Obama and Ryan Budget Plans

A picture is worth a thousand words.

This chart from the Congressional Budget Office succinctly depicts the difference between Obama's budget plan and Paul Ryan's budget plan.



From Forbes:

Forget all this talk about giant “spending cuts” of $6.2 trillion in Congressman Ryan’s budget plan. That’s music to my ears, but it’s also based on Washington’s bizarre budget math – i.e., the screwy system where politicians can increase spending but say they’re cutting spending because the budget could have grown even faster.

What really matters is how much money government is spending this year compared to how much money will be spent in subsequent years. Using this common-sense benchmark, let’s look at two competing proposals.

According to the new numbers released today, Congressman Ryan’s budget plan will result in government growing, on average, by almost 2.8 percent annually over the next 10 years.

President Obama’s budget plan, by contrast, would increase the burden of government spending by an average of nearly 4.7 percent each year.

This chart compares the two budget plans. Because Chairman Ryan does not let spending grow as rapidly, cumulative spending over that period will be $6.2 billion less than it would be based on the President’s plan. That’s an impressive amount of money that taxpayers will save if Ryan is successful, but it’s not a spending cut.

I'd like those Leftists insisting that Ryan's plan contains "spending cuts" that are harsh and extreme to explain what's so harsh and extreme about a plan that allows the "budget to grow faster than inflation, which is projected to average less than 2.1 percent annually over the 10-year period."

Being responsible should not be labeled "extreme."