If you want to know how the choice of Paul Ryan as the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate is playing around the country, you only have to look to how his House colleagues are reacting, especially those in difficult races.
“Linda McMahon will never support a budget that cuts Medicare,” said Corry Bliss, a spokesman for the leading Republican contender in a race for one of Connecticut’s U.S. Senate seats.
McMahon’s camp was reacting to a statement sent out by Rep. Chris Murphy, a Democrat running for the same Senate seat, that asked, “Mitt Romney Picks Paul Ryan – Does Linda McMahon?” [...]
Even before Ryan’s selection, Reps. Ann Marie Buerkle, R-N.Y., Rick Crawford, R-Ark., were urging older voters in their districts not to fear the Ryan plan, depicting it as little more than a guide with no binding legal authority, and noting, encouragingly, that Democrats in the Senate simply won’t pass it.
Still, Buerkle’s opponent – former Rep. Dan Maffei, whom she defeated narrowly in 2010 – jumped Saturday on Ryan’s selection to paint the “Ryan-Buerkle vision” for America as one in which the middle-class pays higher taxes and “don’t have Medicare as we know it, and women don’t have right to life saving health care.”
You’re seeing this up and down the board. Every Democratic candidate with half a chance in November is yoking their opponent to Paul Ryan at every opportunity. They’re basically running the Kathy Hochul strategy. She won a R+6 district in upstate New York almost entirely on the 2011 Ryan budget, particularly Medicare. Fellow New Yorker Steve Israel runs the DCCC, and he’s clearly advised his candidates to use that blueprint. And Republicans are nervous about it.
In this context, the attempt to turn the tables and claim that the Democrats, actually, cut $700 billion from Medicare, is about as good an angle as Republicans have. The fact that those cuts are in the Ryan budget makes it ring a little hollow, but this talking point was enough in 2010. That was before practically every Republican in the House voted twice for a budget ending Medicare as we know it, however.
I mean, when you have Rick Scott and Rick Perry bobbing and weaving on this, you know it’s a toxic policy. These aren’t exactly mushy moderates.
CAVUTO: Governor Scott, do you support what Paul Ryan wants to do? On this issue particularly in Florida, are you open to the switching to the private voucher system Paul Ryan wants for medicare recipients down the road?
SCOTT: Let’s all remember, it is going to be Governor Romney’s plan, he’ll decide what his plan is for Medicare. …. I am going to support a plan to make sure our Medicare recipients, we have 3.3 million of them in Florida, I’m going to make sure they continue to get care. They paid into the system, and we have to make sure we keep that system going. [...]
CAVUTO: You mentioned, Governor Perry, that 26, 29 year-olds, they should be given an opportunity to have something down the road for them. Would that be the cutoff age, then, that if you are that young then you should be veering toward a different type of a system? Because Paul Ryan has his much older than that, in the 40s right now.
PERRY: We are going to have the conversation and the idea that we will draw up a piece of legislation in August of 2012 is not correct. We are not going to do that. Let’s have the conversation though and start a dialogue between the people of this country.
While this still means that the Ryan selection was a “bold” pick, it doesn’t exactly make it a good one.




44 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Thanks DDay. On a tangent, here in Wisconsin, Obama has started running TV spots which say RMONEY pays less in taxes than the middle class. I’ve never seen ads like this before from a Democrat, it’s always been Republicans who have promised middle class tax relief. Now if we can only get them to deliver.
Romney is unreal. Words can’t describe the depravity and hubris of the man.
Truly what does anyone expect from an out of touch country club vulture capitalist. Normally he would be celebrated as a ruthless successful business man in a dog-eat-dog world. As a public servant, we are either horrified or laugh as Mitt and Paul Ryan drive their clown car off the cliff.
Both parties are full of war criminals now. Vote third party please. Jim Hansen says, 2020 is game over for the planet.
We need to take away their reason medicare and social security and medicaid need to be cut.
They say they are “unsustainable”. What makes them unsustainable other then they won’t tax the rich and slash the military budget. It’s a choice what we do.
The policies of both parties as to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are toxic.
Or, have we forgotten so quickly Obama’s own actions as to social programs?
The main difference seems to be that Ryan has been willing to be specific and also to put his name to it, while Obama talks more vaguely about reforming entitlements and seems to want Congress or some subset of Congress, like the Grand Bargain Commission, to do it for him.
Maybe after his re-election, Obama will be more willing to recommend specific cuts himself, since he personally will have nothing further to lose.
The bright spot here is that the DINOs are having to sound like Democrats for once, if only to help voters distinguish again between their sorry Third Way “No Labels” asses and Republicans who openly admit that they are Republicans.
Then again, is really a bright spot, given voters never seem to hold a politician liable for campaign rhetoric?
