Rep. Paul Ryan has a must-read op-ed in the Wall Street Journal tonight on ending the fiscal impasse in Washington.
It's perhaps more notable for what it doesn't once mention — Obamacare — as what it eventually proposes. That omission seemed to ignite the ire of conservatives Tuesday night.
The key proposition in Ryan's op-ed, though, is a trade of entitlement reform for repeal of the sequester cuts.
From the op-ed:
"For my Democratic colleagues, the discretionary spending levels in the Budget Control Act are a major concern. And the truth is, there's a better way to cut spending. We could provide relief from the discretionary spending levels in the Budget Control Act in exchange for structural reforms to entitlement programs."
Ryan also proposes a few ideas for entitlement reform — making wealthier Americans pay higher premiums for Medicare, reforming "Medigap" (Medicare supplement) plans to "encourage efficiency" and reduce costs, and asking federal employees to contribute more to their own retirement.
Ryan's entry into the current debate is significant — until now, the former Republican vice presidential nominee had been almost entirely silent....
Because of that clear omission, Ryan's op-ed was immediately slammed by conservative groups that have led the "defund" charge.
Business Insider
Brett Logiurato
Uh oh. Look out. Here's comes the Grand Bargain.
4 comments:
Entitlement reform?!
What entitles the so-called private banks to a legal tender lender of last resort and government deposit insurance?
Look folks, with a simple example I can prove that the government-backed banks cheat the poor in favor of the rich. So where's the demand for eliminating the entitlements of the banks?
Liberals and Progressives should combine defending welfare for the poor with ATTACKING welfare for the banks and the rich (e.g. sovereign borrowing).
The implicit social contract is that theft by the rich via government-backed banks is to be balanced with welfare for their victims.
The rich have forgotten that implicit social contract. They should be reminded.
Ryan's whole premise here is that the govt can "run out of money"...
F.,
What entitles banks to these things is what is termed 'the law'.
Liberals and Progressives are constantly attacking corporate welfare... and not just for banks...
"welfare for the victims": you sound like the Pope and his 'soup kitchen' mentality... which doesnt scale btw...
"welfare for the victims": you sound like the Pope and his 'soup kitchen' mentality... Matt Franko
There'd be little need for welfare if we had a just money system and restitution for the injustice of the present one.
You, like so many others, wish to save the present system from itself. In other words, you wish to perpetuate injustice.
So you think that the fact that we have these morons we have running these systems doesnt matter? Matt Franko
It's been over three centuries since the BoE was founded and central banking STILL does not work properly unless death and destruction is the goal. How many more centuries of "We finally figured it out" must the world endure?
I'd say you are worse that naive to think, counter-Biblically, that a money system based on usury for stolen purchasing power, especially from the poor, can EVER work properly, regardless of who's in charge.
Post a Comment