The Republican Budget Plan

[nation-x]

http://www.gop.gov/solutions/budget/...very-final.pdf

This is a "19 page" plan that has been released by the GOP in response to Obama's challenge to release a plan rather than just voicing opposition. Below is my defense of the GOP budget plan.

Right out of the gate, 5 of those 19 alleged "pages" are actually content-free title pages. So before we even get started, that's only 14 pages; a big difference, I would say, when setting expectations of how many actual numbers are in there. And those fourteen pages had to make room for eight (8) pictures of Tinkertoys(tm), leaving room for only about 12 pages of content. It's just like the left to try and raise expectaions falsely on Republican proposals.

There most certainly are graphs. Three of 'em. They reverse the traditional color scheme and use blue for Republican numbers and red for the Democrats'. That's important, because the graph on Page 7 clearly points out the Nixon recession, the Reagan recession, and the financial impact of the Bush wars. If we'd shown those parts in red, people might be misled into thinking that Republicans had something to do with them. The graph on page 16 clearly points out that former president Bush/43 did not spend any money on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which frankly is the way we want him to be remembered. And the graph on Page 5, even though we tried to crop off the really bad bits, does point out which recent president (cough43cough) has done the most to "grow the size of government".

And, let me be clear about this, THERE ARE NUMBERS. Twenty-eight (28) of them, by my count. And these are numbers that are easy to understand: 26 of them are actually the numbers from the Obama budget, included to show how bad they are. The other two are the number of barrels of oil we think might be in ANWR, if all those fucking lefties, polar bears, and caribou would just get out of the way and let us start drilling.

On top of that, we make several disapproving references to the widely-disliked TARP program and bank bailouts. We don't explicitly call out which (presumably Democratic) administration was responsible for starting this disturbing trend, but you can rest assured it would NEVER happen if the Republicans were in charge. Ever. Never ever.

And who can forget the tax cuts? Families who already have a steady income, can afford their own home, and are in no danger of financial ruin need an immediate tax cut. Now. Of at least 30%. (Yeah, we actually said that; check out page 10 of the "plan".) If you're pulling down six figures, you need more, and you need it now. That's not just numbers, people; those are priorities.

Most importantly, the Republican pseudo-budget points out evil. Bad, bad evil. Foreigners, A-rabs, workers / union members, art, information, poor people, womens' health, and (dammit) ACORN. Oh, and Europeans. Definitely Europeans. They should count twice, so that's 10. Plus, we remind people that publicly funded health insurance is always bad and privately funded health insurance is always good. So that's 12 important points right there; any one of which is clearly more important and any so-called "numbers". That's Republicans for you: fighting evil since 1974 1986 2002 2005 2007 2008 2009 for a really, really long time.

Finally, there has been some confusion about the health-care talking points that are published on page 6, right about the stock picture of the happy crippled boy. Are few of these points may need to be clarified.

Should uninsured individuals receive incentives to obtain private coverage with access to doctors they choose, or will they be placed in a government-run health program?

This is a trick question. We want to see the uninsured placed in the same kind of program that non-union workers enjoy today: a private plan in which the patient sees whichever doctor gives the low bid to the insurance company. As with today, the robber barons insurance companies will skim 20% off the top as a convenience charge.

Will technological advances continue to spark cutting-edge medical treatments, or will price controls and federal regulation stifle innovation and prevent life-saving breakthroughs?

We refuse to be drawn in to the Democratic plan, where federal regulations encourage cutting-edge technological innovations and empower life-saving breakthroughs. And, for the record, when an insurance company denies coverage of an expensive procedure, that's not a price control; that's a healthy free market at work.

Will doctors be able to decide the best treatments for their patients, or will government bureaucrats ration and restrict access to care in an arbitrary fashion?

None of the above. Free markets will dictate that the only real "restrictions" on access will be suffered by people who are dumb enough to live in an urban area or a rural area where people are too poor to pay doctors well or fund well-stocked clinics. Anyone living within 15 miles of a Bed, Bath, and Beyond store will have a fighting chance at finding quality health care, just as they do today.

Will the federal government take action now to slow the growth of health costs and bring entitlement spending under control, or will expansive?and expensive?new government programs cripple future generations in an avalanche of debt?

When considering your answer to this question, please disregard the 20% of health-care costs that go directly to the pockets of the insurance companies whom we've vowed to protect. Omit any consideration of unnecessary wars or fiscally incompetent previous administrations. Ignore the extend to which government has expanded under any recent two-term Republican president. In short, set aside reality and give us what we want.

So to sum up the Republican proposal: two numbers. Two real, tangible, irrefutable numbers. And, for your convenience, they're both tax cuts!

Feel free to use the back of your layoff notice as stationery for writing these fine Republicans your thank-you note.