[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 49 (Monday, March 26, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S2015]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              RYAN BUDGET

  Mr. KYL. In a recent column in the Arizona Republic, my friend Bob 
Robb laid out a very thoughtful contrast between President Obama's 
budget and the alternative put forth by House Budget Committee chairman 
Paul Ryan, which the House of Representatives will be acting on this 
week. In his column Robb notes that the Ryan budget would get the 
Federal deficit below 3 percent of GDP by 2015 and after a decade would 
reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio from today's 100 percent to about 87 
percent or just under the share many economists believe affects private 
sector economic performance and casts doubt on the government's ability 
to even repay its obligations. Robb explains that ``despite the 
caterwauling of critics, Ryan doesn't achieve this through brutal 
budget cuts. Quite the contrary.'' He explains why the Ryan budget 
would allow spending to increase about 3 percent each year, compared to 
the Obama budget's about 5 percent annual increases, and he concludes 
that low interest rates are currently muting the effects of our growing 
debt on the economy, but it could change overnight. ``And if it 
changes, the federal government will have to take action much more 
drastic and quicker than the relatively gentle and gradual pathway 
provided by the Ryan budget.''
  I hope Senators will take a few moments to review this column in its 
entirety. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Arizona Republic, Mar. 23, 2012]

                   Ryan Has a Less-Painful Debt Plan

                            (By Robert Robb)

       Critics of Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed budget resolution are 
     almost universally unserious about getting federal debt and 
     deficits under control. The country will be very lucky if it 
     gets a chance to implement as gentle and gradual a path to 
     fiscal sobriety as the Ryan plan outlines.
       Economists believe there are two red lines for debt and 
     deficits. If accumulated debt exceeds 90 percent of GDP, it 
     begins to affect private-sector economic performance and 
     raise questions about the ability of the government to pay it 
     back. And annual deficits of more than 3 percent of GDP are 
     regarded as a sign of a government that has lost control of 
     its finances.
       Right now, total federal debt exceeds 100 percent of GDP. 
     The deficit is 8.5 percent of GDP. And that's the lowest it's 
     been in four years.
       The Ryan budget would get the annual deficit below 3 
     percent of GDP by 2015. At the end of the 10-year planning 
     horizon, total federal debt would be an estimated 87 percent 
     of GDP, barely out of the red zone.
       Despite the caterwauling of critics, Ryan doesn't achieve 
     this through brutal budget cuts. Quite the contrary.
       Under Ryan's budget, federal spending would increase from 
     $3.6 trillion today to $4.9 trillion 10 years from now. 
     That's an average annual rate of increase of around 3 
     percent. Hardly a starvation diet.
       What is the alternative to Ryan's plan to get the federal 
     government out of the red zone on debt and deficits? It 
     certainly isn't President Barack Obama's budget.
       Under Obama's budget, the annual deficit wouldn't get under 
     3 percent of GDP until 2017. That would mean eight 
     consecutive years of exceeding the deficit speed limit. 
     That's not a country in control of its finances.
       Under Obama's budget, the country would never get below 100 
     percent of GDP in terms of total debt. After 10 years, the 
     country would still be deep in the red zone.
       Rather than increase federal spending to $4.9 trillion over 
     10 years, Obama would increase it to $5.8 trillion--or nearly 
     5 percent a year, compared with Ryan's 3 percent.
       Obama's tax increases aren't really to reduce the deficit, 
     as he claims. They are to support his higher rate of growth 
     in spending.
       Right now, there's not a political urgency to do something 
     meaningful about debt and deficits because the federal 
     government can borrow a seemingly unlimited amount of money 
     at very low interest rates.
       But that could change. And it could change overnight. And 
     if it changes, the federal government will have to take 
     action much more drastic and quicker than the relatively 
     gentle and gradual pathway provided by the Ryan budget.
       The most controversial parts of the Ryan budget--tax reform 
     and Medicare reform--are actually irrelevant to the task of 
     getting out of the red zone for debt and deficits. The tax 
     reform is intended to be revenue-neutral. The Medicare reform 
     doesn't kick in until after the 10-year planning horizon of 
     the budget resolution. It's intended to reduce the debt 
     problem of the future, not get us out of our current hole.
       If Democrats were serious about doing something about debt, 
     there would be room for discussion about changes to the Ryan 
     blueprint. The Simpson-Bowles Commission proposed tax reform 
     similar to what Ryan advocates, lower rates on a broader 
     base, but in a way that increases revenues to the government. 
     Ryan proposes spending $440 billion more on defense over 10 
     years than does Obama. The relative allocations within the 
     Ryan spending limits are certainly arguable.
       But Democrats aren't serious, so the Ryan budget is the 
     only current alternative to just waiting for the credit 
     markets to start saying no. If that day arrives, the Ryan 
     plan will look awfully lovely in retrospect.

                          ____________________