(Or, What Happens When Somebody Puts On Their Big Boy Pants)
Paul Ryan is a boyish, six-term Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He is the ranking member of the Budget Committee. And he is a grown-up: he is willing to risk his office by putting forward a budget proposal that actually fixes the problem and erases the deficit, but one that opens him up to all manner of attack from the agents of the status quo.
Ezra Klein, in yesterday’s Washington Post:
The boyish Ryan is a conservative darling and the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, but there’s nothing conservative about this document. It does not respect, much less preserve, the status quo. But then, that’s a point in Ryan’s favor. The status quo does not deserve our respect. It is unsustainable. Left unchecked, it will bankrupt our country. On that, Ryan’s radicalism is welcome, and all too rare. The size of his proposal is shocking, but it is proportionate to the size of our problem: According to the Congressional Budget Office, which examined a simplified version of his proposal, it would wipe out our projected long-term deficits.
Obviously, any plan that actually takes on these challenges must be radical in scope — because that is how bad the problem is.
Robert Samuelson, in today’s Washington Post, illuminates the genuine scope of the problem
First, from 2011 to 2020, the administration projects total federal spending of $45.8 trillion against taxes and receipts of $37.3 trillion. The $8.5 trillion deficit is almost a fifth of spending. In 2020, the gap is $1 trillion, again approaching a fifth: Spending is $5.7 trillion, taxes $4.7 trillion. All amounts assume a full economic recovery; all projections may be optimistic. The message: There’s a huge mismatch between Americans’ desire for low taxes and high government services.
Second, almost $20 trillion of the $45.8 trillion of spending involves three programs — Social Security, Medicare (health insurance for those 65 and over) and Medicaid (health insurance for the poor — two-thirds goes to the elderly and disabled). The message: The budget is mainly a vehicle for transferring income to retirees from workers, who pay most taxes. As more baby boomers retire in the 2020s, deficits would grow.
Third, there is no way to close the massive deficits without big cuts in existing government programs or stupendous tax increases. Suppose we decided to cover all future deficits by raising taxes. Taxes would rise in the 2020s by roughly 50 percent from the average 1970-2009 tax burden.
That’s the guts of it. At age 65, average Americans live for another 18 years. Government now subsidizes each of them an average of about $25,000 a year (almost $14,000 Social Security, $11,000 Medicare). We cannot sensibly afford all these subsidies without oppressive tax increases (see above), deep cuts in defense and other programs or immense budget deficits that someday might trigger another financial crisis. Bond buyers might balk at swallowing so much government debt. By the administration’s estimates, that publicly held debt (the accumulation of all annual deficits) balloons from $5.8 trillion in 2008 to $18.6 trillion in 2020.
It is that massive problem that Ryan seeks to solve. If I tried to lay out the plan, I’d manage to miss something, so I refer you to the web site to review it for yourself.
You will undoubtedly hear the protectors of the status quo, those who would comfortably lead us off the cliff we’re approaching, attacking Ryan’s plan for its audacity. And there are not nearly enough steel-spined members of Congress to let a plan like this even get a committee hearing. So the actual solution to our problems dies before it ever had a chance, and we take another step toward that cliff.
But when that day comes, remember that somebody tried to prevent it.
{ 40 comments }
Thank you for sharing this Dave!
So you support privatizing social security and essentially eliminating medicare? Because that is what he is proposing.
The agents of the status quo have arrived. The Ryan plan makes no changes to Medicare for people currently 55 or over.
Medicare’s eliminating itself by bankrupting the country, so if there’s a better way, I’m all ears. I’m not wedded to “Medicare.” I’m wedded to the idea that elderly people who need medical care should be able to get it. As with every Ponzi scheme, at some point people who paid in aren’t getting their money back.
As far as Social Security goes, I think that it’s salvageable with a combination of lifting the cap, means testing and extension of the retirement age. (That is the equation for a political nuclear explosion, however.)
So, no, I don’t agree with everything in the plan. But I’d gladly stand beside someone with the balls to put forth a genuine, zero-deficit plan based in the reality that our situation is nothing short of a crisis.
I am not an agent of the status quo. I am against privatizing social security and eliminating medicare, including for those 55 and under. Those are the key elements of Ryan’s plan.
It doesn’t take “balls” to put forth a zero deficit plan that balances the budget by taking entitlement programs away from older Americans that have paid into them. It only takes callousness and indifference, particularly coming from a political party that is hugely responsible for the crisis that we face.
10 years ago, Al Gore was ridiculed for his suggestion that Social Security funds be place in a “lock box” so that they could not be spent or borrowed against. What did Bush do? Spent it all. Where was Ryan and his plan then?
