reduce the federal deficit by granting big tax reductions to the highest-income Americans, at a time when their tax rates are very low by historic standards and and their share of the national income is extremely high, and when middle-class job creation is our main economic challenge, is neither brave nor serious. See "cynical," above.

6) A plan that identifies rising health-care costs as the main problem in public spending, but avoids altogether the question of how to contain those costs, is neither brave nor serious. This is a longer and more complicated discussion (see below*); but I submit that the more closely anyone looks at the Ryan plan, the less "serious" it will seem on this extremely important front.

7) A plan that reduces, among other things, research on future energy sources and technologies by about 85% may be "brave," but it's also crazy and short-sighted.

What really irks me is Ryan's plan proposed privatization of Social Security. Whatever your political views, you might even think that what I described above is somehow a good idea. One point is undeniable cronyism - Social Security, that you currently cannot opt out of, once privatized will be direct outlay to the Wall Street out of every paycheck of every working individual in the country. Lets call it what it is - Ryan's proposing Goldman Sachs tax.

As you put it, I would agree with you. What I am uncertain of at this point is how much control the individual would have over their retirement plan. If there was freedom of investment, you simply *had* to invest something toward retirement... I would be OK with that.

you keep posting left leaning reporting.