February 2, 2010
AT LEAST IT HAS NUMBERS IN IT.... A year ago, as the debate over the federal budget got underway, House Republicans held a press conference to boast about their alternative budget plan. It was among the year's most humiliating fiascos -- the GOP's "budget" didn't include any numbers. It was a reminder that when it comes to national politics, Republicans aren't quite ready to sit at the grown-ups' table.
This week, however, they're giving it another shot. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, unveiled a plan yesterday that, he insists, really does eliminate the enormous budget deficit that Republicans created during the Bush/Cheney era. It also, by the way, includes numbers. Ezra Klein noted that the proposal is "an object lesson in why so few politicians are willing to answer the question 'but how will you save all that money?'"
To move us to surpluses, Ryan's budget proposes reforms that are nothing short of violent. Medicare is privatized. Seniors get a voucher to buy private insurance, and the voucher's growth is far slower than the expected growth of health-care costs. Medicaid is also privatized. The employer tax exclusion is fully eliminated, replaced by a tax credit that grows more slowly than medical costs. And beyond health care, Social Security moves to a system of private accounts that CBO says will actually cost more than the present arrangement, further underscoring how ancillary the program is to our budget problem.
Ezra gives Ryan credit for at least stepping up and putting a borderline-crazy proposal on paper. Kevin Drum questions whether the conservative lawmaker really deserves any praise at all.
I give Ryan credit for being more forthcoming than most supposed deficit hawks, but the truth is that for the most part he doesn't explain how he's going to save all that money. It's true that he's got a plan for Social Security private accounts, a plan for Medicare vouchers, and a plan for tax credits to replace the current tax deductibility of health insurance. It's good conservative boilerplate.
But it turns out that's all it is. Those things themselves don't really save any money. The real action comes from a collection of arbitrary spending limits, but these limits don't offer any clues about how we're going to meet them. There's a freeze on nonsecurity discretionary spending from 2010-2019 -- but saying you're going to freeze spending is easy. The hard part is figuring out what to cut. There's also a limit to the growth of Medicare payments -- but saying you're going to limit growth is easy. The hard part is figuring out how to limit growth and deciding what you're going to cut to meet your caps. Medicaid is treated the same way: Ryan's plan simply sets a limit on growth rates without saying how those limits will be met.
That's no doubt because Paul Ryan isn't especially serious about public policy details, and his reputation as one of the less ridiculous members of the Republican caucus is the result a) of exaggerated hype; and b) advantageous comparisons to his even-dimmer colleagues.
But I'm at least glad to have Ryan's plan on paper so it can be presented to voters in November as "what Republicans would do if they were in power."
—Steve Benen 10:40 AM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (25)
Republicans aren't quite ready for to sit at the grown-ups' table.
The typical "grown-up" in this country doesn't like numbers very much, either, so they shouldn't sit at the grown-ups' table as well.
Posted by: qwerty on February 2, 2010 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK
How about we knock 1/2 of our DEFENSE spending off and see if that helps. Then we'll only be spending what, double the rest of the world?
Posted by: Ian on February 2, 2010 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK
Keep beating the drum that social security is ancillary to our nation's fiscal woes. That is exactly right, but it remains a favorite target of Republicans for ideological reasons and I fear some Democrats for Willie Sutton reasons. You are also right about Ryan being a light weight thinker, but that seems to be the case with Wisconsin politicians--all of the Republicans are light weights and a lot of the Democrats are way too cozy with special interest groups.
Posted by: terry on February 2, 2010 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK
Let's also not forget that the last time the Republicans were in power, with both the White House and Congress, they did exactly nothing to hold down costs but instead ran up massive deficits, thanks in no small part to their stupid tax cuts (sorry, Marler).
So even if Ryan's plan wasn't laughably spare in the difficult details, there's no reason at all to trust the Republicans to actually implement it if they get in power. The GOP has an agenda, all right, and we saw what it was in the Bush era. It isn't fiscal responsibility; it's working hard to create a second Gilded Ages. Boink that!
Posted by: Gregory on February 2, 2010 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK
Ian beat me to it.
Not having read Ryan's proposal..... let me go out on a limb and say their aren't any defense spending cuts in it.
Am I right?
Posted by: oh my on February 2, 2010 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK
"There's also a limit to the growth of Medicare payments -- but saying you're going to limit growth is easy. The hard part is figuring out how to limit growth and deciding what you're going to cut to meet your caps. Medicaid is treated the same way . . . . -- Kevin Drum
Obviously, the Republicans are suggesting that the insurance corporations set up Death Panels. They know that half of all medical costs come in the last six months of life, so Republicans want to allow the insurance corporations to euthanize Grandma when their Death Panels determine that the old girl has reached the minus six month mark.
