Paul Ryan spent his first day as a Vice Presidential candidate watching his counterpart on the ticket disavow a plan he spent years generating. This is from a set of talking points distributed to GOP surrogates:
1) Does this mean Mitt Romney is adopting the Paul Ryan plan?
· Gov. Romney applauds Paul Ryan for going in the right direction with his budget, and as president he will be putting together his own plan for cutting the deficit and putting the budget on a path to balance.
· Romney’s administration will go through the budget line by line and ask two questions: Can we afford it? And, if not, should we borrow money from China to pay for it?
· Mitt Romney will start with the easiest cut of all: Obamacare, a trillion-dollar entitlement we don’t want and can’t afford.
· Mitt Romney also laid out commonsense reforms that will make good on our promises to today’s seniors and save Social Security and Medicare for future generations.
So Romney continues to offer the vaguest of ideas about these policies, while attempting to spin away from Ryan’s clearly-articulated vision. Romney had previously supported the Ryan plan much more fervently than this. Also, it calls into question how Ryan will react. As Vice President, he would apparently have less control over the shape of the budget than as House Budget Committee chair.
This isn’t really going to work, by the way. I must have received 100 emails today from Democratic surrogates, House candidates, Senate candidates, party committees, and the President’s campaign, all with the exact same message about how the Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it. We know that this is going to be what Democrats try to pin on Romney and Ryan, as they have planned for some time. They will run against the Ryan budget and that vision of tax cuts for the rich, increases for the middle class and the poor, and collapsing of social insurance programs.
But we know that the actual debate is not the wide gulf that Democrats will make it out to be, and that leads us to the other Republican parry:
3) Do you worry that Paul Ryan’s controversial Medicare plan will hurt the campaign with independents?
No. President Obama is the one who should be worried, because he has cut $700 BILLION from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, and put in place a panel of Washington bureaucrats to make decisions about what kind of care seniors will receive under Medicare. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have a bipartisan plan to strengthen Medicare by giving future seniors the choice between traditional Medicare and a variety of private plans. They are committed to ensuring that Medicare remains strong, not just for today’s seniors, but for tomorrow’s seniors as well.
Both Romney and Ryan cited this exact statistic in their speeches today. I’m so old I can remember when it was only $500 billion in Medicare cuts. And I thought inflation was still low! (Apparently CBO modified their analysis from $500 billion to $700 billion last month.)
Medicare was the Republican path to victory in 2010. They used those $500 billion in cuts, which were mostly cuts to overpayments to industry stakeholders and the Medicare Advantage boondoggle, to great advantage in local races. Paul Ryan in particular is a terrible messenger for this decrying of Medicare cuts, however, since his 2012 budget kept the Medicare cuts intact, the same budget that almost every House Republican voted for. The one time I ever saw him questioned about this he claimed that the Medicare cuts keep the money for Medicare, something which seems to bend the laws of physics, but I’m sure he can explain that again slowly. Ryan has always been a bit of a phony, and his numbers never pencil out.
But that’s kind of beside the point. Republicans will try to claim, again, that Democrats are the ones who cut Medicare. And this worked the first time. The fact that the leader of the Democratic Party is on the record wanting credit for being willing to cut Medicare helps along the GOP case. And it shows how this “great debate” is really a half-debate, with everything to the left of the late David Broder’s sensibility marginalized.




28 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
And there’s this little chestnut already making the rounds:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/mitt-romney-would-pay-082-percent-in-taxes-under-paul-ryans-plan/261027/#
Oh yeah. We’re now halfway between Bowels-Simpleton and Ryan’s budget. He’ll show ‘em. Dipshit.
Predictable shades of 2010.
With the same result?
Except that if Romney should be taken out some day by a flying dog cage from a vacationer’s car–in a perfect karmic demise–then Paul Ryan would be president. And in place of Medicare I’d be handed a pink slip.
R+Rmoney — fast-tracking America to Pyongyang…. all that will be left for the people is the war machine.
Notice the crowds chanting USA, USA USA at one of the stops of Mitt and Ryan today? It’s the new Sieg Heil of the U.S. Empire. It should catch on.
and 1000 dollar a month medical insurance
It is. Practice if you want to blend in with the fascists.
He reminds me of a child making things up, not yet able to comprehend that adults know he’s lying. What a sad pathetic human being. And he made his money destroying peoples’ lives and hiding the money. Very depressing.
Call your reps in Washington.
Demand that the capital gains tax on rich people go up to 60%, 70% if they have over 1 million in assets.
Everyone under can stay at the 15%.
Time to demand the rich start paying. And paying big.
And BTW fuck you Ryan with your social security paid for upbringing and education and housing tax credits and government health insurance and retirement while telling us we must “sacrifice”. Fuck you.
Well said
Depends on the pushback, which in 2010 was nonexistent.
