Is Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, which eliminates Medicare as an entitlement while simultaneously ending the top individual tax rate from 35% to 25%, a good or a bad thing? Incoming DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has already called the Wisconsin Republican's proposal a “death trap for seniors.” Fiscal Commission and Moment of Truth project co-chairs Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson offer qualified praise, but claim it falls short in cutting defense spending. Most important of all, they warn that it will never achieve the broad bipartisan support necessary to be successful. That was the problem with the Health Care Overhaul. Instead of moving by consensus, sweeping legislation was just jammed down the throats of an unwilling public, who reacted at the polls.
That pendulum swings both ways.
At first blush, Ryan's proposal strikes me as an insulting attempt to balance the budget on the backs of those who can least afford it, mostly the working poor. But his changes to Medicare might be worth considering.
As explained by Slate's Jacob Weisberg, "Ryan's vouchers should provide excellent coverage. His change would amount to a minor amendment to the social contract, not a fundamental revision of it."
I'm all for a new austerity, but the pain needs to be shared. Instead of just the working poor, the "job creators" (who have not been creating much of anything) need to start tightening their belts, too.
While stopping short of an outright endorsement, LV Congressman Charlie Dent released a statement that appears to view Ryan's proposal as a first step.
“Chairman Ryan has produced a serious and sobering document that recognizes our unsustainable budget trajectory and offers remedies that will control excessive government spending, reduce the national debt and support economic growth. Chairman Ryan’s proposal stands in stark contrast to the lack of leadership displayed by the Obama Administration in the release of its Fiscal Year 2012 budget request, which fails to address excessive federal spending.
“I look forward to the crucial conversations this budget proposal will stimulate in the 15th District and across the United States. Our country is facing a spending driven debt crisis and Chairman Ryan’s proposal to reduce non-security discretionary spending to below 2008 levels, while freezing spending for five years, is an important step toward stabilizing our nation’s fiscal situation.
“Chairman Ryan has also outlined proposals aimed at ensuring the long-term sustainability of our national safety net programs for our children and grandchildren, as well as protecting the health and retirement security of those near retirement and retirees currently receiving benefits. These proposals are transformational and deserve thoughtful review."
Chairman Ryan’s FY12 budget proposal brings government spending under 20% of GDP by 2015; reduces the national debt by $4.7 trillion over the next decade; and simplifies the tax code and provides tax relief to encourage sustainable economic growth.
Now we're getting to work on the budget? None was passed last year when House, Senate, and White House were controlled by the same party.
ReplyDeleteInstead, they spent months forcing through a hugely unpopular health care scheme, while ignoring a worsening economy.
job creators are already funding 80% of the taxes paid. Should it be 90%? 100%? what hapens when ordinary citizens do not have any skin in the game? They begin to vote themselves other people's money...and the end is near
ReplyDeleteIt's not a solution or a starting point. It's a crock.
ReplyDeleteHis assumptions are fundamentally flawed, relying on a discredited Heritage Foundation report that forecast the "Bush Boom". How's that working out for everyone?
Alice Rivlin, who co-wrote the Rivlin-Ryan Medicare reform plan with him does not support this teabagger version of his plan.
What's most important about the Medicare changes is that it's just a cost shift, not cost control.
He shifts the cost of health care off of the federal government onto individuals, but that doesn't do anything to bring down the price of care. The way to control costs is to use Medicare's market power to set prices, but instead Ryan dismantles Medicare.
It's fundamentally unfair to ask people of my generation to pay the full cost of current seniors' care but then take away the program for us when we're retired.
Also noteworthy is the fact that Charlie Dent constantly complained that the Affordable Care Act cut "half a trillion dollars" out of Medicare, but the Ryan budget makes all those same cuts while taking away the subsidies. Does the Congressman now disagree with his own campaign stance?
ReplyDeleteso what happens to our senior citizens.....
ReplyDeleteWorst case scenario, their family has to take care of them instead of the government.
ReplyDeletea disgrace, I say
Jon, this point is made in a LA Times editorial. Obama was going to cut the waste out of Medicare, but never really explained how. For decades, people have talked about cutting the waste but have done nothing.
ReplyDeleteRyan's proposal is in sharp contrast. It completely changes Medicare into a voucher system. It is a fair idea in the sense that Warren Buffet should be paying a little more for Medicare than me.
I view Ryan's proposal as a serious starting point, but it is DOA unless everybody forgets about political affiliations and looks at it together. That's the tragedy of the health care reform shoved down our throats. I do not want to see the same mistake repeated.
Good legislation requires consensus.
8:59,
ReplyDeleteSeniors would stay in the same world as the rest of us, who buy insurance, except they would have a starting voucher of $15k per year, and one that increases as they age or get sick or lose wealth. So I believe it could be a way to provide excellent and more cost efficient coverage. But like any plan, the devil is in the details.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteMy goal is to seek a consensus, not further either D or R talking points. There is no question we are spending our way into a nightmare. It is very likely that we need to spend less and be taxed more. It is very likely that your generation will pay the price for the selfishness of the two generations before you. There is much is Ryan's proposal that is worthy of consideration. There is also much in it that is weak, especially tax reform and defense spending. But let's be honest and give it a fair shake.