Callousness and indifference perfectly describes the status quo of ignoring the huge tidal wave on its way, brought not by your arch-enemy the Republicans, but by the very entitlements you seek to protect.
You want to blame Bush? Then end the wars, get rid of Part D and get rid of the Bush tax cut. You guys had uncontested one-party rule for a whole year.
By not getting rid of those deficit-growing programs, you now own that which you wish to blame on others.
“entitlement programs away from older Americans that have paid into them.”
In every Ponzi scheme, there is the one generation who pays in and fails to get their money back. Entitlements will be no different. Just a matter of when at this point.
Anonone’s question is a fair one, Dave. And I can’t help but wonder what the Republican “what if” scenario is. As in, what if 11,000.00 in Medicare vouchers (in 10 years) isn’t enough for the elderly people who need medical care to get it. And, let’s be honest, 11,000 in ten years won’t be enough to deliver care without serious rationing. Fine. Say it, and own it. I’ve always thought that the amount of money spent on heroic end of days efforts was a problem that needed to be addressed. That the three months before a person accepts their fate and enters hospice is quite expensive and hopeless. And terribly, terribly sad.
This idea sends chills down my spine, mainly because, as you know, we are already financially supporting my father-in-law. I shudder to think of having to supplement his medical costs in addition… or making the decision not to.
And, yes, I realize that the plan won’t affect my situation, but someone else will be in my shoes when this plan takes effect. My children? Your’s? Talk about burdening the next generation.
And that may be okay with you, but to not address these issues is the plans main weakness. It would be like constructing a household budget without an emergency fund. It looks good on paper until the roof starts leaking.
Also, I’ve never been one to simply stand beside someone with “balls.” Balls without brains usually results in a bar room brawl.
I would like both wars to end. Now. I’d like to see drastic cuts in defense spending. Now. I’d like to see a more equitable tax system and stop the billions in government subsidies that are going to those who need them the least. Now. And I’d like to see single-payer health care reform. Now.
All of those would go along way to shoring up the finances of the entitlement programs.
The tables have been slanted in this country for decades toward growing the wealth of the wealthiest at the expense of middle class and working people. All of the economic data point to this fact. Ryan’s plan does not address this. His plan is just more continuation of the economic injustices that have been perpetrated by our government, both Rs and Ds.
It bends the cost curve, no different than the Democrats’ Doc Fix did by cutting doctor pay by 21%. You think THAT was going to work?
If there is a cap under which the majority of the nation’s main purchasers of health care operate, the market forces bend to meet the need. You’re operating under a paradigm that it’s Medicare or nothing at all. What if in 20 years there is no more Medicare and we’ve done nothing to prepare for it?
I’m looking for options. Obviously we can’t let people slip through the cracks. But doing nothing is as violent as what you accuse Ryan of.
“I would like both wars to end. Now. I’d like to see drastic cuts in defense spending. Now. I’d like to see a more equitable tax system and stop the billions in government subsidies that are going to those who need them the least. Now. And I’d like to see single-payer health care reform. Now.”
I know you would. It’s not fair of me to pin the Democrats’ actions on you. People do that to me all the time and it’s very frustrating. So I apologize.
In fairness to Ryan, his target is the federal budget, not income inequality. He’s not trying to save the world, just the budget.
When the Ryans of the world start talking about cutting defense spending, implementing single-payer healthcare, financial reform, and creating an equitable progressive tax structure, then that would be something truly courageous. But trying to kill social security and medicare is neither courageous or new from a republican.
Government-run, single-payer health care is exactly what Medicare IS. And it’s threatening to bankrupt the country. So I’m definitely encouraging people to offer alternatives.
Exactly, and Medicare for everybody would control costs, provide health care for everybody, and take out the insurance company middle man. By controlling healthcare costs, you free up A LOT of wealth for investment.
Remember the idea of growing our way out of the deficit?
Solve the problem of a program that’s wildly unsustainable by doing MORE of it? No, thanks.
Ryan’s plan solves the problem on paper. It does not address the reality. It is based on numbers that can’t afford to change. It is based on an “ideal” that doesn’t take into account the fluctuation of the Stock Market, nor does it address the rising cost of health insurance.
It is an idea that is not very well thought out, completely comfortable in simplistic charts that delight in the bottom line with little thought of potential consequences. Very one-sided.
In essence, while this plan addresses the deficit it does not address the fall-out it will create for the new elderly. We may, in fact, find ourselves in a situation where we will be handing out insufficient Medicare vouchers and reestablishing government assistance – unless the answer to this problem is “sucks to be you.” Same with SS… what if the return on investments isn’t enough to live on? What then.
These scenarios must be addressed. Then, and only then, is Ryan’s proposal credible. Right now it’s merely a bumper sticker.
