President Obama claims that his new budget is a compromise.  In reality, his budget is as bloated and wasteful as the budget proposed by Chairman Murray.  Americans for Prosperity opposed Sen. Murray’s budget on the grounds that it was a tax-and-spend boost for big government.  It did nothing to address our critical fiscal situation and neither does the President’s new budget.

To see why this budget is not a compromise, look at the three graphs below comparing the President’s budget to the four other budgets that were proposed over the course of the past month.

President Obama’s budget initially spends more than Chairman Murray’s budget.  Over ten years, it spends $147 billion more than her budget.  In comparison, the budgets proposed by Chairman Ryan, Senator Paul, and the Republican Study Committee slow the increase in government spending over the next ten years.  According to Veronique de Rugy at the Mercatus Center, “The Democratic plans grow spending by 54% while the Ryan plan grows it by 34% and the Paul plan by 22% over this period.”

Of all of the budget proposals, President Obama’s budget collects the most in taxes.  This means that his budget taxes and spends more money than any of the other budgets presented this year.  In no way can this be considered a compromise

In this graph, President Obama’s and Chairman Murray’s budget drastically grow the “debt held by the public” figure over the next ten years.  Again, the President’s budget slightly edges Chairman Murray’s budget, increasing the amount of public debt by almost $7 trillion.  In contrast, Chairman Ryan’s budget grows this figure by roughly $2 trillion over ten years, Sen. Paul’s budget grows it by roughly $500 billion, and the RSC budget would have cut it by roughly $40 billion.

In other words, the budget offered us by the President has the highest taxes, highest spending, and the largest increase to the national debt out of all the budget proposals.  In no way is it a compromise.

This is the latest in series of blog posts focusing on the federal budget proposals. The first focused on Chairman Ryan’s plan, the second on the Senate Democrats’ plan, and the third and fourth highlighted their differences on tax and spending policy.

Federal spending on entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—poses the biggest threat to the federal government’s finances. This spending is projected to skyrocket even further in the future, due largely to changing demographics and implementing the President’s onerous and expensive health care law. Three of the budget proposals that are circulating Washington right now present very different visions for these programs’ future. Here is a closer look at the differences between them.

For a high-level view, take a look at the differences in mandatory spending over the next decade. Mandatory spending is spending on programs that are required by law each year without appropriations, which includes entitlement spending. Medicare and Social Security make up the majority of mandatory spending, but the category also includes other social safety net problems, such as Medicaid, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

The two Republican plans—one from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and the other from the Republican Study Committee (RSC) that was released on Monday—both propose a number of changes that reduce entitlement spending, as reflected in the graph below. Under the direction of Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, the Senate Democrats make no substantive structural changes to entitlement programs. This is why total spending on mandatory spending under their plan closely matches the CBO baseline.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

We can drill down further to the spending projections for the major entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare.

SOCIAL SECURITY

Chairman Ryan and the RSC approach Social Security reform differently. Chairman Ryan’s budget punts the problem to President Obama to figure out, which is a concerning omission. The RSC’s budget makes two big changes to the program. First, it gradually raises the eligibility age for Social Security, until it eventually reaches 70. Second, it changes the way that the government calculates the cost of living adjustments (COLA) for Social Security payments. More specifically, it switches to chained CPI-U, which is a more accurate measure of inflation because it considers the choices that consumers make.  However, this shift also introduces the specter of raising taxes.

The graph below reflects the differences in spending across the plans, compared with the Senate Democrats’ budget, which matches the CBO baseline because it includes no policy changes.

Click to enlarge

MEDICAID

Notable differences across the plans also exist as they relate to Medicaid spending. As described previously, the Senate Democrats’ plan would leave Medicaid largely unchanged, so it matches the CBO baseline. Both Republican plans stop the Medicaid expansion under the President’s health care law and they also both propose turning Medicaid into a block grant. AFP has long supported block granting Medicaid, since it would give states the control and flexibility required to fix the broken program. Under Chairman Ryan’s plan, the block grant will see modest increases each year. Under the RSC plan, the block grant for Medicaid and CHIP funding is held constant at FY 2014 levels, which yields more savings against the baseline over the next 10 years.