I think Obama should take the Ryan budget as a starting-point, and then see if they can find some additional ways to screw working Americans. I mean, Ryan is an excellent start, but with a little goodwill we can do so much better. Bipartisanship!
x2
Also: we don’t need complicated plans that take Paul Ryan years to develop. All we need to do is eliminate the cap on income taxed for SSMM: it’s about $125,000 now. Removing the cap makes SSMM stable and whole for years to come, with room to lower the retirement age at full benefits to 60 until the Jobs Emergency ends.
Let’s not take this lying down.
This is the time to fight both Ds and Rs so that they get it through their thick skulls they better start being on the side of the 310 millions rather then the 36,000.
Expand eligibility: lower minimum age for SSMM until Jobs Crisis passes.
Expand taxable income base: remove income cap.
Expand availability: Medicare for all.
Voters like all these things, but no one is selling them.
We need to break the Pete Peterson stranglehold on how they present this and what needs to be done.
Start the attacks back at them.
Demand want we want.
Give the solutions.
Don’t stop until we win.
Because of course the billionaire right-wingers who control our politics and our discourse won’t allow their hirelings on Capitol or in the White House to even seriously discuss this.
Yup.
Remember, if money is speech, kick their teeth in.
Crowds at these events, both Republican and Democratic, are paid. Or, at least, certain people are paid to get the crowds started.
I am guessing the entire crowd for the Ryan announcement were pros.
Assuming that a politician ever cares about a principle, as opposed to his own election and re-election, principles go straight out the window the closer one gets to the White House. And VP is pretty damn close. Only a heartbeat away, in fact.
Then, there are politicians whose entire political career has been designed to optimize their chances at the Oval Office. Two of them are Romney and Obama.
Don’t you need two parties in order to have bipartisanship/
In being the first Democrat to say publicly that “entitlements” had to be cut, Obama did more damage to Old Age Security Disability Insurance, Medicaid and other social safety nets than any Republican possibly could have done.
By enacting ACA, Obama did more damage to the possibility of Medicare for all than Republican possibly could have done.
Those are two of the many reasons I will vote for Dr. Jill Stein in November.
She will lose, yes. But she did qualify for public matching funds, thereby making history. And, if nothing else, that success plus a decent showing at the polls should make inroads into the Democrat meme that “the left has nowhere else to go,” and therefore it does not matter how unhappy Democrats make the left.
Conversely, I really don’t want to feed that meme with my vote. I want Democrats to have to think twice–or even once– about how their actions will affect the left, instead of only about how they can please right leaning Independents.
Full disclosure: my state will go very strongly for Obama no matter how I vote. However, if you live in a strongly blue state or a strongly red state, I beg you to think about voting for Dr. Stein.
If you are in a state where the vote will be close, I can say only “Follow your conscience and your heart.”
Either way, blessings on the left.
Any tactic that works against Obama is good.
Re;Romney’s administration will go through the budget line by line and ask two questions: Can we afford it? And, if not, should we borrow money from China to pay for it?
In http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/should-america-kowtow-china
with title “Do the Chinese really fund our deficit? Or is this more Neo-classical money mythology?”
“This claim is seldom challenged, but our friend, Warren Mosler, recently gave an excellent illustration of this fact in an interview with Mike Norman. Mosler provides a hypothetical example in which China decides to sell us a billion dollars’ worth of T-shirts. We buy a billion dollars’ worth of T-shirts from China:
“And the way we pay them is somebody pays China. And the money goes into their checking account at the Federal Reserve. Now, it’s called a reserve account because it’s the Federal Reserve, and they give it a fancy name. But it’s a checking account. So we get the T-shirts, and China gets $1 billion in their checking account. And that’s just a data entry. That’s just a one and some zeros.
Whoever bought them gets a debit. You know, it might have been Disneyland or something. So we debit Disney’s account and then we credit China’s account.
In this situation, we’ve increased our trade deficit by $1 billion. But it’s not an imbalance. China would rather have the money than the T-shirts, or they wouldn’t have sent them. It’s voluntary. We’d rather have the T-shirts than the money, or we wouldn’t have bought them. It’s voluntary.”
So, when you just look at the numbers and say there’s a trade deficit, and it’s an imbalance, that’s not correct. That’s imbalance. It’s markets. That’s where all market participants are happy. Markets are cleared at that price.
Okay, so now China has two choices with what they can do with the money in their checking account. They could spend it, in which case we wouldn’t have a trade deficit, or they can put it in another account at the Federal Reserve called a Treasury security, which is nothing more than a savings account. You give them money, you get it back with interest. If it’s a bank, you give them money, you get it back with interest. That’s what a savings account is.
The example here clearly illustrates that bonds are a savings alternative which we offer to the Chinese manufacturer, not something which actually “funds” our government’s spending choices.”
“In being the first Democrat to say publicly that “entitlements” had to be cut, Obama did more damage to Old Age Security Disability Insurance, Medicaid and other social safety nets than any Republican possibly could have done.
By enacting ACA, Obama did more damage to the possibility of Medicare for all than Republican possibly could have done.
Those are two of the many reasons I will vote for Dr. Jill Stein in November.”
My thoughts exactly.