Though Bruce Barteltt and Rep. Justin Amash are heading along different trajectories in their views about the size of government and taxes, they converge on a key criticism of Rep. Paul Ryan’s 2013 budget — the numbers just don’t crunch. As Bartlett writes at the Fiscal Times, “Any tax reform plan that simply asserts it will collect a certain percentage of GDP in revenues while specifying the rate structure but not defining the tax base is fundamentally dishonest, in my opinion. The CBO was simply ordered to assume that Ryan’s numbers are legitimate.” Given the budget’s vague assumptions and unrealistic ambitions for and cutting spending and recouping revenue from tax-code restructuring, Bartlett concludes, “the Ryan budget should be seen as nothing more than a PR document for Republicans so they can say they have a plan to balance the budget, cut taxes, and cure the common cold.”
Amash, writing on his Facebook page, is more generous to his colleague — “I have a lot of respect for Chairman Paul Ryan and his outstanding staff” — but is also troubled by assumptions behind the plan, as well as its failure to address military spending and live up to the requirements of the Budget Control Act:
Today’s committee vote was one of the most difficult of my life. Ultimately, I voted “no” for a few basic reasons: (1) The time to balance is too long. According to CBO, the budget won’t reach balance until nearly 2040. Under an alternative growth scenario, it still might be unbalanced until the mid-2020s. (2) The budget exempts military spending from reductions, which makes it more difficult to achieve bipartisan support to reform the primary components of our annual deficit: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. (3) The FY 2013 cuts do not appear to match the magnitude of the cuts required under the post-sequester Budget Control Act, which most Republicans and Democrats agreed to in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. I did not support the BCA (raising the debt ceiling) because I believed the parties were making a political compromise—promising future cuts that would not happen—rather than a genuine compromise to deal with the debt immediately.
Reason‘s Nick Gillespie, appearing on Fox News, is also unimpressed:
Noah 
economy 
2040? No budget proposals that go out that far can be remotely serious. And I’m sorry but if you aren’t talking about cuts to the military you aren’t serious either. We can start for example with our forces in Korea. How do they contribute to OUR national security? And honestly what are we still doing in Europe, a region that has an economy that’s bigger than our own? And how many bases do we have around the world? 800? 900? Would the republic be in mortal danger if we eliminated say half of those?
And weapons systems? We can start with the litoral combat ship that when from 250 to 625 a copy and won’t survive five minutes in close to a hostile shore. We can go on. There have been several articles on the defense department on this site. Obviously Ryan and most “conservatives” didn’t read. I say time and time again, “real” conservatives are the most endangered species on the planet.
Ryan cannot be taken seriously. Rand Paul is clearly more credible here. And can someone once in awhile try to remember what Madison said about “benevolence spending”? It doesn’t matter the good intentions behind it be it domestic or foreign aid, be it for AIDS in Africa or some social program in this country. If Madison could not find the article in the Constitution that allowed him to spend HIS constituents money on benevolent spending back then, we can’t find it now and we shouldn’t be doing it at the federal level for any reason no matter how noble. In that regard if we take the Father Of The Constitution seriously, then “Compassionate Conservatism” is about the biggest oxymoron there is. Conservatives should never support benevolent spending at the federal level for any reason folks. Unless unlike Madison you CAN find the article in the Constitution that permits it.