Click to enlarge

MEDICARE

Stark differences also exist between the Senate Democrats’ budget and the Republican budgets with regard to Medicare spending. The Senate Democrats’ plan closely follows the CBO baseline because it includes no significant reforms—as highlighted before.  It raises Medicare payments to doctors permanently and reverses sequestration cuts to Medicare. Meanwhile, both Chairman Ryan and the RSC switch to a premium support model and push the eligibility age higher, to bring it in line with the new eligibility age for Social Security. The differences in spending between Chairman Ryan’s and the RSC’s plans will be minor over the next ten years, as shown in the graph below, but the RSC budget would likely spend less in the following years as more seniors select private-sector options for their health coverage.

Click to enlarge

This is the third in series of blog posts focusing on the federal budget proposals in Congress. The first post focused on Chairman Ryan’s plan, the second post focused on the Senate Democrats’ plan, and subsequent posts will focus important differences between the two plans.

Although they have a few similarities, Chairman Paul Ryan and Chairman Patty Murray present two very different visions for the nation’s finances in their budgets. Here is a closer look at the different approaches to tax policy in the two budget proposals that came out this week.

OVERALL TAX REVENUES

Ryan’s plan is revenue neutral, as discussed yesterday, meaning that it is not an overall tax hike. Senate Democrats say in the Chairman’s Mark that their budget includes “only” $923 billion in higher taxes over the next 10 years, but it turns out to be much higher. Buried elsewhere in their budget is $580 billion in additional tax hikes, bringing the total to $1.5 trillion.

Chairman Ryan’s plan would use the revenue coming from eliminating loopholes (described below) to bring down tax rates. The Senate Democrats’ plan would use the revenue to fuel higher levels of federal spending. By only removing deductions and refusing to lower rates, Murray’s budget represents a massive tax hike on American families and businesses.

The plans share a disappointing similarity: Each relies on the $620 billion in higher taxes that kicked in after January’s fiscal cliff deal, which AFP opposed.

TAX REFORM FRAMEWORK

Both budgets call for comprehensive tax reform, but they disagree on what that should look like. Chairman Ryan proposes simplifying and streamlining the tax code, highlighting the “maze” of deductions, credits, limitations, and phase-outs that clutter the tax code.  He also calls for rate reduction, on both the personal and corporate side.  Unfortunately, he does not attempt to abolish the death tax.

Representing a different vision, Senate Democrats want to “restore fairness to the tax code” by making it even more progressive. They recommend making certain tax credits for low- and middle- income families permanent, and eliminating or reducing tax credits and deductions that benefit top earners and businesses.  They refuse to even consider lowering rates in exchange for eliminating deductions for high-earners.  This results in a massive tax hike that will harm economic growth and slow job creation.

ELIMINATING LOOPHOLES

Although both plans call for eliminating loopholes, both are woefully short on specifics. Neither dives into the details of which deductions should be cut. Chairman Ryan leaves room for the House Ways and Means Committee’s upcoming work on tax reform, under the leadership of Chairman Dave Camp.

Similarly, the Senate Democrats punt the problem to the Senate Finance Committee to figure out. The only specific “wasteful business tax loopholes” they identify are changing the depreciation rules for corporate jets (which would save a measly $3 billion over 10 years) and increasing taxes on hedge fund managers (which is currently appropriately taxed as capital gains).

PERSONAL INCOME TAX

Chairman Ryan proposes to simplify our broken tax code by turning our seven individual income tax brackets into two, and then bringing down the marginal tax rates to 10% and 25%.  He would also repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, which tries to block top earners from using the same deductions as everyone else. (For more background, check out this memo on AMT from Americans for Prosperity Foundation.)

Murray’s budget doesn’t lower personal income tax rates. Instead, her plan takes a cue from the fiscal cliff deal that marked the start of 2013. She proposes permanently extending the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which is focused on higher education; she also proposes “temporary enhancements” to the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit.

CORPORATE INCOME TAX

Chairman Ryan would cut the top corporate tax rate to 25 percent, but Murray’s budget would leave it untouched.  AFP supports cutting the corporate tax rate—which is currently the highest in the industrialized world, at 35 percent—since low rates is a principle of optimal taxation and it would produce myriad positive results for the economy. According to a brand-new study from Tax Foundation, cutting the federal corporate tax rate to 25 percent would incite economic growth, more wages and job creation, and higher tax revenue.

Another change that Ryan includes but Murray excludes is switching to a territorial tax system. This will make the tax code more competitive internationally. Currently the U.S. enforces a worldwide tax system, which discourages companies from bringing their capital back home from abroad. (Here’s a memo from AFPF that further explains the issue.)  Murray’s budget continues the draconian practice of punishing U.S. companies who dare to take the profits of their overseas capital and invest it in the American economy.  This harms economic growth and it’s unfortunate that Murray’s budget fails to even address this problem.