If there were accountability for campaign promises, Obama would have been impeached or, at the very least, primaried.
True.
But since their inception Medicare and Social Security have been paid for through payroll taxes. Taxing the rich and slashing the military budget wouldn’t really affect those programs. Lawmakers have been reluctant to transfer General Revenue Funds to SS and Medicare for fear they’d be reclassified as welfare programs.
Remind me how cutting Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid helps the 99%?
Is the strategy here to give the Koch brothers and Republicans like them whatever they want, so they don’t even have to worry about whether Romney wins or loses?
Yes, please vote a leftie third party.
My preference is Green, especially if your motive in voting third party is the environment.
But lawmakers have had no compunction whatever about transferring OASDI funds to pay for wars and anything else that came into their pretty little heads.
It was so convenient to steal, especially for the “defense” budget, so they would not have to raise taxes.
Repaying the OASDI fund money you stole doesn’t make OASDI a welfare program. Means testing would make it a welfare program and no one has been shy about suggesting means testing.
It’s only repaying the funds that belong in OASDI, plus interest, that they are shy about.
Oh, yes, and stealing and refusing to pay what you owe the fund and telling lie after lie to the American people about OASDI being bankrupt and a drain makes you a POS.
Uh, what do the American people care about that?
Do we as a society say we want these programs or not?
Washington is responsible for the policies that have ended pensions, destroyed unions that paid a decent wage, let Wall Street steal our 401k money, and outsourced our jobs.
Washington has taken away people’s chance at saving for retirement so people will increasingly only have Social Security to retire on.
The argument needs to turn to do we want our seniors and increasingly people over 50 to be forced into abject poverty or not. And believe me I already see it happening by the droves.
I agree with your first part, “lawmakers have had no compunction whatever in transferring OASDI funds to pay for wars and anything else”.
But there was no “stealing” going on.
As Edward Martin Gramlich states in his book, “Is It Time to Reform Social Security?”:
A martyr’s vote. Perhaps you’re prostrate and delirious from the heat, but golly, you read a bit trollie.
The money invested in the bonds was used to fund tax cuts for the rich and wars without raising taxes to pay for them. Now, we are being asked to cut Social Security because it won’t be running a surplus anymore. There is no need to cut Social Security if you are willing to raise taxes to redeem the bonds. If you are not willing to allow the bonds to be redeemed, the money that the bonds represent has indeed been stolen.
If we as a society say we want these programs we should be willing to pay for them, rather than insist someone else pay.
Social Security is currently funded by the 12.4% payroll taxes every worker pays on their first $110,100 of income and Medicare is funded by the 2.9% payroll tax on every workers income.
So bump those up to 15% and 5% respectively and all is taken care of.
Sorry, no can do.
The middle class and poor have had their wages suppressed in the last 30 and it’s now accelerating downward at a rapid pace due in part to global wage arbitrage and the financial crash that Wall Street caused that employers are taking advantage of to lower wages and end benefits.
The middle class and the poor can’t pay.
That’s why the rich need to pay because they have done this and they are the ones that have benefited.
Here we go again with Tax Cuts For The Rich. Obama has said 75% of the tax cuts went to people making less than $250,000. That’s why he wants to extend those tax cuts. But I’ll agree, the money invested was “used”, not stolen.
That’s not true at all. We are already not running a surplus anymore. From the SSA Trustees Report:
The reason we are being asked to “cut” SS is because after 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits.
You don’t have to make a cut, but you do have to make some kind of change.
Ok, on that we agree.
And the bonds will be redeemed, therefore, the money that the bonds represent has not been stolen.
Yay, now Obama will have a clear path to cut Medicare and Social Security per his cat food commission without any interference by those pesky Republicans.
No, we aren’t going to accept that.
Start fighting. Start scaring these elite. 310 million vs 100,000
Use our numbers.
Just because Obama says it doesn’t make it true.
Removing the cap would be a fairer method.
The only things these understand are threats to their life and limb, threats to their property and money and threats to their continued access to political power.
They are blowing dog whistles to get us into our respective corners, to hate on other Americans so that we don’t unite to hate on the elites.
The first step is demolishing the Democrat Party, the unions and nonprofit advocacy groups funded by the 1% and government so that we can have a clear shot at power.
Let the tax cut expire. The whole thing. Then we’ll put the cut for the middle class up for a vote and see who votes against it.
That’s a true statement. But just because it’s math does make it true.
Removing the cap would provide more funding, but your retirement benefit is based on how much you paid in, so the person paying payroll taxes on $1M income will get a huge monthly SS check at retirement. He who needs it least.
Nice.
Complain about TTCFTR taking the money invested in the SS bonds.
Then propose putting a cut for the middle class up for a vote. You don’t care about raiding the SS Trust Fund as long as you get yours.
