The House Republican budget will balance in 10 years by increasing oil drilling, repealing President Barack Obama’s health care law, changing Medicare, overhauling welfare and rewriting the tax code. 
 
 The framework won’t be unveiled until Tuesday, but House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) peeled back the curtain Monday night in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset 
 
 Ryan writes that “the government spends no more than it collects in revenue” under the GOP plan. 
 
 “Our opponents will shout austerity, but let’s put this in perspective,” Ryan writes. “On the current path, we’ll spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. Under our proposal, we’ll spend $41 trillion. On the current path, spending will increase by 5 percent each year. Under our proposal, it will increase by 3.4 percent. Because the U.S. economy will grow faster than spending, the budget will balance by 2023, and debt held by the public will drop to just over half the size of the economy.” 
 
 The op-ed shows that the budget won’t be a bundle of new surprises. Tax reform, Ryan says, will close loopholes and collapse the complex tax code to two brackets: 10 percent and 25 percent. 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: Senate takes own path on CR) 
 
 Ryan highlights welfare reform, noting that the last time Congress reformed government assistance “child poverty fell by double digits.” 
 
 “This budget extends those reforms to other federal aid programs,” Ryan wrote. “It gives states flexibility so they can tailor programs like Medicaid and food stamps to their people’s needs. It encourages states to get people off the welfare rolls and onto payrolls. We shouldn’t measure success by how much we spend. We should measure it by how many people we help. Those who protect the status quo must answer to the 46 million Americans living in poverty.” ||||| Ryan Says His Budget Would Balance In 10 Years 
 
 Enlarge this image toggle caption Michael Sears /MCT /Landov Michael Sears /MCT /Landov 
 
 (Note at 11:20 a.m. ET: Scroll down to see the GOP plan, which has now been released; new comments from Rep. Ryan; and White House reaction.) 
 
 House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee, unveiled his latest budget plan Tuesday morning — and as NPR's Tamara Keith told our Newscast Desk, he says it would bring the federal budget in balance by 2023. 
 
 Ryan's previous proposal, he said, would balance the budget in 20 years. How has he cut 10 years off that time? The "fiscal cliff" deal reached as 2012 turned into 2013 "raises $600 billion in tax revenue over the next decade," Tamara reported, "and Ryan is including that in his new budget." 
 
 "Otherwise," she added, "Ryan has telegraphed that his new plan will include many of the same cuts as past GOP budgets, most notably it would convert Medicare into a premium support program." 
 
 On the op/ed pages of The Wall Street Journal today, Ryan makes his case for the new plan. 
 
 "How do we do it?" he writes. "We stop spending money the government doesn't have. ... Our budget matches spending with income. Under our proposal, the government spends no more than it collects in revenue — or 19.1% of gross domestic product each year. As a result, we'll spend $4.6 trillion less over the next decade. ... "Our opponents will shout austerity, but let's put this in perspective. On the current path, we'll spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. Under our proposal, we'll spend $41 trillion. On the current path, spending will increase by 5% each year. Under our proposal, it will increase by 3.4%. Because the U.S. economy will grow faster than spending, the budget will balance by 2023, and debt held by the public will drop to just over half the size of the economy." 
 
 President Obama and his fellow Democrats, of course, have other ideas about how to get the federal government books in order. Politico this morning looks at the president's new efforts to reach out to some Republicans in order to cut a deal. It concludes though, that "the expectations for both a sustainable civil alliance and a grand bargain remain low for one very simple reason: The parties are further apart on taxes and entitlements than they were in 2011 when Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) first entered into talks and came close to striking the ever-elusive grand bargain." 
 
 Update at 11:20 a.m. ET. White House Says Ryan's Math "Just Doesn't Add Up." 
 
 In a statement just sent to reporters, the White House says, in part: 
 
 "While the House Republican budget aims to reduce the deficit, the math just doesn't add up. Deficit reduction that asks nothing from the wealthiest Americans has serious consequences for the middle class. By choosing to give the wealthiest Americans a new tax cut, this budget as written will either fail to achieve any meaningful deficit reduction, raise taxes on middle class families by more than $2,000 – or both. ... "The president has put forward a balanced approach to deficit reduction with no sacred cows. It includes more Medicare savings over the next decade than the House Republican budget, but it does so by cracking down on waste and fraud, not by asking middle class seniors to bear the burden. It closes tax loopholes for the wealthiest and biggest corporations so we can still afford to create jobs by investing in education, manufacturing, infrastructure, and small businesses. The President's plan puts our nation on a fiscally sustainable path and grows our economy from the middle class out. "While the president disagrees with the House Republican approach, we all agree we need to leave a better future for our children. The President will continue to work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress to grow the economy and cut the deficit in a balanced way. This is the approach the American people overwhelmingly support, and that is what the president will continue to fight for each day." 
 