INVESTMENT TAXES, ESTATE TAXES

Ryan highlights the current high taxes on investment income—capital gains and dividends—as a challenge, but he doesn’t lay out a solution. He also fails to address the death tax. Again, he pushes this this problem to the House Ways and Means Committee to figure out.

Similarly, the Senate Democrats’ budget doesn’t make any changes to the capital gains tax rate or the dividends tax rate.

HEALTHCARE TAXES

Chairman Ryan’s budget does not repeal the damaging new taxes included in the President’s health care law.  The revenue baseline for Ryan’s budget is left unchanged, which means that whatever changes he instructs Ways and Means to make to the code, he wants the end result to be revenue neutral in both a positive and negative sense.  In other words, even if Ways and Means does remove the specific health care taxes they’re still going to keep the money and use it elsewhere in their tax reform package.

The Senate Democrat plan, predictably, also keeps these harmful taxes intact.

This is the first in series of blog posts focusing on the federal budget proposals in Congress. The first post will focus Chairman Ryan’s plan, the second post will focus on the Senate Democrats’ plan, and subsequent posts will focus important differences between the two plans.

On Tuesday, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan released his budget for the next fiscal year.  Chairman Ryan’s budget takes on Washington’s budget problems, putting the country on a path of lower spending, lower taxes, and lower debt. It provides a starkly different vision than the one Senate Democrats proposed today, or what the President will likely propose in April.  Overall, AFP supports the Ryan plan because it includes a number of positive policy provisions. But his plan is not without some substantial flaws.  The following are highlights from the plan.

OVERALL SPENDING LEVELS

Chairman Ryan’s plan reduces future projected spending by $4.6 trillion over the next ten years. It also cuts annual spending growth to 3.4 percent, down from 5 percent. Ryan’s plan also keeps the sequester in place, the automatic spending cuts beginning with $85 billion that went into effect on March 1. In addition, he extends the discretionary spending caps from the Budget Control Act and outlines a number of plans to cut down on wasteful spending in government. His budget balances in 10 years, meaning that it eliminates the budget deficit in 2023, although such balance is obtained by relying on $620 billion in tax increases from the fiscal cliff deal.

TAX REFORM

Although tax reform is the responsibility of the House Ways and Means Committee, led by Chairman Dave Camp, Chairman Ryan lays out a framework for tax reform in his plan. His budget proposes much-needed tax reforms that get rid of deductions and credits, lowers rates, simplifies seven income tax brackets into two (10% and 25%), reduces the corporate tax rate to 25%, moves to a territorial system, and abolishes the Alternative Minimum Tax.  Overall, these proposals are positive reforms that will allow more Americans to keep more of their income.

HEALTH CARE

Chairman Ryan’s budget includes a number of changes to Medicare and Medicaid. His changes to health care programs account for more than half of his spending savings, $2.7 trillion. He proposes turning funding for Medicaid into block grants to the states. (He turns food stamp funding into block grants, too.) Putting states in control of entitlement programs like Medicaid will result in much-needed reform and restore sanity to these bloated programs.  This budget also proposes to reform Medicare by providing the option in 2024 for individuals born in 1959 or after to choose from various private plans in a newly-created Medicare exchange.  These reforms begin to address runaway health care and entitlement spending.

In addition, Chairman Ryan’s plan repeals the spending provisions of President Obama’s job-killing health care law. It repeals the Medicaid expansion and health insurance exchanges from the President’s health care law and broadly repeals other spending components of that law. (Curiously and disappointingly, it does not repeal the new taxes from the President’s health care law.)

ENERGY

Chairman Ryan’s plan approves the Keystone pipeline and expands oil and gas leasing.  These commonsense reforms create jobs and remove barriers in the energy market.

HOUSING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES

The plan proposes to reduce the influence of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by gradually cutting their taxpayer subsidies and government guarantees. Chairman Ryan also proposes to reform the Federal Credit Reform Act by changing the scoring standards for federal housing credit programs to reflect fair-value.

Relating to financial services, Chairman Ryan proposes revisiting certain flawed financial regulations, including Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and the Dodd-Frank Act.

SHORTCOMINGS  

Chairman Ryan’s plan sadly fails to include a number of policies. In particular, we would like to see the following:

• This budget does not address the broken Social Security program, which is headed for insolvency. This is an oversight for any budget proposal.  AFP would like to see Chairman Ryan propose to reform Social Security with the same enthusiasm that he brings to reforming other entitlement reforms, instead of simply calling on the President to come up with a plan.

