Brett Logiurato — Paul Ryan Writes An Op-Ed On 'Ending The Stalemate' In Congress, And It Doesn't Once Mention Obamacare

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

Paul Ryan Writes An Op-Ed On 'Ending The Stalemate' In Congress, And It Doesn't Once Mention Obamacare

Brett Logiurato

Uh oh. Look out. Here's comes the Grand Bargain.

Richard Reeves — Stockman Redux

As he became president in 1981, Ronald Reagan called in a 34-year-old congressman from Michigan named David Stockman, considered by many to be the most articulate and intellectually imposing Republican of the moment.

Stockman had impressed the new president by humbling the old man in practice debates before Reagan took on President Carter back in September.

“Dave,” said Reagan, “I’ve been thinking about how to get even with you for that thrashing you gave me in the debate rehearsals. So I’m sending you to the OMB (Office of Management and Budget).” Commented David Brinkley of NBC News: “He’s so fast with big figures that he scares old Washington hands.”

Stockman had only days to come up with a balanced budget that fulfilled Reagan’s campaign promises to cut taxes and build up the military. He was fast, but not necessarily accurate or truthful. Not by a long shot. What he did was use a pre-Reagan-projected budget with a $75 billion deficit the first year. But he already knew the real figure would be more than $600 billion after totaling Reagan’s new programs. On the revenue side, he used asterisks instead numbers. Lots of asterisks.

Stockman retired after four years, wrote a book, a confessional of sorts, went to Wall Street and made a lot of money. He turned down interview requests and kind of faded away.

Until last week, when he wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times. The headline was: “Paul Ryan’s Fairy-Tale Budget Plan.”

truthdig
Stockman Redux
Richard Reeves

As they say, "it takes one to know one.

Martin Wolf — Paul Ryan’s plan for America is not credible

...If you believe that is likely, I have a bridge to sell you.Over the next decade, the Ryan plan is inadequate and incomplete. Over the long run, it is incredible. It may be good politics. It is bad policy.

The Financial Times | Columnists
Paul Ryan’s plan for America is not credible
Martin Wolf
(h/t Mark Thoma)

GOP grabbing the third rail of American politics with both hands?

In May, the Romney team promised a laser-like focus on the economy . But that was then and this is now. This week, Romney changed the conversation when he caved to his right flank and chose Paul Ryan as his running mate, a man known for a budget proposal that's so toxic voters in focus groups, “ simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing.”

Now, the Romney team is trying to avoid a backlash against the Ryan plan's most loathesome feature (replacing traditional Medicare coverage with a private insurance voucher that would pay for a dwindling share of seniors' healthcare bills over time) by following the old adage that if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then just baffle them with your bullshit.

So the Romney campaign and its surrogates are doing everything they can to muddy the waters, hoping – and not without reason! – that lazy political reporters will find all of this wonky stuff so boring and confusing they'll just report what both sides say and we'll end up in a draw over the issue come November. But there are a number of good reasons why this strategy is unlikely to succeed.

AlterNet
7 Reasons Why Romney-Ryan's Desperate Attempts to Spin Medicare Won't Work
Joshua Holland

Simon Johnson — Mitt Romney and Extreme Fiscal Policy

Mr. Ryan stands for substantially phasing out not just Medicare but also the federal government. This may help increase turnout among the conservative base, but will this extreme vision really help Mr. Romney win over independent voters or disaffected Democrats?

The New York Times | Economix
Mitt Romney and Extreme Fiscal Policy
Simon Johnson

Robert Costa — Ryan Shrugged

In a comment on another post beowulf pointed out that Paul Ryan began as a Jack Kemp Republican, and now he is confirming that this is, indeed, who he really is. How is this going to go down with the base, one wonders.

Ryan enjoys bantering about dusty novels, but it’s not really his bailiwick. Philosophy, he tells me, is critical, but politics is about more than armchair musing. “This gets to the Jack Kemp in me, for the lack of a better phrase,” he says — crafting public policy from broad ideas. “How do you produce prosperity and upward mobility?” he asks. “How do you attack the root causes of poverty instead of simply treating its symptoms? And how do you avoid a crisis that is going to hurt the vulnerable the most — a debt crisis — from ever happening?”
....Kemp, he says, was a congressional voice who connected conservatism to the empowerment of the poor. He wants to do the same.

Ryan appeals to the moral authority of the pope as a deficit and debt hawk to justify the "expansionary fiscal austerity" of his conservative plan "to empower the poor."

Ryan cites Light of the World, a book-length interview of Pope Benedict XVI, as an example of how the Catholic Church takes the global debt problem seriously. “We are living at the expense of future generations,” the pope says. “In this respect, it is plain that we are living in untruth.” Ryan takes those words seriously. “The pope was really clear,” he says.