Democrats should get out there and let Americans know what the Republicans have in mind.
Posted by: SteveT on February 2, 2010 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK
Any reputation that Ryan may have for seriousness is based more on his haircut than on any position he may hold.
Posted by: bucky on February 2, 2010 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK
The Republican plan for dealing with deficits and health care is to cut your social security and Medicare benefits and throw you at the mercy of Wall Street advisors and health insurers.
That's it. That's always been it. What could be simpler to run against?
Posted by: Barbara on February 2, 2010 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK
What could be simpler to run against?
But maybe not so simple for a Democratic Party up to its neck in hock to- wait for it- Wall Street and health insurers.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne on February 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK
"advantageous comparisons to his even-dimmer colleagues"
When standing next to Mike Pence, Paul Ryan is a man of towering wisdom.
Posted by: Ohioan on February 2, 2010 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK
Ryan will now get an inordinate amount of TeeVee Time, and the talking heads will toss him a couple of softball questions, with no follow-up.
The result? Ryan will become the nation's youngest Elder Statesman.
(eat your heart out Newt)
Posted by: DAY on February 2, 2010 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK
Republicans are "big Picture" people. They don't do details.
They leave the ugly details for the arugula-eaters so they can obstruct them and position themselves to look like they're standing up against Washington tyranny.
Focusing on details would reveal that these latter day emperors, like Scott Brown, have no clothes.
Posted by: pj in jesusland on February 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK
Repugnant Ryan sure does make whatever next betrayal of the American peeps by Prez Hopey-Changey and the Dims look as good as Mom's apple pie with a pony!
Yahoo!
Whatta country!
Posted by: neill on February 2, 2010 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK
Wow, it blows my mind how they blithely throw out all thess privatization right after one of the biggest financial meltdowns in our nation's history.
Talk about too big to fail!!
They brag about how they were against the bank bailout. What happens when everyone's private retirement/healthcare accounts are flushed down the toilet of fiscal insanity?
Posted by: bdop4 on February 2, 2010 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK
This post epitomizes the kind of slash-and-burn politics that commentators like Olbermann espouse. That is, you begin by accusing the GOP of being the party of No. Then when someone actually submits a proposal on how according to him a budget should look like, we accuse him of being dim-witted among even more dim-witted colleagues (notice how Ezra Klein discusses the *merits* of the proposal as opposed to pointless name calling like you are doing). Then on the off-chance they actually happen to be right in some cases, we accuse them of being prejudiced against the President's agenda -- that would no doubt involve Arianna Huffington informing us all as to how misguided people have been by voting for the GOP in all the recent races.
I mean, I am not even an American. For a casual observer like me, it seems like the problems are on either side of the aisle.
Is there any wonder independents are moving away from Democrats?
Posted by: Dilip on February 2, 2010 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK
I think you're being unfair, Dilip.
While claiming the budget is a collection of pie-in-the-sky promises (and can you deny it when Democrats are in the MAJORITY?), Mr. Benen leans towards Ezra's praise of Ryan.
He often says he wants STRONGER opposition so the Democrats will have to bring their best game on. I agree fully and Ryan's unimpressive budget is still far and away better than the ludicrous sales brochure they claimed was a budget proposal last time.
The GOP has been purified of serious policy enthusiasts and left with little more than sycophants. Concerned Americans such as we are largely cheering on this baby step towards credibility.
Posted by: toowearyforoutrage on February 2, 2010 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK
First of all it is time to stop blaming the republicans for everything. The repubs were thrown out of office on the promises from dems that they could do better. My boss does not want me sitting around my office all day explaining how bad the guy who used to be here did things. The reason he used to be here is because he could not do the job...my only option is to perform. Right now the dems are acting like the dems of 1970...in fact a lot of them are the dems from the 1970s. They are not performing. If we are honest we also must admitt that the repubs never had a fillibuster-proof senate during the 2000s...which means if the dems had really thought things were headed in the wrong direction they could have stopped it...they did not. We watched Cheney cut backroom deals with energy execs and we shouted "change" now Obama cuts backroom deals with big Pharma, insurance execs, and the AMA. We saw Bush run up huge deficits and we shouted "change" now the dems have had to raise the governments debt ceiling twice in six months going from 10t to 14.1 t. Thats a 40% increase in the national debt in less than a year. The Bush deficits look puny now. We saw Bush mis-manage wars of marginal national interest and we shouted "change" and Obama raises our involvment to the highest level since 2007 and still no end in sight. We heard how our government used rendition and indefinite confinement of suspects in overseas prisons and we shouted "change' and the Obama admin continues both practices and has defended both in federal courts. We heard about no-bid contracts for Haliburton and yelled "change" now Obama contributors are getting the big no-bid contracts.