I don’t think you understood. I’m willing to give up my tax cut to get rid of the tax cut for the rich. What are you willing to give up?
Putting the middle class tax cut for a vote by itself pulls back the curtain. It let’s us know who represents us and who represents the 1%.
Mixing them together just muddies the water.
Sounds like you answered your own question.
I’m not only willing to give up a tax cut to fund the government General Fund, as I’ve said at comment #14, I’m willing to pay more payroll tax to fund Social Security and Medicare at a sustainable level.
I want them. Do you?
Leave the percentages, just take off the income cap. Fixed.
Were going to ‘means testing’ anyway. The rich don’t need any Social Security or Medicare.
So much so that I’m willing to pay for them.
The payroll tax rate has gone up 20 times between 1937 and 1990 (53 years), and not once in the last 22 years.
The Ryan pick is the opportunity for America to come to terms with its system and its deficiencies. Either we’re in this thing together or not, we help each other or not. Villages or gated communities. We all know the trend to individualism. “You didn’t build that” should have included the word ‘alone’. What it means to be human and the extent of organic interrelationship and societal evolution, (if possible) is dripping all over these discussions.
We don’t elect philosophers unfortunately.
As I said above, removing the cap would provide more funding, but retirement benefits are based on how much an individual paid in, so the person paying payroll taxes on $1M income will get a huge monthly SS check at retirement. He who needs it least.
Now you could change the formula so that there’s an upper limit, say the poverty level of $20,000 per year or something. But imagine the person making $250,000, the guy Obama doesn’t think is rich. He’d be paying $38,250 in payroll taxes every year for 25 years in hopes he lives long enough to collect about half (if he lives to age 90).
Obama has cut 2% from the SS tax and is reimbursing it from the general fund.
I guess you missed my point.
Wages are going down, down, down.
Prices are rising.
How are people supposed to pay more when they are barely making it?
Good point. Reluctant but not unwilling.
I wish there were more stories about what it’s really like to “retire” today, and what it’s gonna be like in the future.
I do have a number of friends who receive pensions, and they are lucky. But the number of those “winners” will drastically decrease as we go forward, and some current “winners” may be in for a surprise as municipalities and businesses break their promises on pensions.
But what I really wish someone would analyze and attack is the whole idea that ANYONE [other than Romney or Ryan] can “save” enough to sustain them in retirement. Do the math on how much it would take in a 401[k] (noting, of course, that withdrawals are taxable, unless it’s a Roth] to throw off the monthly income one could get from social security. It’s in the millions. Contrast that with what folks ACTUALLY have saved, plus the fact that their home’s value has been decimated, and it’s a bleak picture.
I’m just astounded that there’s so little “real math” going on here.
I prefer a system that would indeed not repay each high income contributor fully. It is about the general welfare of the citizenry, as the constitution directs, not about each man for himself…ty
According to the SSA, the average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. That comes to $14,760 per year.
If you have a chunk of money in the bank (or retirement account) that’s making 3% interest, you’d need $500,000 to offset the SS checks. Not millions, but more than most people will have.
BTW, that’s sustainable (never drawing down the $500,000). If you think you’ll live 20 years and are willing to draw the account down to zero on the last day, you could start with a little less.
Most middle class and poor people do not have $500,000 in the bank to retire on and will need to eat the rich to survive.
No doubt.
The good news is there is SS which can pay full benefits until 2033 and 75% of benefits thereafter. So there’s still time.
I’ve heard the arguement before, but never saw the numbers. Turns out, if we lift the cap tomorrow to $500,000, Those high end earners will pay an extra $48,347.60 per year (12.4% x ($500,000-$110,100).
If they maintain that income level for the next 10 years, their average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) using the current SS formula comes out to $17,629, which equates to a monthly retirement benefit of $3785.69 or $45,428.28 per year.
For each “rich” person we net less than $3000 per year by raising the cap to almost 5 times it’s current limit.
Assuming 2 million “rich” people in the country, that’s an extra $6B added to our $700B SS budget. Not really much of a fix.
Why do we have to raise the limit on the benefit side? Why not just erase the payroll tax cap and freeze the benefits in a way that pays, oh I don’t know how about $2k (inflation adjusted) cap per person once they reach full retirement age?
I agree with your idea, I was just responding to #28:
Easy fixes seldom are.
The formula is horribly complex and I had to make some assumptions to extrapolate (e.g. inflation remains constantly low), but the current set-up is very progressive, using bend points to pay low wage earners a high percentage of what they pay in, and high wage earners less.
BTW, there’s another “problem” with slapping an arbitrary upper limit on benefits. This has happened several times over the history of SS. If the SSA unintentionally collects too much money, the economy suffers because all the buying and spending potential is locked up in a Trust Fund, not being used.
As I said, no easy fix.
I hadn’t thought about that at all. Nice point.