• Chairman Ryan’s budget does not include repealing the death tax. AFP is consistently opposed to this damaging and immoral tax. Hopefully, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp will include repealing the death tax in his upcoming plan for comprehensive tax reform.    Yet, it is still highly disappointing that this budget leaves the death tax untouched.

• Ryan’s plan doesn’t get rid of the $620 billion in higher taxes that kicked in after January’s fiscal cliff deal, which AFP opposed. Keeping these tax hikes is a major part of how Chairman Ryan is able to get his budget to balances in ten years.   While achieving a “balanced budget” is important, it should not be achieved at through costly tax hikes on Americans, which is unfortunately what the Ryan plan relies upon.

AFP certainly does not believe this budget is a perfect proposal, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. Chairman Ryan proposes solid reforms to several of the biggest threats to our national fiscal health, instead of kicking our problems down road for our children and grand-children to solve.

“Budget Chair Paul Ryan should be commended for once again crafting a serious federal budget that begins reining in government overspending, which is the greatest threat to economic prosperity our nation faces. Others talk about needed entitlement reform, but Chairman Ryan actually presents a bold reform plan to preserve Medicare and Medicaid for our nation’s elderly and poor, while making necessary changes to save tax dollars and avoid seeing these programs go bankrupt. In addition, the Ryan budget repeals the President’s expensive Washington, D.C. takeover of our health care.

“We urge the chairman to reject the $620 billion in new taxes negotiated by the Obama Administration during the fiscal cliff deal. For years our government has been grievously overspending, and that behavior should never be reinforced by allowing more tax dollars to be taken from the American people.

“Our hope is that the Senate – which has not passed a budget in four years – look to the Ryan plan as a framework for their own proposal.”

Americans For Prosperity, a self-described “free market grassroots organization,” announced its scorecard of the 112th Congress on Wednesday.

That group ranks lawmakers by percentage based upon votes they took on certain bills that affect “economic freedom.”

The only senator to get a perfect 100 percent rating? Rubio, the freshman Florida senator thought to be gearing up for a possible 2016 presidential race.

According to the group, this year’s scorecard includes votes on “repeal of President Obama’s new health care law, preempting EPA’s purported authority to regulate greenhouse gases, [House budget] Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget, ending ethanol subsidies, several Congressional Review Act resolutions to overturn new regulations, and the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bills.”

CLICK HERE to more at The Daily Caller…

ARLINGTON, VA—Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the premier free market grassroots organization committed to smaller government and economic freedom, today released its scorecard for the 112^th Congress.  AFP also launched an interactive online version of its congressional key vote scorecard, which includes AFP key votes from the past three congresses and will be the scorecard’s online home moving forward.  AFP ranks members of Congress on their votes for economic freedom.

• AFP’s new scorecard website is online at: http://www.americansforprosperity.org/scorecard.
• A printable version of AFP’s 112^th Congress Scorecard is available by clicking here.

“The AFP Scorecard is an easy way for our activists, the media, and the general public to keep an eye on Washington.  Now that the Scorecard is available on an interactive website it will be even easier to keep an eye on Congress,” said AFP Director of Policy James Valvo.

The 112^th Congress Scorecard includes critical votes on such issues as the repeal of President Obama’s new health care law, preempting EPA’s purported authority to regulate greenhouse gases, Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget, ending ethanol subsidies, several Congressional Review Act resolutions to overturn new regulations, and the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bills.

“This past session of Congress was important because it was the first one after the 2010 elections, when voters sent a wave of conservative legislators to Capitol Hill. Americans signaled that they were tired of big government and wanted more economic freedom,” continued Valvo. “Not surprisingly, congressional Democrats and Republicans performed starkly differently on the scorecard. While the House passed many important substantive and procedural reforms, the Senate showed a poor free market voting pattern and stopped these reforms from seeing the President’s desk.”

Eighteen Representatives and 1 Senator received a perfect 100 percent, earning an A+ score on the AFP Scorecard. Twenty-one Representatives and 1 Senator received a 0 percent, earning an F.

AFP President Tim Phillips said, “Tonight Congressman Paul Ryan clearly articulated the ongoing failures of President Obama’s big-government agenda while Vice President Biden covered his inability to explain these failures with sneers, giggles and eye rolls.