 Update at 10:55 a.m. ET. Ryan Says He Won't Surrender His Principles: 
 
 Ryan is holding a news conference this hour. A reporter noted that he's pitched a similar budget plan before — one that focuses on cuts in projected spending and eschews tax increases — and in the time since then was on the losing presidential ticket. 
 
 Should losing an election mean "we surrender our principles?" Ryan asks. That Republicans should "stop believing in what we believe in?" 
 
 "We think we owe the country a balanced budget," he says, and "solutions" to the nation's problems. 
 
 Update at 10 a.m. ET. The Plan Is Out: 
 
 Ryan's "Path to Prosperity; a Responsible, Balanced Budget," plan is now out. As Tamara notes, "it calls for the repeal of the president's healthcare law, and approval of the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline. It would cut growth in programs for the poor by turning them over to the states. And for future seniors, it would convert Medicare into a premium support program." ||||| House Republicans laid down a bold but risky election-year marker Tuesday, unveiling a budget proposal that aims to tame the national debt by reshaping Medicare and cutting deeply into Medicaid, food stamps and other programs for the poor, while reshuffling the tax code to sharply lower rates. 
 
 Congressional Republicans plan to use the document to demonstrate their willingness to tackle the nation’s difficult fiscal problems head-on. They argue that restraining future borrowing is a moral imperative and that entitlement programs for the elderly and the poor must be redrawn both to reduce red ink and to ensure that federal benefits continue to be available. 
 
 But the document — which pairs deep spending cuts with a reduction in the top tax rate paid by the wealthy — quickly provided new fodder for Democrats, who argued that Republicans would slash the social safety net while protecting the rich. 
 
 The proposal, authored by Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), calls for spending cuts and tax changes that would put the nation on course to wipe out deficits and balance the budget by 2040. The national debt would continue to rise but would shrink to the historic norm as a percentage of an expanding economy. 
 
 But because Ryan and other Republicans reject higher taxes in any form, that path would require significant reductions in a host of popular federal programs. 
 
 Ryan calls for turning over to the states responsibility for the major federal programs for the poor, including Medicaid and food stamps, and giving recipients a deadline to find work and get off the government dole — much as welfare reform did to cash benefits in the late 1990s. 
 
 Federal education and job training programs would be consolidated and “modernized,” the plan says. And spending on Pell grants for college students would be reduced and retargeted toward low-income students most in need of assistance. 
 
 All told, Ryan proposes to slash federal spending by $5.3 trillion over the next decade compared with President Obama’s latest budget blueprint, with the biggest savings taken from health programs — including the repeal of Obama’s initiative to expand health coverage to the uninsured — and entitlements for the poor. 
 
 But it might not be enough for many tea party conservatives, who are demanding that Republicans balance the budget within the next 10 years. In an op-ed published Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal, Ryan argued that the plan offers “real spending discipline.” 
 
 “It does this not through indiscriminate cuts that endanger our military, but by ending the epidemic of crony politics and government overreach that has weakened confidence in the nation’s institutions and its economy. And it strengthens the safety net by returning power to the states, which are in the best position to tailor assistance to their specific populations,” he writes. 
 
 Ryan says he will stage a vote on the plan in the House Budget Committee on Wednesday, and that he has the necessary support to move it to the House floor. Even if it were to win approval, the blueprint would be rejected by the Democratic-controlled Senate. But Ryan said it would provide a foundation for the GOP’s election-year push for a radically smaller federal government. 
 
 “We owe the country an alternative path if we don’t like the path the president is taking us on. Whoever our nominee is going to be owes the country that choice of two futures. We’re helping them put this together,” Ryan said, adding that he has spoken with the major GOP candidates, who have all told him he is “on the right track.” 
 
 “Each of these people running for president have all given their various ideas and reforms that perfectly jive with and are consistent with what we’re proposing,” Ryan said. 
 
 Reaction from the White House was immediate and sharp. 
 
 “The House budget once again fails the test of balance, fairness, and shared responsibility,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement. “It would shower the wealthiest few Americans with an average tax cut of at least $150,000, while preserving taxpayer giveaways to oil companies and breaks for Wall Street hedge fund managers. What’s worse is that all of these tax breaks would be paid for by undermining Medicare.” 
 