For some reason, your comment was in my spam folder. I published it.
Good legislation requires consensus.
ReplyDeleteThe Civil Rights Act was passed with a 70-30 split.
The 13th Amendment was passed by the House 119-56.
I did not say unanimous. I said a consensus.
ReplyDelete"Most important of all, they warn that it will never achieve the broad bipartisan support necessary to be successful."
ReplyDeleteOnce again, they will pass on something that is, at least, a start and will likely settle on an impotent compromise in their quest for civility and bi-partisanship.
Who needs results as long as we can all just get along?
What i am waiting for is," The Big Hustle",cuts in federal spending which forces the states to pick up the tab. That scene is not a solution. They should start cutting Federal mandates first,especially those funding measures with stings attached.
ReplyDeleteWhat i am waiting for is," The Big Hustle",cuts in federal spending which forces the states to pick up the tab. That scene is not a solution. They should start cutting Federal mandates first,especially those funding measures with stings attached.
ReplyDeleteWOW!!! a $15,000 credit MIGHT get them coverage for 2 months. What happens to the ones that have medical conditions that cannot be taken care of by a family member. This doesn't only apply only to senior citizens....I have seen alot of young adults that have suffered major head traumas from auto accidents. SO PEOPLE...WHAT DO WE DO WITH THEM!
ReplyDeleteBernie,
ReplyDeleteI guess it is a start but a very flawed one at that. Here are a number of problems I see:
1. It does nothing to curb entitlement spending over the next 10 years. By saying that everyone over the age of 55 will not loose medicare benefits, nothing will change for at least a decade. Means testing should be a part of the plan for everyone.
2. The plan lowers tax rates but doesn't scrap the current tax code. He leaves it up to the Senate Budget Committee and House Ways and Means to decide which loopholes to eliminate. Does anybody believe that is going to happen? I don't.
3. The plan does not address the Defense Dept. budget at all.
4. The vast majority of the sacrifice comes on the backs of lower and middle income American households.
5. The Medicare "voucher" would not be indexed. Thus, the $8,000 for an individual would not increase for inflation/insurance premium increases. Over time, the benefit would be so small that we would be basically paying for coverage on our own.
6. This plan does nothing to actually reign in the rising cost of health care, the burden is just shifted to the individual.
Publius
Shifting the burden to individuals, in lieu of the deus ex machina of government will cause costs to lower as consumers demand better deals. Interstate portability would go a long way here.
ReplyDeleteAnd any reference to teabagging denotes an utter lack of serious argument. Not that we expect that from drooling parrots like the oversexed, scrotum-obsessed ilk, above.
the voucher will lead to insurance companies denying coverage to seniors. if you want to kill medicare, kill it, but don't give the money to insurance companies that will only find a way to deny coverage and deny care.
ReplyDeleteI did not say unanimous. I said a consensus.
ReplyDeleteDo you think those two things had a consensus?
WOW!!! a $15,000 credit MIGHT get them coverage for 2 months. What happens to the ones that have medical conditions that cannot be taken care of by a family member. This doesn't only apply only to senior citizens....I have seen alot of young adults that have suffered major head traumas from auto accidents. SO PEOPLE...WHAT DO WE DO WITH THEM!
ReplyDeleteHow does $15K pay for a nursing home? Good question.
Shifting the burden to individuals, in lieu of the deus ex machina of government will cause costs to lower as consumers demand better deals. Interstate portability would go a long way here.
ReplyDeleteNow THIS is funny. What it will cause is people getting sicker and dying.
And any reference to teabagging denotes an utter lack of serious argument. Not that we expect that from drooling parrots like the oversexed, scrotum-obsessed ilk, above.
You say Obamacare, we say Teabagger. Both are silly.
The federal government borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends. It is time to start thinking outside the box. If you want to slam Ryan's plan, go ahead. You may even be right. But come up with something that reduces our deficit because, in the end, that will hurt the little guy.
ReplyDeleteBernie @ 4:11 pm,
ReplyDeleteThe real fix to the budget problem is a combination of lower levels of entitlements AND higher taxes. And if we, as a country don't get a grip on this, the resolution to this problem will get forced upon us by market forces. With that said, here's a good start:
1. Means test both Social Security and Medicare benefits. And not just for everyone under age 50 or 55, but for everyone under age 70. If you can afford to pay more you should. No reason for some to sacrifice and not others.
2. Cut the Defense Department budget in half. We spend around $1 Trillion each year, when you include homeland security and the nuclear arsenal upkeep.
3. Raise the level of income taxed for social security up from the $108k level to $250k for individuals. Or better yet, don't don't cap it. The cap on employer match, however, should remain where it is. Why should Ryan Howard pay on his first week of pay each year while I pay on all my pay?
4. Get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts. After 10 years of no employment growth can we just agree that they didn't do what we were told they would?