Despite Biden’s interruptions and outbursts, he offered no defense for President Obama’s record on irresponsible spending, no solutions on the looming ObamaCare tax, and no real solutions to pull America out of the most anemic economic ‘recovery’ seen in modern history.”

Americans for Prosperity has presented its own Jobs Agenda, which calls for reforms to the tax code to keep America competitive, full repeal of the costly taxes in Obama’s health care law, and an end to Washington’s wasteful spending that has driven the national debt over $16 trillion.

With the selection of Congressman Paul Ryan as the Republican vice presidential candidate, the subject of Medicare reform is dominating the news. Both Congressman Ryan and President Obama have distinctive plans to overhaul this huge entitlement program represented by a key choice: bureaucratic control or seniors’ choice. In a series of blog posts this week, Americans for Prosperity will be examining what Medicare is and whether it is sustainable, President Obama’s and Congressman Ryan’s Medicare plans, and the best path forward for American seniors.

Medicare is the health insurance program for American seniors and the disabled. Seniors reaching age 65 are eligible for this government-provided insurance. In 2011, Medicare provided insurance to more than 48 million individuals, including 40 million seniors. Expenditures in 2011 totaled more than $549 billion across the four Medicare parts dubbed Medicare A, Medicare B, Medicare C and Medicare D.

Traditional Medicare—Medicare A, B and D

When describing Medicare, policymakers are almost always referring to Medicare A, B and D. Part A provides coverage for services rendered while a patient is in a hospital. This represents the largest source of Medicare spending, almost $260 billion in 2011. Part B is a supplemental coverage purchased by seniors to cover outpatient services like doctors’ visits, laboratory tests and x-rays. Part D is additional coverage that seniors can purchase to offset the cost of prescription coverage.

Part A is financed through a payroll tax assessed on all Americans at a rate of 2.9 percent—1.45% paid by employees and 1.45% paid by employers. These taxes are pooled and put into the Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund for future use. Medicare spending is increasing so dramatically that it must now use its past savings to pay for current spending. While Part A spent almost $260 billion in 2011, it only collected $228.9 billion in taxes. This drain on the HI trust fund is set to exhaust the fund in the near future.  Reform is a must.

Parts B and D are funded separately from Part A. Their revenues come from two sources: general governmental revenues and premiums assessed to seniors that are pooled into the Supplemental Medical Insurance (SMI) trust fund. Seniors are required to pay 25% of Part B’s costs. In 2012, premiums for seniors started at $99 a month; these premiums are means tested so that wealthier enrollees pay a larger premium than low-income seniors. Premiums for Part D are then additional expenses for seniors.

With all three of these Parts, bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. set reimbursement rates for any doctor willing to treat Medicare patients. Doctors are unable to charge patients, or the government, for the cost of providing the service. This type of payment structure is described as “fee-for-service.” For comparison, Medicare’s reimbursement rates are generally only 75% of those for private insurance.

Medicare Advantage—Medicare Part C

Unlike traditional Medicare, Medicare Advantage allows seniors to purchase health insurance from private insurers. These insurers compete for seniors’ business and typically provide benefits well in excess of traditional Medicare to attract consumers. The cost is split between seniors and the government.

Is Medicare Sustainable?

Medicare is unsustainable. Medicare spending is increasing rapidly even before the majority of baby boomers reach 65 years old. Over 10,000 baby boomers become eligible for Medicare daily.

The chart below shows the dramatic increase in Medicare spending since 2005 and its projected spending moving forward. By the end of the decade, Medicare will be spending more than $900 billion a year. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that Medicare will grow by more than 6% every year from 2012 to 2022, far faster than the projected growth of the economy.

Medicare spending in Part A is all ready exceeding its payroll tax revenue. Medicare’s trustees report that Part A’s trust fund will be bankrupt by 2016 without much-needed reform. The SMI trust fund for Parts B and D are considered sufficiently funded, but that is only because these parts of Medicare have access to Congress’ purse.

“The announcement this morning of Paul Ryan as Governor Romney’s choice for Vice President is great news for several reasons. First, it demonstrates the national conversation will be focused on substantive economic issues, and free market solutions to the problems we face. Second, it demonstrates a willingness to address our fiscal woes with bold solutions, rather than more empty promises and campaign rhetoric.

“Paul Ryan has been a regular participant in AFP rallies and events over the years. Our organization supported his 2010 budget plan and we have been proud to work with him on restoring economic freedom to our nation.

“Over the coming weeks, we look forward to a spirited, substantive debate on how to reverse the damage done by President Obama’s big-government policies, and set a new course for American prosperity.”