Paul Ryan’s plan to reduce the federal deficit is not radical enough says Mark Hendrickson in his article in The Christian Science Monitor. In fact, his plan would increase the federal debt by 1.1 trillion. The democrats on the other hand believe that adding only 5 trillion to the federal budget deficit is an extremely conservative figure indeed.
How do their plans differ? Who would be most effected by the ever-expanding burden of fiscal debt? And finally, is this primarily a political or ethical dilemma? These questions are covered in this thought-provoking article titled The Problem with the Paul Ryan plan: It’s not nearly radical enough.
“The Ryan plan is not radical at all. It doesn’t get to the root of the problem. It never questions the legitimacy of government redistribution of wealth. Though Ryan’s plan moves us in the right direction, with less federal spending, it is ultimately not a cure for what ails us.
The democratic welfare state is unsustainable. The federal debt problem likely will get a lot worse and cause a lot of economic dislocation and pain before a majority of Americans are ready to admit that it is an activist, “progressive” government engaged in the problematic practice of redistributing wealth that has brought us to the brink of national bankruptcy.
Herman de Rompuy, President of the European Council, bluntly stated last year, “We can’t finance our social model any more.” The democratic welfare state is inherently unsustainable. In every area where the government has intervened to take care of us – retirement, healthcare, education – the price tag keeps soaring, as does the nagging feeling that things are getting worse instead of better.”
Click here to read the complete article.