- Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin unveiled the House Republicans’ budget for 2014, which includes many of the same proposals as previous budgets and promises to erase deficits and balance the budget in 10 years. The plan relies solely on spending cuts, though it continues the tax increases agreed upon in the so-called fiscal cliff deal in January.
Thread links to some graphics; here's the accompanying article.
The thing about this that drives me crazy (okay, one of the many things) is that Ryan keeps on using the "financially strapped family" analogy. He says something along the lines of, "just like a household that's living above its means, we ought to strive to keep our expenditures aligned with our income." But every time he uses the analogy, all I can think of is how no head of household within their right mind would propose to live within their means by cutting spending and income. It's like if you were in debt to a credit company, so you decided to shovel yourself out of debt by not engaging in as much discretionary spending... and then cutting back on hours at work so you won't make as much money. Clearly, taxation brings with it a mess of economic implications that the "household income" analogy doesn't (although it's subject to debate just what those implications are and how pervasive they may actually be), but I guess that's the point. Don't use shitty analogies. Don't use them if they're going to invite speculation on how shitty they are, and in this case don't use ones that make me consider the benefits of higher taxes rather than low to government function.