A valid critique of the plan Mr Ryan developed as chairman of the House Budget Committee is that while it may be a useful document to start a conversation, it is utterly unrealistic as a matter of policy. The original version would reduce federal “discretionary spending to 3 per cent of gross domestic product by 2050 – far less than the US now spends on defence alone. This is a preposterous target, a symptom of the Republican refusal to acknowledge that federal government has legitimate, vital functions and that fiscal balance cannot be attained without higher taxes.
对瑞安作为众议院预算委员会主席提出的这一计划的一个在理的批评就是,虽然这是启动对话的一个有用的提议,但从政策角度来看却完全不现实。最初的规划是在2050年之前将联邦“自由支配开支降低到国内生产总值(GDP)的3%,比目前美国国防一项的开支还要低很多。这是一个荒谬的目标,也体现了共和党拒绝承认联邦政府有合法而不可或缺的职能,不提高税收就无法实现财政平衡。
Another fair criticism of Mr Ryan, somewhat at odds with the first, is that while he may be a devotee of Ayn Rand, he has voted more like a Republican hack than a revolutionary. In Congress, he has sought federal funds for his Wisconsin district and supported the most egregious Bush spending programmes, such as the Medicare prescription drug plan. While positioning himself as a deficit hawk, he failed to embrace the report of the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission, on which he sat.
【罗姆尼的竞选搭档救不了他】相关文章:
★ 大国角逐下的中亚
★ 时尚圈的博主们
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15