GOP’s “black magic” budget: Using voodoo to conjure trillions in savings

[DonViejo]

Senate Republicans plan to balance the budget and save Medicare with sleight of hand and sorcery

SIMON MALOY

The Republican-controlled Congress’ budget extravaganza continued this week as the Senate GOP released their FY2016 budgetary framework. It differs significantly from the House Republicans’ budget proposal and there’s going to be a long and difficult battle between the two competing camps to hammer out a single plan they can all agree on. And while the House budget borrowed heavily from the Paul Ryan school of achieving balance through cutting and privatizing social programs, the Senate budget takes a slightly different approach: magic voodoo savings.

This difference is most readily apparent in the way the Senate budget approaches Medicare. The House Republicans have a plan for restructuring Medicare: they want to transform it into a voucher system and cut roughly $150 billion from the program over 10 years. The Senate plan also has some changes in store for Medicare: its authors promise to reduce Medicare spending by some $400 billion over the next decade, and to protect “Medicare from insolvency, extending the life of the Medicare trust fund by five years.” What the plan doesn’t do is explain exactly how any of this will happen. They just sort of throw it out there and suggest that the relevant committees will figure out a way to make it happen. “You won’t find specifics in what we’ve done, just limits,” Senate Budget Committee chair Mike Enzi said yesterday. So they’ve got the ends locked down, just not the means.

more
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/19/gops_black_magic_budget_using_voodoo_to_conjure_trillions_in_savings/

[Fumesucker]

1. This seems appropriate

Republicans are basically the Pointy Haired Boss from Dilbert with a side order of crazy, scattered smothered and covered with mean and stupid.

[2naSalit]

2. As I read all these

headlines and posts about the RWNJ assembly we now call Congress, it occurs to me why they hate science so much... they would have to provide empirical evidence that their BS (and their claims of improvement, etc.) is actually doable and/or probable if we do things their way. Since it's all BS, they can't be backing the methodology which would back up their claims. If they did have to provide the evidence, we would see who actually pays them to screw us over at every turn - that would be pay they receive above and beyond the inflated salaries, guaranteed income and healthcare for life they already get from we the taxpayers.

[Fumesucker]

3. I'd like to see that as an OP, it's a truly excellent point

There are famous pundits who are wrong so often that it can't possibly be due to chance.

Ever notice that these kinds of threads don't get near the astronomical attention level the "Bash Hillary" or "Defend Hillary" ones achieve.

[2naSalit]

4. True that.

Okay, I'll make it a post in GD. I have to go to a retirement gathering down the mountain soon so I won't be able to address comments until I get back this afternoon.

Thanks. (Love your avatar, BTW!)

2na