Notice: Gamble of the GOP to reduce deficit

Plan of the REP. Paul Ryan budget could be a turning point, Ron Haskins saysHe says the Americans are not willing to pay for the size of the existsHaskins Government: to solve the problem of runaway debt, spending cuts, income increases neededHe application if both parties will reduce an agreement, or continue for future generations with debt loadEditor's Note: Ron Haskins, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has been Advisor on issues of welfare to the Congress in the development of the 1996 welfare reform legislation and Senior Adviser to the President for social policy in the administration of George w.. Bush.

Washington (cnn) - the draft budget presented Tuesday by the Republican Chairman of the Committee on House budget, Paul Ryan, is potentially a turning point for the Federal Government and American culture.

The most fundamental principle of Republican governing philosophy is that small government is best because individual initiative, personal responsibility and if based on the work, family and the community are the essence of the American vision. But since the founders our Constitution consistent with this vision, the Government has exploded.

To take one example, also recently that in 1962 the Federal Government spends only $ 29 billion on programs for poor Americans and low income; in 2010, the Federal Government spent $ 789 billion on these and similar programs, a tenfold increase. This example could be multiplied, especially with reference to retirement programs, health programs, education programs and federal regulations.

The Liberals consider the wave of spending and the expansion of the authority of the Government as a triumph; Conservatives and libertarians held both as excessive. Worse still, they think that programs to give too many people that they should work for themselves, thereby reducing individual initiatives and down-sizing the American vision.

GOP budget plan cuts Medicare, tax rates

On various occasions in the past, Republicans actually tried to govern in accordance with their philosophy of small government, often at considerable political risk. Radical changes in the 1995 federal budget and veto by President Clinton giving rise to cases of Government adopted by Republicans in Congress was an example. A successful example was the Act of reform of social welfare of 1996 which led to an unprecedented increase of works and decline of dependence on social assistance and poverty among single mothers.

Now, Ryan proposal brings the nation to another seminal moment. Here is a case in which need to meet the Republican philosophy. The American people seem unwilling to pay for the sum of Government they receive.

The American people seem unwilling to pay for the sum of Government they receive.
-Ron Haskins

Polls show that Americans realize more and more that the Government cannot continue to live on borrowed money, but they are difficult to realize that the involvement of their new understanding is that relying on debt can be reduced only by shrinking Governmentincrease taxes, the growth of the economy to generate additional revenue or a combination of these three.

The Government approach to small Ryan calls on two of these instruments for the reduction of the debt. It would be reduced spending by 5.8 trillion over the next decade, which reduced the deficit of 4.4 billion during the same period. It would also be to reform the code of taxes by removing tax breaks and lower the rates for businesses and individuals.

Most economists agree that a tax code with tax breaks and lower rates would be more fair and to improve the efficiency, thus helping the growth of the economy and may produce additional revenue. But Ryan would not raise taxes because to do so would be contrary to the Republican goal of smaller government.

The most radical and politically dangerous proposals Ryan are fundamentally change Medicare, a program that provides health benefits to more than 46 million elderly Americans. There is agreement generalized that unless we can "bend the curve" of federal spending on health care, it will eventually consume an unsustainable share of federal income. Ryan proposal will address this central problem by providing a contribution for the elderly and by requiring to purchase health insurance on their own, probably in exchanges that will be established under President Obama affordable care Act.

In all likelihood, the Federal Government would pay a fixed amount to the insurance premium of each individual, with a grant for the sickest and poorest people. But government grants will not be enough to pay the premium all now and in the future, therefore, the economies of health in the approach of Ryan and the increase in costs imposed on the elderly.

Democrats are already attacking Ryan proposal on health insurance and many other proposals in his Bill. The language of the attacks is already hard and promises to get tougher. Well that Ryan and the direction of the Republican House are certain to get - and deserve - congratulations for having the courage to put serious and risky proposals on the table to reduce unsustainable deficits of the nation, they are also tested by the onslaught of attacks.

Two of the most important questions now are whether if the American public, especially the tea party and independents, will rally to provide adequate support to support the Republicans in the runway at high risk, they are blazing, and if the President will part company with most Democrats Hill and use of the Republican plan as an opportunity for reviving the proposal balanced its deficit of the commission and to engage in serious negotiations.

If so, the ultimate question: both parties can agree on a compromise budget spending, raises revenues and tames the Federal deficit? Republicans are likely to support a deal that does not significantly reduce the size of the Government. Democrats are likely to support an agreement that does not include income increases.

Without such an agreement, the nation will continue to teeter on a precipice created by illusion and supported by indifference to future generations.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ron Haskins.

View the original article here