"If I cut off both my thumbs, I’d also lose weight. But I’d also have a hard time getting another job."
Well, anyone who has seen Tom's Maryland mansion knows that he can get by without another job, but I still hope he doesn't cut off his thumbs. Given his girth, it won't make a difference. If he wants to carry around less weight, I suggest he start by losing his mustache.
But enough silliness and let's get to the substance of Friedman's opinion piece, i.e. Ryan's budget is bad, Obama's budget is better, Friedman's budget is best. (No, I'm no longer joking.) Friedman again calls for - yawn - cuts in Medicare and Social Security and investment in "education, infrastructure, quality government institutions and government-funded research."
Ah, yes, as W.C. Fields might have intoned, "quality government institutions and government-funded research." Let me add this to my list of oxymorons.
But in case Friedman hasn't noticed, that other "quality" government program, Obamacare, over the next decade, as acknowledged by Chuck Blahous, public trustee for Medicare and Social Security (see: http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/The-Fiscal-Consequences-of-the-Affordable-Care-Act.pdf) will:
"add at least $340 billion and as much as $530 billion to federal deficits while increasing federal spending by more than $1.15 trillion over the same period and by increasing amounts thereafter."
Moreover, the federal government can continue printing money, but in case Tom didn't notice, it's going broke fast. But that didn't stop Tom from sliming Paul Ryan, as did his colleague, Paul Krugman, on Monday (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2012/04/paul-krugman-gullible-center-argumentum.html).
As observed last week by James B. Stewart in In a New York Times article entitled "For All the Furor Over Ryan’s Plan, It’s a Place to Start" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/business/lots-of-accolades-but-little-action-on-budget-plan-common-sense.html?pagewanted=all):
"It’s easy enough to tweak the Ryan tax rates to generate more tax revenue while still lowering rates and broadening the tax base, as Ronald Reagan did in 1986.
In return, Republicans would get lower rates and curbs on entitlement spending. Democrats would get more tax revenue and preserve the essential elements and long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security. The nation would get a fairer tax code, long-term deficit reduction, a secure credit rating, stronger economic growth and a social safety net.
'The overwhelming majority of Congress would agree to this on a secret ballot,' [Tennessee Democratic Congressman Jim Cooper] told me.'"
But, what can we do? Tom always knows best.
No comments:
Post a Comment