Ryan also appeals to the principle of subsidiarity, a bedrock principle of Catholic social and political philosophy that should inform law and government.

Ryan’s budget, which was passed by the House earlier this year, cuts spending and reduces taxes. It also reforms Medicare and Medicaid, he says, in order to keep them solvent for future generations. But to Ryan, his plan is more than a fiscal document, meant to tinker with the bloated federal bureaucracy: It is part of a push to return money and federal power, as well as certain services where feasible, to the people.

Ryan mentions the Catholic principle of subsidiarity as an influence on his thinking. He believes that the best government is a government closest to the people. He is a strong believer in the power of civil society, not the federal government, to solve problems. Community leaders and churches, he says, can often do more for the poor than a federal bureaucrat who scribbles their names on a check, sustaining dependency.

Ryan’s goal, with his budget and future projects, will be to “combine the virtues and principles of solidarity,” which stresses the benefits of the common good, with subsidiarity.

National Review

Ryan Shrugged
Robert Costa
(h/t John Carney)

Warren Mosler shows why fiscal austerity can't work

There’s a reason the hardcore budget balancer/deficit hawk does not last long under the microscope. Their numbers can’t add up, which leaves them with contradictory statements.

The Center of the Universe
Ryan the next Bachman?
Warren Mosler

Politico — GOP pros fret over Paul Ryan

“I think it’s a very bold choice. And an exciting and interesting pick. It’s going to elevate the campaign into a debate over big ideas. It means Romney-Ryan can run on principles and provide some real direction and vision for the Republican Party. And probably lose. Maybe big,” said former President George W. Bush senior adviser Mark McKinnon.

Politico
GOP pros fret over Paul Ryan
Alexander Burns, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Martin

John Carney — Wall Street's Big Concern: Can Ryan Help Romney Win?

"The most important development is that this pick makes it unlikely that Romney can win Florida because of the anxiety Ryan generates among senior citizens over Medicare," he [Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group in Washington] added. "If Romney can't win Florida, he can't win the presidency."

Read it at CNBC NetNet
Wall Street's Big Concern: Can Ryan Help Romney Win?
John Carney | Senior Editor

John T. Harvey — Romney and Ryan's Disastrous Economic Plan

I have already argued that the latter’s proposed budget is an absolute nightmare (The Ryan Budget: A Mistake of Historic Proportions). It is premised on the existence of a fantasy world within which entrepreneurs, despite the decline in sales that would follow budget cuts, suddenly increase hiring and investment because they have been able to throw off the shackles of government interference. I don’t know any other way to say it–this is idiotic. A reduction in spending by any sector in the macroeconomy will reduce revenue in the private sector and thus make our predicament even worse. Say, for example, that for some reason we no longer had any need for a military presence anywhere in the world and therefore fired every American soldier, marine, airman, and sailor. Precisely how, Mr. Ryan, is this supposed to be good news for the entrepreneurs who sold groceries, gasoline, housing, clothing, etc., to these individuals? You don’t need a PhD in economics to answer that one–it’s not.

Romney may not be as extreme as Ryan, but he is cut from the same cloth. As he states on his web page, “The only recipe for fiscal health and a thriving private economy is a government that spends within its means.” This patently false. The only fiscally healthy or responsible policy is one that generates sufficient demand to hire all those willing to work. This does not include cuts to “non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent,” the shifting of federal government programs the private sector or state governments (entities that DO face a hard budget constraint), or, God forbid, a balanced budget amendment. Furthermore and as argued in an earlier post (The Real Job Creators: Consumers), the economy’s job creators are not, as Romney says, entrepreneurs and the wealthy, but the middle class. How can today’s unemployment be a function of overregulation and overtaxation when we are at or near historic lows in each? Rather, the problem, pure and simple, is demand. No amount of cost cutting will induce firms to expand employment in the absence of an increase in sales. Because this fact is lost on the Romney-Ryan ticket, their economic policies would be a disaster.

Forbes | Pragmatic Economics
Romney and Ryan's Disastrous Economic Plan
John T. Harvey | Professor of Economics, Texas Christian University

Paul Ryan is relatively unknown to US public

Not surprisingly, Paul Ryan is unknown to the US public, let alone the details of his plan. The race is now on between the GOP and the Democrats to define him.

Americans have been polled on the Ryan Plan without naming it.