Well, we’d better just do nothing then. Far less scary that way.
That reply was beneath you, Dave.
I see nothing but attacks from you and a1 on the Ryan plan, which, while imperfect, is a legitimate attempt to close the hole. Plus, it serves a great purpose simply by illuminating the vast scope of the problem itself.
Show me the Democratic counter-plan which fully closes the deficit gap, and then we’ll talk.
A single payer healthcare system would be quite different than Medicare in its ability to control costs as well as provide universal coverage. Costs of healthcare and healthcare insurance are spiraling unsustainably right now. If you make a single-payer system, you can spread the ACTUAL costs among everybody. It isn’t a Ponzi scheme and it isn’t like Medicare today where one portion of the population is paying for another.
So your argument that single payer represents “doing MORE of it” does not reflect the reality of what a single-payer system would actually be.
Dave, in regards to “show me the Democratic counter-plan,” I just outlined some steps that could be taken that would require real political courage. You ignored virtually all of it except the single-payer HCR.
The “boyish” Ryan plan proposes essentially eliminating SS and medicare. Those two aspects alone make it an entirely illegitimate proposal, but one that the republicans have kicked around for years. There is nothing new there.
There are many other ways to close the budget gap (as I listed previously) that would require real political courage, but you don’t want to talk about those.
“Dave, in regards to “show me the Democratic counter-plan,” I just outlined some steps that could be taken that would require real political courage. You ignored virtually all of it except the single-payer HCR.”
Yeah, but you’re an anonymous blog commenter, not even accountable by name. Talk to me when a member of Congress does it.
“There are many other ways to close the budget gap (as I listed previously) that would require real political courage, but you don’t want to talk about those.”
‘Agree with a1′ does not necessarily equal ‘political courage.’
Paul Ryan has put himself and his entire party out on a limb with this. The D’s are preparing to make political hay by forcing the GOP caucus to vote on this plan, which is not the official GOP budget plan, and then demagoguing the situation just like they did with SS reform: all fear and no ideas.
I have not attacked, unless you see my questions as an attack. Ryan’s plan eliminates the deficit, but it creates other – potentially more expensive – problems. It’s like a person using their entire paycheck to pay off their credit card bill, but then having no money for food, rent, heat, etc.
Focusing on the deficit alone is a simplistic answer to a very complex question.
That’s why we have 535 members of Congress elected to address the big issues. When the other 534 start acting like it, we’ll continue this conversation.
So we’re back to the fact that I am “an anonymous blog commenter, not even accountable by name.” Well, OK, then.
The “boyish” Paul Ryan has hardly put himself and his entire party out on a limb with this. The ideas of eliminating SS and medicare are old republican ideas that have been proposed by them since the programs were started. The fact that the “boyish” Paul Ryan has decided to float them again in spite of their unpopularity with the voters and even members of his own party is more a profile in stupidity than courage.
When you and your republican brethren start talking about addressing the fundamental economic injustices that are at the root of the problem, then you can talk about political courage.
Well, gee, a1. I’m crushed and shocked at your inability to see the good in this attempt. No, really. I am.
By the way, central planning has done more to CAUSE your “economic injustices” than it has done to SOLVE them. The government can’t control the economy any more than my toddler can.
And Medicare is $33,000,000,000,000 in the red over the long term. Replacing it with a better social safety net should be EVERYONE’S goal.
Central planning is not the problem. The plans that were made are the problem.
As I have said several times in this thread, replacing Medicare with a single-payer “pay as you go” health care system is a better social safety net and stops the red-ink bleeding. Unless you want to return to the days of impoverished and starving elderly, privatizing social security and phasing out Medicare is not the answer.
Too bad that we can’t at least agree on that, and then look for some new and better ideas together.
The difference between you and me is that I see the federal government as a breeding ground for unintended consequences that turn good intentions into bad results. So I’m not interested in election-centered politicians having total control of the health care system.
Dave, the government wouldn’t have “total control of the health care system” under single payer – only the financing of the healthcare system, like they do under medicare. Respectfully, dismissing the idea of single payer because you think it means “election-centered politicians having total control of the health care system” really shows how uninformed you are about it and why people like you are fertile ground for charlatans like Ryan and his plan, which is a prima facie example of good intentions turned into bad results.
It is also amazing to me that you think that allowing the GOP to vote on the plan is somehow “demagoguing the situation.” Why, if it is such a great idea?
People who think that government is inherently a breeding ground for bad results shouldn’t make a career of it.
The demagoguing comes after the vote, when it gets boiled down into sound bites and :30 commercials designed to elicit fear.
And, as to your first point, GIVE ME A BREAK!
The government wouldn’t control health care, just 100% of the financing?! Will you please read that statement to yourself 10 times?
