What do you like about it?
I like that it turns Medicaid into a block grant (something both party's governors have been asking for)
I like the way it reforms Medicare. Both sides at this point are saying that Medicare expenditures have to be lowered. Ryan plans to allow the Seniors to pick and choose where their healthcare should be cut, the Presidents' plan is to allow a government commission to decide where cuts should be made, and then impose a one-size-fits-all solution on America's seniors. Reducing expenditures while giving seniors more control strikes me as a better way of mitigating that loss. On that note, I like that it is delayed. The Presidents' plan cuts benefits for those currently on the program; Ryans' effects only those currently 55 and younger; which protects those currently on a fixed income and gives effected retirees time to plan.
I like that it's realistic about our fiscal situation; we have two choices, drastically cut spending the way we want to, or have it imposed on us by our creditors. The Presidents' Plan seems to be to punt to another commission in the hopes that they will develop a plan... safely after the next election. that's playing with matches while soaked in gasoline and running through a building full of pure oxygen. you may make it through.... but if you miscalculate or cheat too much, everything is going up in flames.
I like that it reduces rates while also reducing loopholes; just as was suggested by the Presidents' bipartisan Debt Commission. Lately we have discussed ad nauseum thefact that revenues are tied to GDP, not tax rates; and the loss that is found in the complexity of the tax code is enormous - Americans spend more than $330
billion each year
just trying to figure out how to comply with our behemoth of a tax code. in addition, the loopholes in it often allow entities that spend enough money on smart tax attorneys to avoid paying taxes alltogether. reducing the rates, but then making them
pay it keeps revenue neutral (the first year), while freeing up some (hopefully alot) of that $330 billion to start doing things like investing in new businesses, research, workers. which means that
next years' GDP will be higher than it would have been otherwise as a result, and hence, next years' revenues will be as well - at this point it becomes a virtuous cycle, attacking both our unemployment problem and our debt problem simultaneously. Also, 25% strikes me as a decent place to stop taking money frompeople. Even God only asks for 10%.
Have you read the CBO report on it?
i've read the summary of it. it strikes me as it always does - because they are tied to a (fallacious) static model, they always overestimate the losses and gains of tax cuts and hikes.
I think the odds are slightly against it passing in the house in it's current form. Once democrats start pointing out the way the tax cuts are formulated(capping the top rate, but not lowering the lower rates)
Bowles Simpson lowered all rates - it would indeed be wise if they did the same. But whether they do or don't isn't spelled out, and that is something that should be fixed most ricky-ticky.