We changed from R to D...we changed the names of some programs and what special interest group is allowed to steal our tax dollars but little else has or will change. They all just want to sit in their over-stuffed chairs and point fingers at each other...time for them all to leave.
Posted by: Sog on February 2, 2010 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK
Give people insurance policies with a deductible so high that it will drive them into bankruptcy (or worse) if they have the audacity to get sick.
Guess that's better than raising taxes on rich people.
Posted by: Northern Pike on February 2, 2010 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK
"give people insurance policies"? Health insurance, like auto insurance, home owner's insurance, etc... are nothing more than paying someone else to take on your risk. The more you pay the more risk a company will take on. Insurance is not some social program that is supposed to take care of you. If you own a house worth 1 million dollars and you insure it for 100k and it burns down then you dont get to blame the insurance company for you losing 900k...you chose to buy a crappy policy. Health insurance is the same deal. You can buy policies that cover every ailment under the sun with no limits, but it will cost you. You can also buy no insurance and pay cash for services. If you are generally healthy and die in a sudden heart attack at 65...you will be money ahead. This whole nonesense about people having some right to health insurance is silly...I have a god given right to boat insurance...my boat should get universal maintenance and unlimited care. She deserves it...she's a nice boat. When is Obama gonna give me universal boat care!!!!!!! Boat Care Now!!! Boat Care Now!!! come on water loving americans unite!!!!!
Posted by: Sog on February 2, 2010 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK
"You can buy policies that cover every ailment under the sun with no limits, but it will cost you. You can also buy no insurance and pay cash for services."
Or, you can pay tens of thousands of dollars for worthless and fraudulent coverage when the unregulated insurance company decides it doesn't want to pay your expensive claim because the CEO needs a $20 million a year salary.
My parents' long-term care insurance policy just got rescinded because my mother had heart surgery. Why on earth should I buy their crap?
There's a reason why have the British health care system for our veterans. We don't dare feed our heroes to the sharks.
Posted by: northern Pike on February 2, 2010 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK
If Democrats aren't smart enough to wave the Republican Kill-Social-Security-Medicare-Medicaid-&-Old-People Plan in front of every voter, they deserve to lose. This scary plan really exposes the Republicans for what they are. It dovetails beautifully, by some strange coincidence, with David Brooks' column in today's NYT, in which he asks seniors to step up to the plate & give up their entitlements.
The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com
Posted by: Marie Burns on February 2, 2010 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK
"...Ryan's plan simply sets a limit on growth rates without saying how those limits will be met." Kevin Drum quoted by Steve Benen.
"Make it so, Number 1."
Posted by: Doug on February 2, 2010 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK
I guess the Republican answer is the donut hole. If your voucher doesn't carry you, tough shit. If you make it to the next voucher, great!
Republicans are for Death Panels. They just have a simpler criterion: Are you independently wealthy?
Posted by: Crissa on February 2, 2010 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK
I wonder which kind of death panel is kinder. The republican one that tells people to be responsible for yourself. Earn a living, save money, pay your bills and plan for your future. If you fail to do these things...someone, other than you, might be in a position to make life and death decisions for you. Or, the democratic death panel that tells people that the government will take care of your every whim and fancy. No need to save, uncle sam will take care of you. Dont provide for yourself, suckle on the tit of the US taxpayer. Then in a last second bait-and-switch says..eh, yeah, we dont cover breast cancer treatment, theres not enough money.
Pike, if your story is true, and I doubt that it is, your state insurance commissioner would surely love to receive a complaint. The practice of terminating long-term care for patients who become ill is already illegal and states do a pretty extensive job regulating insurance practices.
Posted by: Sog on February 2, 2010 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK
Yes, Sog, the story is true. And yes, my parents are taking it to the state insurance commissioner, which will be much more complicated once Republicans get their wish of selling health insurance across state lines.
I suspect your objection to socialized medicine isn't that it will treat Americans badly; your objection is that it will treat the unworthy too well.
Posted by: northern pike on February 2, 2010 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK