Political Animal
Blog
After a rough few weeks, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is hoping a public-relations offensive will help get his agenda back on track. The effort includes media appearances, op-eds, and as of yesterday afternoon, a luncheon speech to the Chicago Economic Club decrying “class warfare.”
So, how’d it go? Put it this way: if Ryan is hoping to turn things around, he might need a Plan C.
Though billed as an effort to revamp his widely criticized budget, Ryan avoided describing his health care plans in specific detail, eschewing even the friendly terms he and other Republicans have used to explain it since he first unveiled it earlier this year. Instead, Ryan reframed the entitlement cuts in his budget as “strengthen[ing] welfare for those who need it,” and accused Democrats who have attacked his budget as engaging in class warfare.
The House budget would phase out the existing Medicare program and replace it with a new program to provide future retirees with private insurance subsidies, which would shrink in value over time relative to steeply rising health care costs…. Ryan characterized this distinction differently.
“If I could sum up that disagreement in a couple of sentences, I would say this: Our plan is to give seniors the power to deny business to inefficient providers. Their plan is to give government the power to deny care to seniors,” he said, according to prepared remarks.
Substantively, Ryan’s argument is just wrong. Politically, the argument still won’t make Medicare privatization any more popular, and trying to reframe Medicare itself as “welfare” — a word Americans have been trained to reflexively dislike — is a losing proposition anyway. For that matter, the fact that the Budget Committee chairman refused to go into any detail in defending his Medicare plan on the merits suggests even he’s prepared to see privatization whither on the vine.
The rest of Ryan’s case wasn’t much better. For example, the right-wing Wisconsinite is convinced, based on his bizarre approach to monetary policy, that the improvements in economic growth and job creation over the last two years are actually bad news
What’s more, Ryan rejected the “mentality” that leads the left and right to compromise on debt-reduction plans. As Jon Chait explained, Ryan sees the larger dynamic this way: “Reducing the deficit is nice, but growth is what really matters, and that relies upon low upper-bracket tax rates. Ryan likewise adopts the Norquistian claim that bipartisan budget deals are bad because the tax hikes happen but the spending cuts don’t. (The belief is demonstrably false, but never mind.) He’s putatively arguing against Obama, but the real target seems to be a bipartisan deal that many GOP senators seem to want to cut.”
Ultimately, though, Ryan’s larger pitch more or less sounded like warmed-over palaver from a far-right politician who forces his staff to read Ayn Rand novels (which he actually does).
“Chasing ever-higher spending with ever-higher tax rates will decrease the number of makers in society and increase the number of takers,” he said. “Able-bodied Americans will be discouraged from working and lulled into lives of complacency and dependency.”
Ryan repeatedly referenced class warfare, painting a vision of a future where “governing elites” and “unelected bureaucrats” make decisions for ordinary people.
“If we succumb to this view that our problems are bigger than we are — if we surrender more control over our economy to the governing class — then we are choosing shared scarcity over renewed prosperity, and managed decline over economic growth,” he said. “That’s the real class warfare that threatens us — a class of governing elites picking winners and losers, and determining our destinies for us.”
All of this is more tiresome than offensive. One could note that the “real class warfare” is Ryan’s effort to shift burdens onto the poor and the middle class, while cutting taxes on the rich and corporations, in a radical/regressive redistribution scheme, but there’s probably no point.
Ryan is flailing and he knows it.
Facebook
Twitter
Mudge on May 17, 2011 8:08 AM:
Interesting that Ryan separates the takers from the makers, who deserve tax cuts. Yet that differentiation, anointing of the upper class, is not class warfare. Is it doublespeak or Calvin Ball?
SW on May 17, 2011 8:13 AM:
These people are a malignant disease in the body politic.
c u n d gulag on May 17, 2011 8:14 AM:
In a land of the blind, a one-eyed man would be King.
And only in a world of Republican politician and pun-twits would Ryan be considered some great intellectual light.
It has been proven in history,there, Privatizing Ryan, and especially in the last 30+ years, that really rich people will sit on their cash, rather than risk it.
UNLESS of course, you create high tax rates, and then INCENT them to create jobs by giving them a tax break.
Right now, there Dipship Ryan, you give them a tax break with no strings attached.
This guy is a moron, and needs to be treated as such.
I recomment mocking him at every opportunity.
Mock loud, mock strong, mock often!!!
Bo on May 17, 2011 8:17 AM:
Boy Math-whiz Ryan is only the latest dolt to come out of FitzWalkerstan (the state formerly known as "Wisconsin") of late.
There must be something in the water there.
p.s. -- if Ryan really wants to rebalance the gap between "makers" and "takers", perhaps he should focus on the wide variations between the states and regions in this country regarding (1) earmarks, (2) Federal assistance and (3) healthcare costs.
p.s.s. -- rumor has it he's going to run for the open Senate seat . . . hope he does because I will enjoy watching Russ Feingold whip his sorry little arse
DK on May 17, 2011 8:28 AM:
It's been said before, but it's worth saying again.
"It's only class warfare if the poor and middle class fight back."
DAY on May 17, 2011 8:35 AM:
Like The Donald, this self-Ryanization is aimed not at solving a largely nonexistent budget problem, but at promoting the future endeavors of the Smartest Kid in Special Ed.
And, yes- no rumor- he IS going to run, and will make the announcement later today. That is what the Ryan Plan is all about: name recognition.
martin on May 17, 2011 8:37 AM:
Lovely how the "governing class" is always grasping for more power so they can disempower the governing class.
FRP on May 17, 2011 8:45 AM:
Well DK I haven't heard that before and it brings a little peace amongst the bile of an "Ilk of Ryan" .
I see Mr. Benen grows weary of the punks and twits of the master of Jabberwocky . When you only know one thing , your only security is a blanky to the weary souls who measure the nonsense in fathoms and yards .
iyoumeweus on May 17, 2011 8:51 AM:
Those in the middle and the bottom of our economic status are spenders. The few at the top are savers. Saving and investing well very important does nothing to boast the short-term economy. spending and consuming drives 60% of our economy. Giving tax goodies to the few at the top will never accelerate economic growth; whereas. giving tax breaks to the many at the bottom causes spending and the economy to grow. You water at the roots and the water raises throughout the plant and nourishes the plant causing growth. The economy is like a plant. We can no longer afford the luxury of billionaires who are out to destroy our democracy and take away our voting rights through unnecessary ID programs.
berttheclock on May 17, 2011 9:14 AM:
Interesting this useage of the Luntz term "welfare" being used by Ryan over Medicare and Samuelson, the so-called "economic writer" at WAPO over Social Security.
Never heard of any welfare recipient being told at their local DSHS office that they must pay up front to receive welfare. Social Security checks go out on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Wednesdays of every month. Anyone receiving Medicare has, at least, $109 taken by Treasury from their SS check prior to their net check. Medicare is not free. Nor was that SS check free, as any recipient paid FICA for many years prior to receiving their benefits.
In addition, anyone eligible for Social Security must join their first eligible year or be charged a 10 per cent per year penalty, so, if, for example, the person waits for 5 years to sign for SS, a 50 per cent penalty will be added to that $109.00. That penalty remains as long as one draws Medicare. The only exemption to being penalized is if one is enrolled in a medical insurance plan at the time they are first eligible. This provision was designed to have as full of participation as possible.
Neither are Welfare.
rikyrah on May 17, 2011 9:28 AM:
calling a bunch of Seniors WELFARE KINGS AND QUEENS..
YEAH, that's the route to success.
NOT
KurtRex1453 on May 17, 2011 9:30 AM:
If class warfare is going on, it's Ryan's plan to take money out of the pockets of able-bodied Americans and put it into the pockets of the decadent, soft upper classes.
QUEEN Victoria would be embarrassed by the the current trends in increased American inequality of income, Republicans are not, I would be mortified to give a tax break to
yacht buyers when Texas has the 6th highest poverty rate in the nation. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/nation-world/nation/20100916-Texas-seeks-answers-to-rising-poverty-4755.ece
Sell-outs to big money all, the Republicans voted for Paul Ryan's proposed budget which would destroy Medicare and cut taxes for the wealthiest.
The point is that wealth is the result of their existing in a society which provided the services to them and their employees which allowed them to become rich. People and corporations (as entities of the state) do not exist outside the context of the society in which they live, it being impossible to amass a fortune living like a hermit at the bottom of Grand Canyon.
As Howard Roark would point out, designing a building is not a collective activity, but he does need people to build the thing. No other skilled people, no cool buildings.
Owning a great fortune in America means you have used a vastly greater percentage of society's resources than the rest of us. Therefore you should pay a vastly greater percentage of your wealth in taxes to keep that society functioning. If you scrimp on education, the engineers to support your company may not be graduated, the doctors which keep your workers healthy may not be available, the public managers which keep your courts honest may may not exist.
A vastly complex first world country like the US needs a complex social and legal and technical infrastructure to keep it running. When that infrastructure breaks society collapses as we learned during the recent financial crisis.
Money in the form of taxes is the lubricant which keeps the wheels of society running so people CAN get rich. Destroy the supply of money to the government and you will destroy society. Perhaps not today, but look at what a lack of financing to the SEC and deregulation of financial markets did for the economy, we had the worst recession since WWII. Charming wasn't it?
Even Greenspan was shocked that firm managers would destroy their own firms because of their own greed. Let's not destroy society with sophistry, everyone needs to pay their fair share. Increase taxes on the rich and the corporations and use the money to rebuild our infrastructure with good people receiving good money for good jobs.
terraformer on May 17, 2011 9:32 AM:
Ahh, Benen.
Day in and day out, he writes about how wrong conservatives are on issue X or issue Y. Painstakingly going through each thing someone says, and pointing out exactly how wrong or obtuse or ignorant it is.
All in an atmosphere in which the people and entities with power and influence know these things are wrong, obtuse, or ignorant - but they also know that their power and influence is based on their ensuring that such truths are never seriously discussed or voiced. Thus, "some say", "both sides", etc. Question is, will this ever change? If so, how can we make that happen?
chi res on May 17, 2011 9:41 AM:
This boy keeps talking about class warfare enough, he's damn well likely to get him some.
Eeyore on May 17, 2011 9:43 AM:
"Our plan is to give seniors the power to deny business to inefficient providers."
This is mind-numbingly, blisteringly stoopid.
The market for healthcare insurance is not like the mythical "Free Market" beloved by Randians and taught in Econ 101. You don't buy health care like you buy an orange, where if you get a bad orange at one place you can go shop at a different store. Or where you can smell or poke at an orange before you buy it to see if it's rotten. Market forces will NOT drive "inefficient providers" out of business because the pre-requisite for competitive market (a large number of sellers) doesn't exist.
And do they really, honestly believe that if my 93 year old father gets a botched knee replacement from his HMO he'll take his piddly little voucher and hop around from provider to provider comparing services to see who has the best deals on knee replacements? And do they really think my 93 year old father could even GET coverage at ANY price if he shopped for a "more efficient provider", since he has a pre-existing condition (he's older than dirt).
The economists on Ryan's staff are either blinded by Randian twaddle or morally bankrupt.
berttheclock on May 17, 2011 9:55 AM:
Ryan is very late to the party. KruDlow has been decrying "Class Warfare" for years, whenever, anyone from the left would attack his Supply Side homage to Laffer.
Actually, this game of Class Warfare was called a long time ago, when, the very wealthy never stopped scoring runovers of the hoi polloi. You won, KruDlow, You won.
mellowjohn on May 17, 2011 9:58 AM:
"The economists on Ryan's staff are either blinded by Randian twaddle or morally bankrupt."
sorry, being blinded by randian twaddle and being morally bankrupt are the same thing.
p.s. captcha still sucks.
Texas Phantom on May 17, 2011 10:35 AM:
He subscribes to Ayn Rand's assertion that the rich are rich because they're better than the rest of us and the poor are poor because they deserve it.
Joe Friday on May 17, 2011 10:49 AM:
RYAN: Reducing the deficit is nice, but growth is what really matters, and that relies upon low upper-bracket tax rates.
Exactly backwards.
According to the 'Bureau of Economic Analysis' at the Department of Commerce, EVERY TIME "upper-bracket tax rates" have been lowered, the national GDP has plummeted.
RightWingers are from Bizarro World.
Rich on May 17, 2011 11:19 AM:
The idea that people who repackage questionable mortgages or buy and sell companies are "makers" is ludicrous. If tax breaks for the wealthy were to make sense, they would need to actually reinforce the creation of substantive rather than paper wealth, which isn't going to happen.
Ryan may be flailing but he has a lot of potential Establishment cover from the places like the WaPo editorial page and people like the outgoing Chair of the FDIC.
Stephen Stralka on May 17, 2011 12:08 PM:
What always fascinates/appalls me is that corporate power is completely invisible to these people. There is government power, and the opposite of government is liberty, and that's all there is to it. Ryan's line (or is it Ayn Rand's?) about "surrendering more control over our economy to the governing class" is a particularly good example--like if we just get rid of the government we'll be in complete control of our economy? Really? Who exactly is "we"?
Like with the healthcare debate, the teabaggers don't want government bureaucrats running the healthcare system. No, they want insurance company bureaucrats running the healthcare system. It might cost more, your benefits might shrink every year, it might be all but impossible to figure out what's actually covered, and they might just drop you if you get really sick, but it's liberty.
SYSPROG on May 17, 2011 12:23 PM:
Alrighty now...we all know that Ryan is a liar and a scum and an entitled little dweeb BUT...can we talk Medicare? I know he called it 'welfare' but we pay into it with every paycheck. I know we pay for the current crop and not into a 'lockbox'. Health care costs are rising so we're not paying in enough (?). I myself would like to understand the difference between the payments to SS and Medicare, why these congresscritters don't address the COSTS of healthcare and why on earth they would continue to diss those that actually PAY for this stuff as if they aren't entitled when they retire? I know the moral ethical argument but I need some FACTS and NUMBERS. Thanx!