JONATHAN CHAIT JUNE 1, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Washington Post editorial writer Ruth Marcus imagines the fabled "adult conversation" on Medicare between President Obama and Paul Ryan:
Barack: The current system can’t go on. I wouldn’t say this publicly, but my party’s wrong to pretend it can. Still, your approach goes way too far. Seniors would get help to buy private insurance but would pay a lot more than they do now.
And over time, because the vouchers rise only with inflation, not with medical costs, beneficiaries would have to pay even more. They’re not going to be able to afford it, not with median incomes of less than $21,000. And why should they? You’re forced to make deep cuts in Medicare because you won’t agree to raise taxes and that’s the only other way to get to balance.
Paul: Look, I could maybe support higher taxes as part of an overall deal. I just can’t admit that. On costs, my plan gives extra subsidies to the poorest, sickest and oldest seniors. If those aren’t big enough, we could talk. But it makes sense for wealthier seniors to pay more. And what about the general concept? Could you accept the idea if the subsidy grew at a rate higher than regular inflation?
If you want to understand why Ryan garners such astonishingly good press, one reason is that he speaks in coded terms that convey to Washington centrists that he shares their values, without any substantive acts to back this up. Marcus imagines Ryan as somebody who would really like to make a deal that raises taxes, but can't admit it. Where is the evidence for that belief? Ryan is a disciple of Jack Kemp, a supply-sider, who was among those right-wingers who pushed George W. Bush to enact even larger debt-financed tax cuts. Ryan has consistently supported the goals of anti-tax fanatics, and voted against the Bowles-Simpson plan that increased revenue even in the course of slashing tax rates. (And, oh yeah, his massive cuts to Medicaid would in fact make low-income seniors bear the highest brunt of his cuts.)
But Ryan is smart enough to couch his views in the language of the fiscal scold. And so he manages to maintain the loyalty of conservatives who theologically oppose any tax increase while also garnering the sympathy of fiscal scolds who believe that tax increases are necessary. It is quite a trick.
But the trick certainly explains the belief of people like Marcus that attacking the cruelty of Ryan's plan is mean and counterproductive. After all, it may be literally true that Ryan's plan would entail certain severe consequences, but surely Ryan doesn't really want those things to happen. Or, at least, in his heart he wants to cut a reasonable deal, so it's not quite fair to judge him on the basis of what his plan would actually do.
8 comments
When you're trying to steer your way off the road to serfdom with the [very much] invisible hand of the bond markets chasing you, there is no room for compromise. Paul Ryan is trying to warn us of the coming zombie apocalypse, and like all zombie prophets
he has an eerie pallorhe is motivated by an urgency that can't wait or compromise. Because that would admit that maybe there are no zombies. Delegitimizing his urgency is a no-no, because it's very clear even to Ryan that the only way aspects of his plan go through is if it's sold as a life or death situation. (Reminiscent of the argument for the 2001 tax cuts.)- chaitless
June 1, 2011 at 11:59am
If his plan were enacted, I am certain that Honest Paul would grieve for those who suffered because of it. Hey Ruth, I have some Zimbabwe dollars I would like to unload on you.
- liberalref
June 1, 2011 at 12:28pm
This is the same sort of fairy land dialogue that Tom Friedman imagines dictators and scoundrels spout. Yassar Arafat: "Jimmy, Menachim, I'd agree to a united Jerusalem and Israel's right to exist, but I just can't admit it" Leonid Brezhnev: "Ron, I'd agree to pull out of Afgahnistan, but the hardliners in the Politburo just won't let me do it" Kim Jong-Il: "Barack, what I'd really like to do is give up my nukes, get a decent haircut. a good suit, and retire to L.A., but you know, I'd have to answer to the military." Ad nauseum
- dubyadoubte
June 1, 2011 at 12:37pm
And it SHOULD start like: Barack: The current system can't go on. But that's why we've created the ACA to reform the current system. Why can't you get your fellow Republicans to back THOSE cost-control measures, instead of pursuing the SAME Free-Market principles that CREATED the current system?
- AllanL5
June 1, 2011 at 12:48pm
Thank you Allan! It appear that the Republicans' new effort to eliminate the ACA involves pretending it never happened, and going back to the time when the system did need a major overhaul. I guess they're hoping that people are so familiar with the canard that they won't stop to remember that the ACA has passed, is coming into effect, and will likely address many of the issues successfully.
- GSpinks
June 1, 2011 at 3:03pm
The federal budget can be viewed as a matrix of priorities. And that includes concerns about the national debt. That's it for the budget. There isn't anything else. Medicare is not a priority of Ryan's. Lower top rates is a priority. The budget is who he is. If he had different priorities he would have proposed a different budget.
- Nusholtz
June 1, 2011 at 3:04pm
Marcus is the new Broder.
- RHSerlin
June 1, 2011 at 5:56pm
And this has been the most disheartening and infuriating thing about the beltway fetish of Fraud Boy, Ryan. How many times does it have to be pointed out the fake math, the horrendous things this would do to the average American, and still people give him the benefit of the doubt. Is it really that hard to admit that one party has been taken over by creeps like Grover Norquist and others? Won't helping that party get destroyed take us back to a reasonable Republican Party? Why keep puffing this Ayn Randian piece of sh-t up?
- MikeB.
June 1, 2011 at 7:43pm