“People who think that government is inherently a breeding ground for bad results shouldn’t make a career of it.”
Unless of course they feel like protecting people from the damaging results of central planning. And it is not government, but central planning, that is the problem. A limited government that decentralizes decisions while regulating and protecting is different than a massive government that tries to collectively determine outcomes.
I don’t have to read that statement 10 times. I wrote it.
I know people on Medicare. They choose their doctors, pharmacies, appointments, etc. Medicare only pays the bills; the government doesn’t “control” anything else regarding their healthcare. So if Medicare is the model for a single payer system, you need to understand that all it does is pay the bills, which includes negotiating costs with providers (just like private insurers do).
I don’t know where you’re getting your ideas regarding single-payer, but you’re being mislead if you think it is ‘total control of the health care system.” It isn’t, and Medicare is the proof.
In regards to boiling “down into sound bites and :30 commercials designed to elicit fear,” the repubs have shown adeptness at such techniques. Though perhaps the idea of returning to the days of impoverished and starving elderly is something to legitimately fear.
Regardless of your theories about central planning, the record shows consistently that people who think government is the problem aren’t very good at governing.
MEDICARE IS BROKE! $33,000,000,000,000 in the RED!!! It’s completely unsustainable and therefore is a failure. Like I said, it’s just a matter of when.
“Regardless of your theories about central planning, the record shows consistently that people who think government is the problem aren’t very good at governing.”
Actually, the record shows that no one is good at governing. Including the people who created Medicare, none of whom would fit your description above.
“the record shows consistently that people who think government is the problem aren’t very good at governing.”
Actually it shows that people who think government is the solution are even worse at governing. (Not ruling, mind you. Governing.) All of the problems discussed here center around the failures and coming catastrophes of national collectivism.
If you really want “single payer”, try it out within the confines of federalism. If the people want it, they can enact it in their own states and suffer either consequences or successes of their electeds’ desires for such socio-economic engineering experiments.
There is nothing reasonable or realistic about going all-in, taking the whole nation further down the road to fiscal and economic perdition by expanding the national ruination already underway from such structurally-unsustainable national entitlement programs as those inflicted on us in Medicare and SS.
Contemporary leftists seem awestruck from all sense by the grandiosity of their collectivist ambitions. This ceaseless and shameless demand for ideologically self-indulgent expansion (and abuse) of public power, oblivious to real world consequence, belies an attitude towards the future crystallized by their worship, Lord Keynes, who said “In the long run, we’re all dead.”
Dave, as I have said on several posts on this thread, universal healthcare coverage under a single-payer federal system would be “pay as you go” so it would not have the deficit problems that Medicare is projected to have. Do you understand that?
In regards to governing, some are better than others and some excel in some areas while being awful in other areas. However, those who feel that government should be flushed down the drain shouldn’t be involved in governing.
“Dave, as I have said on several posts on this thread, universal healthcare coverage under a single-payer federal system would be “pay as you go” so it would not have the deficit problems that Medicare is projected to have. Do you understand that?”
But it doesn’t change the cost structure. Your “pay as you go” would be the same as a tax increase to pay for the current gap. And if you tinker at the edges to get those cost controls, you get unintended consequences out the wazoo. (Of course, your program would completely keep the government out of all of those decisions. They’d just pay the bill, whatever the bill may be.)
“those who feel that government should be flushed down the drain shouldn’t be involved in governing.”
99% of the people who have, are and will govern do not believe that. There is a proper role for the federal government, starting with protecting people from enemies foreign (Al Qaeda) and domestic (Goldman Sachs, Monsanto). After that, it’s up for debate.
So do you think Ryan’s plan doesn’t have “unintended consequences out the wazoo”? Like starving, sick, and impoverished elderly?
Single payer would lower healthcare costs, provide affordable universal coverage, and solve the medicare deficit problem. Taxes would go up, but they would be less than what people and businesses are currently paying for HCI, so the net would be positive for the private sector. Furthermore, a healthier populace is a more productive populace.
I’m not nearly as sold on Ryan’s plan as you are on single payer. Will a single-payer plan come with a magic unicorn, too?
And with Ryan’s plan, you could always adjust the voucher amount in the out years.
I don’t know about magic unicorns, but I guess that’s what you want to discuss now. And, yes, I am sold on single-payer. Good to hear that you’re not sold on Ryan’s political theater masquerading as policy. It will at least be amusing to watch it get exposed over the next few weeks.
Anyway, I thought you wanted to discuss serious ideas, not magic unicorns.
Take care and stay warm. Until next time…
As soon as you find a serious idea, I’m here.
Ryan is a leader that scares some people.
Comments on this entry are closed.