5. Clean up the tax code. If you want to lower rates, but still have a progressive rate, that's fine, but get rid of all tax deductions, sans charity and (maybe) mortgage interest deductions.
6. Currently corporations can deduct foreign taxes from their US tax return but do not have to bring these profits back into the USA. Thus, no taxes are paid on these profits. Change the tax code to only give this deduction on profits that are brought back in, and thus taxed here. Combined with a lower tax rate (see #5) this gives large corporations no reason to not repatriate these dollars and invest in America.
These 6 fixes will increase revenue and lower expenses. Please comment.
Publius
Bernie,
ReplyDeleteI posted around 5pm today a response to your 4:11pm post. What happened to it?
Publius
Publius,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry. If you comment and have not engaged in a vicious personal attack, your comment will post. But sometimes, Blogger thinks a comment is spam. It has happened to several other commenters, too. It goes into my spam folder. I still get an email notification, but do not know unless I look. I will do so now, and if your comment is there, I will publish it immediately. I am sorry this happened to you.
It's up now. It is a well-considered comment and I am sorry it did not post immediately.
ReplyDeleteThis is just a continuation of the program started in the 1980's. The ruination of the dream of a middle-class of Americans began then and is now on track to be completed.
ReplyDeleteAmerica actually came out of WWII with a shared sense of burden and toil. A secure and prosperous middle class was a very novel idea in history. As opposed to most societies of the wealthy, the merchant class and the unwashed masses;Americans would hold promise to anyone who got an education, worked hard and sacrificed.
That was not good enough for the entitled class and now we are standing vigil over the death bed of that dream.
The sad and amazing part is that as we in the middle class are being exterminated, many folks like the baggers applaud the effort and hand the entitled the bullets.
Do you really think that by getting rid of health care for the elderly and poor and destroying all unions and collective bargaining will bring a flood of life sustaining wages back to the US?
If you have bought into that hokum, we all would be better off with the Apocalypse foretold by the Mayans, than the continuation of the Tea party, Limbaughnian politics of insanity and suicide.
Sad But True!
Publius, your comments are well thought out and I agree overall.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Health care is its a sellers market. People equate the laws of buying and selling lawn chairs with that of medical care. The bagger logic on this is akin to saying an anteater is a mammal and humans are mammals, therefore humans are anteaters. It must be true because the good healthcare businessman told me so. In the good old 1950's actors in lab coats came on TV and told us certain brands of cigarettes were good for you. Absolutely amazing.
Unless we adopt a mature way to handle the cost associated with Healthcare and the issue of "real" access to quality care, the rest of the economy will wither.
We currently have US corporations building cars in Canada because it is cheaper. Despite the fact that they pay the Canadian healthcare taxes.
Sadly people believe what they want to believe and don't push the envelope when it comes to fact finding.
Wasn't it a Republican House, Senate, and President who expanded "entitlements" by some trillion dollars in a 2006 election year attempt to win the senior vote (medicare prescription drugs)? Now the Republicans rail against entitlements...
ReplyDeleteIt is sad that so much of the national policies for a nation of 300 million citizens is continually made by 536 politicians for short term political advantage....always an eye on the next election.
Neither national party has any credibility on budget matters. Here we are over six months after FY2011 began, and we still don't have a budget...can't make the other party look good, can we? Bi-partisan incompetance.
I almost hope we do have a shut down. Not because I think either side should be dug in on their so-called "principles", but to knock them off their high horses back to governance which necessitates compromise. The blunt reality is that both parties' are not as different as their rhetoric suggests. But instead of working together, they seem more interested in "working the polls", true to the oldest profession many of them epitomize.
I agree 100%.
ReplyDeleteno budget, no paychecks for congress.That simple.
ReplyDeleteI hope Obama does a Clinton and gives the baggers what they want, a government shutdown. As the services specific "baggers" want, isn't there lets see how it plays out.
ReplyDeleteI know one idiot who didn't realize that his trip to Washington DC with his family to "visit the sights", won't happen in a shutdown.
I think this is the best thing the President can do at this point in time.
Let the Repugnacans and their bagger masters simmer in their own soup.
The independents, who really decide general elections, will be sure to take notice of this event.
The Seer
ANON 10:00 PM,
ReplyDeleteI agree that health care, in our current system,is a sellers market... It is big business. My personal feeling is that we need a single payer system along the lines of what they have in Germany. A system, btw, that was set up in the late 19th century by Otto Van Bismark.
Briefly, the German system, has private insurance companies with set costs set by the German Government. Health insurance is used as a loss leader by your insurance company to get you to use them for your other insurance needs. This system enables the provider to get paid quickly for services provided, the patient to get the services needed, and the insurer able to provide preventative care because all providers are required to, thus healthier people and lower medical expenses overall.
A system like this, as you might guess, would reduce profit margins for large health care companies and might have your doctor making $150k each year instead of $300k.
Publius
GREAT NEWS BERNIE.....JOHN STOFFA LOST TOO!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA
ReplyDeleteDent has been in their long enough it's time for him to go
ReplyDelete