Paul Ryan's Strange "Plan"

OK, we've all heard about the evils of loopholes in the tax code.  Most of us figure those are most often used to the greatest benefit by those who are wealthiest.  Tax shelters, special trusts, special deductions/exceptions, etc., are vehicles traditionally enjoyed by higher-income earners.  Certainly you need a fair bit of dough at the start: the financial professionals & specialists who are fluent in these loopholes don't manage money or give advice for free.

This isn't to say that low-income folks can't utilize loopholes, and several come to mind, but it would seem that Ryan is targeting the larger aggregate number in his budget.

At least, that's the way Paul Ryan described it in several interviews in the last few days.  Try, as I did, to follow this reasoning:

Speaking on CBS Face the Nation, Ryan explained, “We’re proposing to keep revenues where they are, but to clear up all the special interest loopholes, which are uniquely enjoyed by higher income earners, in exchange for lower rates for everyone... We’re saying get rid of the tax shelters, the interest group loopholes and lower everybody’s tax rates.”

Ummm, let me get this straight.  This budget is allegedly revenue neutral, presumably in terms of revenue as a percentage of GDP, as opposed to a grossly irresponsible actual-dollar number.

Also, the idea is to lower the tax rates on everyone.

Also--this is very interesting--Ryan seems to be indicating that he has set his sights on loophole-related benefits specifically enjoyed by "higher income earners."

So a revenue-neutral, multiple-year budget proposes to drop personal and corporate tax rates by ~30% in many cases and accomplish this by offsetting the loss of revenue simply by closing loopholes that are primarily enjoyed by high-income earners?

When pressed for details, Ryan passes the buck to Ways & Means.  Sigh.

The only way this would make sense at all is if the spending side of the balance sheet changed drastically.  Remember, even if Congress undid all the Bush tax cuts on the top income-earners, the extra revenue would only be something in the $200billion range annually.  Ryan's budget eventually balances, roughly in 2040 or something, so I guess that's fine.

Anyway, my point here is to point out this disconnect.  We've seen more coherent arguments from Mr. Ryan in the past, regardless of whether you agree with his strategies.  We've seen more solid numbers.  Is he really jumping in front of Ways & Means on this, or is this obfuscation intentional?  Are we waiting to see how the plan will get attacked before they defend it with specifics?

I suppose time will tell.