I was interested in reading your analysis of Ryan’s plan, because while reading the plan itself makes everything sound like it will work, it doesn’t raise any doubt or ask any questions as to whether or how it would work. You mentioned in your analysis, that “the retirement age potentially shoots up another 10 years or less.”

On page 56 of the plan, it seems to clearly state that “Once the current-law retirement age reaches 67 in 2026, this proposal continues its progression in line with expected increases in life expectancy. This will have the effect of increasing retirement age by 1 month every 2 years. The retirement age will gradually increase until it reaches 70 in the next century.”

While your “10 years or less” comment doesn’t appear to contradict this, it seems as if the plan suggests that even your children may not live to see a retirement age of 70 years old. This is a rather large and complex plan, so I’m hoping you or someone else can point out to me what I’m missing that would lead you to believe the retirement age could either “shoot up” or approach anywhere near the “10 years” you cited in your analysis. Thanks!

As to the 19% I assume you wish to do away with all the federal courts, federal law enforcement, all the federal legislative branches, and all the other departments except defense.

As for shopping for the medical.Have you shopped on the basis of who is the cheapest?

“Even if you could get transparency in pricing most people don’t shop for doctors and procedures on the basis of cost.”

Oh, but they will if they’re responsible for paying the bills. You are absolutely wrong that healthcare is “an area that typically has little or nothing to do with the free market.” It’s a commodity like anything else.

“The public overwhelming rejected creating private retirement accounts in lieu of social security at the beginning of the second George W. Bush term.”

Excuse me??? It was the Democrat Congress that flatly rejected this. Even at the age of 53, I’d jump at the chance to opt out of Social Insecurity.

“pegging revenues to 19% regardless of the circumstances prevents the government from working effectively. In the event of a crisis, the government would have to figure what it is going to cut before a plan to deal with situation can be formulated …”

What utter baloney. Excessive federal spending IS THE CRISIS. Government is spending and controlling areas in which it is inherently inefficient. Getting them out and cutting the spending will make them more efficient.

Mr. Ryan properly understands that it’s not a revenue problem, it’s a spending problem.