Which fork of the path to take?





On Saturday President Obama’s radio address further outlined his budgetary path for this country. It was largely another attempt to counter the “Path to Prosperity” offered by Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan.

Obama says “we have to take a balanced approach to reducing our deficit — an approach that protects the middle class, our commitments to seniors, and job-creating investments in things like education and clean energy.” (Government growth.)

Ryan says of his plan, “A study just released by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis projects that The Path to Prosperity will help create nearly one million new private-sector jobs next year, bring the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and result in 2.5 million additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade. It spurs economic growth, with $1.5 trillion in additional real GDP over the decade. According to Heritage's analysis, it would result in $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year.” (Private-sector growth.)

Obama says of Ryan’s plan: “this plan proposes these drastic cuts, it would also give $1 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of Americans – an extra $200,000 for every millionaire and billionaire in the country.” (Class warfare.)

Ryan says his plan reforms “the nation's outdated tax code, consolidating brackets, lowering tax rates, and assuming top individual and corporate rates of 25%. It maintains a revenue-neutral approach by clearing out a burdensome tangle of deductions and loopholes that distort economic activity and leave some corporations paying no income taxes at all.” (Fairness.)

Obams sees: “To restore fiscal responsibility, we all need to share in the sacrifice — but we don’t have to sacrifice the America we believe in.” (Equally sharing less for the sake of social justice.)

Ryan sees: “We can reform government so that people don't have to reorient their lives for less. We can grow our economy, promote opportunity, and encourage upward mobility.” (Economic growth.)

One calls for shared sacrifice, the other for shared prosperity.

One sees government as the solution, the other sees government as the problem.

One sees misery, the other sees opportunity.