 On Medicare — a key flashpoint in a debate over Ryan’s budget a year ago — Ryan once again proposes to cap spending on future retirees, offering them a set amount with which to purchase private health insurance on newly created federal insurance exchanges. 
 
 In reaction to Democratic criticism that the plan “ends Medicare,” Ryan has tweaked that proposal: He now aims to preserve traditional Medicare as an option, though seniors could be required to pay significantly more for Medicare coverage if the program proved to be more expensive than the private plans. 
 
 Ryan said “this kind of Medicare reform is the most humane, the most common-sense and bipartisan way to save this vital program.” But though Ryan crafted the new variation with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), Democrats have made clear that the veneer of bipartisanship will not inoculate him from a fresh round of political attack. 
 
 “The Republican proposal would end the Medicare guarantee, shift costs to seniors, and let Medicare wither on the vine, while providing billions in tax breaks for Big Oil and special interests, and destroying American jobs,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement. 
 
 On taxes, Ryan offers a bit more detail than he did last year about how Republicans would reshape the tax code. The proposal calls for replacing the current tax structure’s six brackets with just two: a 10 percent rate for lower-income earners and a 25 percent rate for upper-income earners. 
 
 That would be a reduction from the current top rate of 35 percent. Ryan also wants to wipe out the alternative minimum tax. And he calls for lowering the 35 percent tax on corporate profits to 25 percent and granting U.S. corporations a blanket exemption on profits earned overseas. 
 
 To pay for those changes, Ryan proposes to wipe out a vast array of deductions, credits and other tax breaks benefiting people and companies at virtually every income level. Neither he nor House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) on Tuesday spelled out specifics, but tax experts said their proposal would almost certainly have to take a whack at expensive tax breaks such as those for home mortgage interest, employer-provided health insurance and retirement savings. 
 
 Republicans have been urging an overhaul that would make the tax code simpler and easier to understand while lowering rates, which they believe will spur economic growth and prove a politically potent election-year message. Ryan’s proposal is similar to ones offered by the GOP presidential candidates, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, though the candidates’ plans would dramatically reduce federal tax collections while Ryan’s would maintain them at current levels. 
 
 Although Ryan’s far-reaching blueprint presents many areas of ideological conflict with Democrats, the most pressing battle is likely to be fought offer a relatively small point: agency budgets for the fiscal year that begins in October. 
 
 Ryan proposes $1.028 trillion in total agency spending — $19 billion less than the cap set during last summer’s bitter showdown over raising the legal limit on government borrowing, known as the debt ceiling. Ryan also proposes to instruct six House committees to come up with proposals by May for generating additional savings and averting across-the-board cuts set to hit in January. 
 
 Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the Democratic leader of a bipartisan congressional “supercommittee” that tried and failed to produce such a plan last fall, called the move “outrageous and deeply disappointing.” 
 
 “By desperately attempting to appease their extreme conservative base, House Republicans are reneging on a deal their own speaker shook on less than eight months ago,” she said. “They have shown that a deal with them isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on and they are threatening families across America yet again with the prospect of a government shutdown.” 
 
 House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) countered that the $1.047 trillion cap represents an upper limit, not an agreement. 
 
 “People have limits on credit cards. That doesn’t mean that you’re required to spend up to the limit, it just says you can’t spend anymore than that,” Boehner told reporters. “We all know that we’ve got a real fiscal problem here in Washington. And, frankly, we think we can do better. ||||| In 1983, the British Labor Party under the hard-left Michael Foot issued a 700-page manifesto so radical that one colleague called it “the longest suicide note in history.” House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has just released a recklessly bold, 73-page, 10-year budget plan. At 37 footnotes, it might be the most annotated suicide note in history. 
 
 That depends on whether (a) President Obama counters with a deficit- 
 
 reduction plan of equal seriousness, rather than just demagoguing the Ryan plan till next Election Day, (b) there are any Republicans beyond the measured, super-wonky Ryan who can explain and defend a plan of such daunting scope and complexity, and (c) Americans are serious people. 
 
 My guesses: No. Not really. And I hope so (we will find out definitively in November 2012). 
 
 The conventional line of attack on Ryan’s plan is already taking shape: It cuts poverty programs and “privatizes” Medicare in order to cut taxes for the rich. 
 
 Major demagoguery on all three counts. 
 