At about the same time, a national USA Today/Gallup poll of Republicans found that just over two thirds (68 percent) said they did not know enough about Ryan's proposal to have an opinion on it. Most Republicans with an opinion (24 percent) favored the plan, while 8 percent opposed it.
However, some media pollsters asked about the substance of the plan and found net negative reactions among those willing to venture an opinion. In June 2011, for example, a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll posed the following question to Americans:
There is currently a proposal to change how Medicare would work so seniors being enrolled in the program ten years from now would be given a guaranteed payment called a voucher from the federal government to purchase a Medicare approved coverage plan from a private health insurance company. Do you think this is a good idea, a bad idea, or do you not know enough about this to have an opinion at this time?
Although nearly half said they had no opinion or were unsure (47 percent), more considered it a bad idea (31 percent) than a good one (22 percent).
Similarly, a CNN/ORC International poll conducted in May 2011 found that 58 percent of Americans opposed "the Republicans' plan to change Medicare" based on what they had heard or read, while just 35 percent said they supported it and 7 percent were unsure. Given the lack of familiarity gauged by other polls, the CNN result likely says more about suspicion of congressional Republicans on Medicare than awareness of the bill itself (the previous question on the same survey found that 48 percent preferred President Obama's approach to Medicare to 39 percent who preferred the approach of the Republicans in Congress).

But as favorable to the Democrats as this seems, it is far from cut and dried, as the rest of the post shows. Finally there is credibility.

A bigger challenge for Democrats may be how to make these arguments believable to true swing voters. Last month, The New York Times reported on a set of focus groupsconducted in late 2011 by the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA, in which participants were informed that "Romney supported the Ryan budget plan — and thus championed 'ending Medicare as we know it' — while also advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans." According to the Times report, the attacks had little impact. The participants "simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing."

The Huffington Post
Paul Ryan Is Still Unknown, Has Vulnerable Budget Plan, Polls Show
Mark Blumenthal

Ryan Lizza — How Paul Ryan captured the G.O.P.

Interesting in-depth article about Paul Ryan, the Ryan Plan, and the future of the GOP.

The New Yorker
How Paul Ryan captured the G.O.P.
by Ryan Lizza

Henry Aaron, Inventor Of Paul Ryan's Medicare Reform Concept, Explains Why It's Wrong

Read a summary and watch the testimony at The Huffington Post
Henry Aaron, Inventor Of Paul Ryan's Medicare Reform Concept, Explains Why It's Wrong

by Michael McAuliff

Dave Weigel reports on what's up with the Tea Party

It’s easy to think that the Tea Party is on the wane. Its obituary has been written countless times in the past twelve months. And, in a couple of big, visible ways, it’s true....

 But this is the wrong way to look at the Tea Party. After 2010, the movement evolved. Activists got jobs with newly elected Republicans. Political organizations like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks grew their staffs and budgets....

This new, professionalized Tea Party may not have the numbers to pack the National Mall with tricorne hats, but it has proved itself spectacularly adept at two other tasks: exacting promises and submission from presidential candidates; and setting the Republican policy agenda. And in a representative government, at a time when a languishing economy and anemic voter turnout may turn the odds against Democrats, truly—what else matters?

If, as is quite possible, the Republicans gain control of both the White House and Congress, the Tea Party will have gained a hugely disproportionate amount of control over the government through the use of these two mechanisms. One of them is playing out right now in the garish arena of the primary campaign. The other has been in rehearsals for the past year in the halls of Congress. Here’s a brief description of both.

Read it at The Washington Monthly
The Tea Party — Picking the candidates and writing the agenda.
By David Weigel

One agenda item is privatizing the commons.

We see a map of the United States with public lands marked in red.

“Dead capital is property that has no possibility of securing property rights on it,” says Edwards. “Folks, I submit to you that everything in red has no possibility of securing property rights on it.”

Of course, there is much more to the agenda of cutting government.

Oh, there are limits. In polls, the Tea Party’s membership reveals itself as naive about what costs what. There’s boundless enthusiasm for foreign aid cuts, but the same people who cheer for those budgets to be slashed will then boo in agreement whenever Romney denounces the Medicare cost reductions in “Obamacare.”

That’s where the full-time Tea Party agitators come in. That’s how the industry-funded groups find their opening to tell the base what it cares about. The Tea Party’s grassroots apparatus peaked in 2010. The think tanks funded by the energy industry or the banking sector are thriving, and they know what they want the base to work toward. Deregulation, scaled-back appropriations, sold-off public goods—if the Tea Party wins, it’ll be expected to provide the public pressure for all of it.

A GOP win in November is certain to have broad economic repercussions.

UPDATE: see also

The Huffington Post
The Fantastical Crackpot Cult of Ron Paul

by Bob Cesca

Since a GOP wins is not possible without the support of Ron Paul and his supporters, the Libertarian-Tea Party wing of the GOP will inevitably have a significant seat at the bargaining table when it comes to setting policy.