Game, set and match to the gentleman from Wisconsin:
U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan said Monday that Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich does not fully understand a GOP proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher system, dismissing criticism from the former House speaker that the plan would be a radical change.
"I just think he's missing the mark on what our plan actually does," Ryan, chairman of the powerful House Budget Committee, told reporters after a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago. "Our plan is one of the most gradual things one could do," because it would not affect people over age 55 and would not kick in for 10 years.
That's gotta hurt -- someone who considers himself the leader of the intellectual wing of the GOP having to hear that he "does not fully understand" something. And then there was the incident in Iowa in which he was heckled by a faithful Republican conservative:
As he was getting ready to leave a speaking engagement Dubuque resident Russell Fuhrman approached him in the lobby of the Holiday Inn:
“Get out now before you make a bigger fool of yourself,” Fuhrman said directly to Gingrich.
Gingrich, visibly stunned, quickly moved forward to talk with other guests.
This could be the shortest presidential run of the political season. The problem is not the beliefs and opinions expressed by Gingrich, or the fact that he so often seems to shift views or contradict himself. The problems is that we begin to suspect Gingrich may not really have any core beliefs at all. He just says stuff to get attention.
That may be the college professor in him. Being provocative is a standard practice of the dialectic method used to prod uninquisitive minds into the thinking mode. It might be a good way to advance and critique ideas, but it's not quite the approach that works on the presidential camopaign trail.
Comments
I think Ryan understand more of the problem than most of those in congress. However, even Ryan's plan does nothing to preserve Medicare and Social Security for future generations. In a nut shell it allows those currently 55 and over to continue with a plan that will fail unless drastic changes are made. The changes proposed by Ryan are benefit reductions in the form of increased retirement age (pay more and longer for fewer benefits), means testing benefits (pay all your life and then loose a good portion of your benefits) or raise taxes, pay more for the same promised benefits.
Ryan's plan passes the total cost of the programs onto those under age 55. I disagree with this method. First there are millions of retirees with assets in excess of a million dollars. Why should my children who have only attained voting age be responsible for these failed programs that both their parents, grand parents and great grand parents supported with votes, but not taxes? We have a problem the ship is sinking, everyone needs to help out. Cut benefits by 60% for those whose incomes is above the median income of workers whose taxes go to support Social Security and Medicare.
Lower the Payroll tax so that workers can divert dollars into their own self directed retirement accounts. Unless workers have the ability to save, there will be no saving by the majority unless the taxes that affect all workers the most are reduced.
We got into this mess by increasing payroll taxes and lowering general income taxes. The way to get out is to reverse course. Why should it be less painful for those age 55 than for those under age 55?
I want all those under age 46 to know that all of you combined of voting age clearly and outnumber all potential voters over age 55 (boomers and seniors). Do not make the same mistake my generation did in 1983 and not speak up. We outnumbered the seniors, but we failed to vote. If you do not make your voice heard, do not cry in forty years when you are kicked to the curb.
Be careful what you wish for. Young people tend to be tolerant of gays and racial minorities. If you get them to vote, they will vote Democratic, which I gather would disturb you.
So yes, young people, by all means, vote!
Writing in the NY Times today, Bruce Bartlett had this interesting tidbit:
Thus we see that Social Security and Medicare are underfunded relative to promised benefits by $56.4 trillion or 3.8 percent of G.D.P. per year forever. To put these programs on a sound footing, federal income taxes would have to rise from 6.2 percent of G.D.P. to 10 percent, an increase of 61 percent.
In other words, whatever amount you paid on your federal income tax return this year would need to be 61 percent more, now and forever, to pay all the Social Security and Medicare benefits that have been promised over and above the payroll tax.
What
Ryan's argument that he's not screwing people 55 and older doesn't make his plan any less radical.
Interesting remark Doug. In 2011 we've arrived at the place where a looming national bankruptcy is basically a yawn but scaling back the endless flow of trillions of dollars to avoid that inevitable bankruptcy is radical.
Regardless whom you blame or whatever your political persuasion might be, I think history will point out that you can't spend more than you take in for very long, especially when the amounts are in the trillions. We're borrowing money right now just to make the interest payments on our old debt. Would you be comfortable in your law practice borrowing at 6% to make payroll and office expenses if revenues are down? How long would you be comfortable doing that? As the old saying goes, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
If you think his plan is radical, wait until you see the changes when the whole house of cards comes crashing down, those changes will be radical.
"Thus we see that Social Security and Medicare are underfunded relative to promised benefits by $56.4 trillion or 3.8 percent of G.D.P. per year forever. To put these programs on a sound footing, federal income taxes would have to rise from 6.2 percent of G.D.P. to 10 percent, an increase of 61 percent."
The current SS-OASI tax is 10.6%, SS-DI tax is 1.8% and Medicare Tax is 2.9%.
"In other words, whatever amount you paid on your federal income tax return this year would need to be 61 percent more, now and forever, to pay all the Social Security and Medicare benefits that have been promised over and above the payroll tax."
That is not correct. Nearly 70% of all tax filers paid no federal income tax. In fact nearly half of tax filers get a refundable tax based on child tax credits, tuition credit.
It is not that Social Security and Medicare add to the deficit, they don't, not one penny. By law these two programs expenses are limited to their dedicated tax and trust funds. They are not allowed to borrow money and general revenues are not allowed to be used to fund these programs.
A 2% GDP deficit for more than 60 years leads to the interest to finance that debt taking the combined general revenue collected. For decades politicians thought that small 2% deficits were good. No deficit is good.