The Heritage Foundation on Tuesday released its comprehensive budget proposal, titled "Saving the American Dream." The plan would reform entitlements and the tax code, and balance the federal budget in ten years. But while it is primarily an economic plan, it "has a higher moral purpose," Heritage writes. "If entitlements are not reformed, the next generation and future ones will have to pay punitive tax rates that will end liberty as we have known it." Check out some commentary on the plan below the break from columnist - and recent recipient of MRC's William F. Buckley Jr. Award for Media Excellence - Cal Thomas.
The Heritage Foundation has developed a formula, made possible by a grant from the Peterson Foundation, that could balance the budget in 10 years, reduce the debt to 30 percent of gross domestic product within 25 years, cut the size of the federal government in half by 2036 and reform the tax code. It also could restructure Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid while protecting the most vulnerable and not increasing taxes, if — and it is a very big "if" — politicians prefer the solution to continued bickering...
What's the difference between the Heritage Foundation plan and the one proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis.? Stuart Butler, who headed the team that drew up the Heritage proposal, tells me the Ryan plan "can't balance the budget anytime soon. Ours does."
Knowing what must be done and not doing it is not just irresponsible, but deplorable.
The Heritage plan offers a way out if politicians put the welfare of their country ahead of their own.
Follow the link to Thomas's column, or the one to Heritage's more detailed description, for the specifics of the plan, and let us know what you think. Is this preferable to the Ryan plan (and other plans currently under consideration in Congress)? Is it politically feasible?