 (1) The reforms of the poverty programs are meant to change an incentive structure that today perversely encourages states to inflate the number of dependents (because the states then get more “free” federal matching money) and also encourages individuals to stay on the dole. The 1996 welfare reform was similarly designed to reverse that entitlement’s powerful incentives to dependency. Ryan’s idea is to extend the same logic of rewarding work to the non-cash parts of the poverty program — from food stamps to public housing. 
 
 When you hear this being denounced as throwing the poor in the snow, remember that these same charges were hurled with equal fury in 1996. President Clinton’s own assistant health and human services secretary, Peter Edelman, resigned in protest, predicting that abolishing welfare would throw a million children into poverty. On the contrary. Within five years child poverty had declined by more than 2.5 million — one of the reasons the 1996 welfare reform is considered one of the social policy successes of our time. 
 
 (2) Critics are describing Ryan’s Medicare reform as privatization, a deliberately loaded term designed to instantly discredit the idea. Yet the idea is essentially to apply to all of Medicare the system under which Medicare Part D has been such a success: a guaranteed insurance subsidy. Thus instead of paying the health provider directly (fee-for-service), Medicare would give seniors about $15,000 of “premium support,” letting the recipient choose among a menu of approved health insurance plans. 
 
 Call this privatization if you like, but then would you call the Part D prescription benefit “privatized”? If so, there’s a lot to be said for it. Part D is both popular and successful. It actually beat its cost projections — a near miraculous exception to just about every health-care program known to man. 
 
 Under Ryan’s plan, everyone 55 and over is unaffected. Younger workers get the insurance subsidy starting in 2022. By eventually ending the current fee-for-service system that drives up demand and therefore prices, this reform is far more likely to ensure the survival of Medicare than the current near-insolvent system. 
 
 (3) The final charge — cutting taxes for the rich — is the most scurrilous. That would be the same as calling the Ronald Reagan-Bill Bradley 1986 tax reform “cutting taxes for the rich.” In fact, it was designed for revenue neutrality. It cut rates — and for everyone — by eliminating loopholes, including corrupt exemptions and economically counterproductive tax expenditures, to yield what is generally considered by left and right an extraordinarily successful piece of economic legislation. 
 
 Ryan’s plan is classic tax reform — which even Obama says the country needs: It broadens the tax base by eliminating loopholes that, in turn, provide the revenue for reducing rates. Tax reform is one of those rare public policies that produce social fairness and economic efficiency at the same time. For both corporate and individual taxes, Ryan’s plan performs the desperately needed task of cleaning out the myriad of accumulated cutouts and loopholes that have choked the tax code since 1986. 
 
 Ryan’s overall plan tilts at every windmill imaginable, including corporate welfare and agricultural subsidies. The only thing left out is Social Security. Which proves only that Ryan is not completely suicidal. 
 
 But the blueprint is brave and profoundly forward-looking. It seeks nothing less than to adapt the currently unsustainable welfare state to the demographic realities of the 21st century. Will it survive the inevitable barrage of mindless, election-driven, 30-second attack ads (see above)? Alternate question: Does Obama have half of Ryan’s courage? 
 
 I think not (on both counts). But let’s hope so. 
 
 letters@charleskrauthammer.com
– Paul Ryan is unveiling his latest budget proposal, and this time, he says, it'll balance in 10 years—half the time he claimed for his previous budget, NPR notes, because he's including new revenue from the fiscal cliff deal. As promised, the new plan calls for repealing ObamaCare, to be replaced with "patient-centered reforms," Ryan writes in the Wall Street Journal. Ryan would also boost oil drilling and reform Medicare, the tax code, and welfare, Politico reports. "On the current path, we’ll spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. Under our proposal, we’ll spend $41 trillion," Ryan writes. "Because the US economy will grow faster than spending, the budget will balance by 2023, and debt held by the public will drop to just over half the size of the economy." Among his proposals: On taxes: Instead of the current "Rubik's cube," "our goal is to have just two brackets: 10% and 25%," Ryan writes. On welfare: "After the welfare reforms of 1996, child poverty fell by double digits," he notes. The budget would let states "tailor programs like Medicaid and food stamps to their people's needs." As for Medicare: "Starting in 2024," seniors will see "a range of insurance plans from which they can choose—including traditional Medicare." It will be "a premium support program," notes NPR. Meanwhile, Patty Murray, Democrat head of the Senate Budget Committee, is proposing her own plan, which would raise tax revenues by almost $1 trillion as it cuts spending to the same extent, Politico reports. She'll meet with party members, including President Obama, today.