JONATHAN CHAIT APRIL 18, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size

I've been writing a lot about Paul Ryan's salesmanship. One secret of his effectiveness is that he began his career as a Republican staffer, and developed an operative's sensibility as to how the game is played. By portraying himself to the mainstream media as a deficit hawk rather than a right-wing ideologue, he places his ideas within comfortable, well-worn grooves of establishment thought. He is merely telling uncomfortable truths, and his opponents are "demagogues." Here's Time's Jay Newton-Small taking Ryan's bait:
Democrats have done a decent job politicizing the Ryan budget, and scaring the heck out of seniors. The budget does envision turning Medicare into a voucher system which will result in some, impossible from this far out to determine, cuts in services. Those over 55 would be grandfathered in, so it wouldn't affect the current generation. But seniors hear "cuts to Medicare" and blood pounds to their heads and they're deaf to all other qualifiers.
This is a perfect triumph of Ryan's framing. "Politicizing" suggests that Ryan's proposal is something that ought to be beyond politics, a mere accounting fix, taking the corrective actions that experts understand to be necessary but can be distorted by politics. Ryan does not want to openly debate the ideological choices embedded in his proposal because they're deeply unpopular.
Next, we have the perennial cliche "scaring seniors." One strange assumption here is that it's old people who are the primary targets of the attacks on Ryan's plan. Is that so? A survey for Democracy Corps testing arguments against the Ryan budget actually found that white seniors are more resistant than other demographic groups to Democratic criticisms of Ryan's budget:
White seniors are very volatile – with opposition rising from 32 percent to amazingly, 54 percent. However, after hearing arguments on Medicare and other budgetary issues, many white seniors return, ending the survey with 48 percent in favor and only 42 percent opposing the budget plan.
And then there's the idea that criticism amounts to "scaring." If you oppose any plan to reduce Medicare or Social Security, you will be described in the media as scaring seniors. Opposing other policy changes -- tax hikes, regulation, and so on -- are rarely described in such terms. The image is that of a fearful, ill-informed grandmother acting against all reason.
The media engaged in a frenzy of "scaring seniors" talk during the 2005 Social Security privatization fight. Then, as now, Republicans promised to exempt current beneficiaries. Polls showed that old people understood this, but opposed privatization anyway because they believed that younger people should enjoy the same benefits as them. Yet the press persisted in describing this as if self-interest were the only possible explanation. Newton-Small insists the elderly are "deaf to all other qualifiers." Don't these fools understand they'll be exempt, and younger people will be the ones who have to pay out of pocket costs that start higher and grow rapidly?
Ryan's image as a budget wonk is highly exaggerated -- he frequently commits clumsy errors -- but he does have one field of true expertise cultivated over years of study: playing the media game.
6 comments
Question on the graph: I could understand why under Ryan's proposal the beneficiary's share would rise, but why, in 2022 dollars, does the TOTAL between Govt. and Beneficiary rise so much? If you look at it, the Government's share under RyanCare is reduced by only 9% but the beneficiary's share increases by more than 100% for a total rise (govt/benficiary) of 39%. If this CBO graph is accurate, then how can RyanCare be taken seriously. It should be shown as a threat to the nation's well being. The health care costs for the average 65 year old would rise by 100% to save the Government 9%???? And total costs would rise 39%. Amazing.
- dubyadoubte
April 18, 2011 at 11:40am
Kathleen Parker recently penned a ludicrous column, calling your reaction to Paul Ryan's plan hysterical. The Ryan plan is terrible and you have eloquently told your readers this. The only thing hysterical in all this is how Ryan is portrayed as a serious wonk and a legitimate deficit hawk in the media on a regular basis.
- liberalref
April 18, 2011 at 11:58am
dubyadoubte, i think it has to do with the fact that health insurance premiums rise substantially faster than inflation, which would mean over time, (in later years dollars) it costs more and more money.
- miceelf
April 18, 2011 at 12:00pm
This seems like an important post because if Ryan is getting away with creating a false impression in the American Public, then only the media (directly, or the Senate through hearings covered by the media) is going to be able to correct it before it becomes the next Reaganomics, i. e. reckless tax policy which, in large part, got us where we are today.
- Nusholtz
April 18, 2011 at 12:12pm
It should be noted that under the present Medicare system, a recipient can purchase a standardized Medigap policy for about $120 a month that will cover all deductibles and co-payments. So for about $235 a month (Medicare Plan B plus Medigap), you're completely covered. Does anyone think they're going to get a better deal than that from a Republican plan?
- DAVIDDREIER@EARTHLINK.NET-old
April 18, 2011 at 12:40pm
Ryan's plan is a nightmare on every level. You want to see the future go see "Mad Max." If 3 percent of GDP is left for National Defense and all other spending other than Medicare vouchers, etc. We will be in a world in the following decades as most people live in hovels. Gen. X and Y and Melennial Seniors work until they drop and have to declar bankruptcy. The entire infrastructure of the country built in the 20th and early 21st century crumbles because nothing is spent on it. The rich families live in essentially fortified camps with really high walls and no scary estate (I mean death tax) to pay.
- MikeB.
April 18, 2011 at 3:00pm