OK I Admit It- Republicans are Courageous

As I keep reading the reports of Republican proposals on the budget, I've been struck by something: yes Republicans are mendacious, lying constantly about Obama's policies and past behavior, and yes they've carefully been cute about what they want to cut in their budget (no specifics, so they can complain when Obama denounces cuts to Head Start that would have to be part of it).

But overall, the Ryan plan, which has been adopted by Mitt Romney, is a pretty stark description of where the far right wants to take this country.  Huge tax cuts for upper incomes.  Increased defense spending.  Medicare turned into a voucher system with no guarantee of full benefit coverage.  Social Security with reduced benefits to seniors.  And although they don't specify other cuts, the clear implication is the dismantling of the modern social welfare state in the US.

I don't say this as an hysterical or outrageous statement; it's just a statement of fact- that's what the Ryan budget would mean, and when I talk to the informed rabid right wingers I know, that's what they say they want- no more Food Stamps, no more welfare, etc.  They also want a huge reduction in regulation of all industries, meaning the FDA would be weakened, pollution controls would be loosened, etc.

Look, a lot of Americans really do want to end these programs.  The stuff for the poor they see as helping lazy shiftless leeches.  They see government red tape, which is indeed a big burden on businesses, as not worth the corresponding safety is ensures.

I'd like to see this next election as a referendum on the Republican vision for our future.  I honestly don't know how Americans will vote on such a referendum.  Obviously I'm in favor of the welfare state, but I wonder if enough Americans are.  Let's have an honest debate about that.  Through all the Republican lies, there is space there for an honest debate- bring it on!

Centrism, with a Bonus on Mendacity

Following up on yesterday's post, here's Krugman today making a similar point about the center as it relates to Paul Ryan.  Basically the point is that Ryan is seen by squishy centrists as one of the "reasonable" ones even though his policy proposals are breathtakingly radical not to mention completely unworkable (balancing budgets through magic asterisks, like saying he'll make up for the huge reduction in tax rates by closing unspecified loopholes in the tax code).

Why is Ryan seen this way when he's as radical as anyone on the Right?  Well, I think it's mostly a matter of style.  Romney benefits from this too- they're just not firebreathing personalities, a la Gingrich or Michele Bachman or Lindsay Graham.  I can understand why people look at them that way- they just seem nicer and more reasonable than the "radicals".

And they probably are nicer.  My guess is that Paul Ryan is calmer kinder than Newt Gingrich.  He's probably a good father, he probably doesn't cheat on his wife.  But his policies are unquestionably as radical as anything that Sarah Pailin stands for.  Pundits need to be smart enough to understand the difference between style and substance.  Paul Ryan is not a centrist.

As an extra bonus today, this compendium of lies by Mitt Romney in just one week is amazing.  His mendacity is just breathtaking in its scope.  Democrats have got to take him to task on this issue- after all, Al Gore was targeted by Republicans as a liar based on practically nothing outside of association with Bill Clinton.  But what's needed, of course, is for this meme to take hold outside of the world of MSNBC and Daily Kos.  If we had a press that wasn't completely cowed by right wingers attacking it for left wing bias, we might get that- I'm not optimistic.

Paul Ryan is Brave Anyway

Paul Ryan's latest budget plan, which is basically the same as the plan he put out last year, needs to be praised for one thing at least: he's letting us see his true priorities.

No that it's not loaded with bullshit- it still is.  The most important bullshit is that he plans to balance the budget to a great extent through spending cuts, but doesn't name those cuts specifically.  He also talks about making the tax code more efficient so he can lower rates, which is a good idea and not opposed by Liberals in principle, but does not name any of the loopholes he'll close.  Realistic people understand that one person's loophole is another person's livelihood, and it will take a holy war to end any significant tax breaks.

And of course he wants to end the ObamaCare, which the CBO says will increase the deficit (since it is funded through taxes).  And he wants to cut Medicaid and Medicare severely, making the latter into a voucher program and thereby offloading higher costs onto individual Americans.

So what makes it brave?  Well, through all the ridiculous spin, there is a plan there that makes it clear what the Republican vision for the country is right now.  It's really radical- but that doesn't make it evil.  The Right's vision is pretty simply this: You're on Your Own.  No government sugar daddy is going to pay for your retirement or your medical care, contribute to your college education, protect your food from contamination, fix your roads, subsidize your trains, regulate your banks to try to stop the next crash, etc. etc.  In a 21st Century world, they want to return to a 19th Century government model.

Maybe it'll work great.  I'm hoping we never get to find out.

By the way, it won't balance the budget.  The simplest way to balance the budget is for congress to do nothing, let the Bush tax cuts expire, ignore the Medicare doc fix, and then work on slowing the growth of health care costs.

UPDATE: Here's commentary from Bruce Bartlett, a long-time Republican economist who worked in the Reagan and Poppy Bush White Houses.  He's not too keen on the plan.

A Bipartisan Health Care Bill

Congressman Paul Ryan and Senator Ron Wyden have released a blueprint for Medicare reform, which has raised a little stir since it's bipartisan.  It's also not as extreme as Ryan's earlier plan which would have destroyed Medicare and replaced it with a voucher system.  In the liberal blogosphere people are upset with Wyden for giving Republicans some cover and making it harder to hit them with the details of the earlier plan in next year's election.

The plan is essentially to privatize Medicare, while still allowing the use of the old-fashioned system for those who want it.  There are still vouchers, but they would grow at a more realistic rate, and there would be safeguards to make sure insurance wasn't unaffordable for low-income seniors.  People would be allowed to choose more expensive plans, but would pay the difference.

Liberal wonks say this won't save any money.  Conservatives say that the free market will work its magic and generate innovation and efficiencies that will lower costs and increase value.

The issue comes down to what level of free market influence is most efficient in health care. But here I think that conservatives suffer from basing their belief in the free market for health insurance on Faith rather than evidence. Medicare Advantage has been an experiment in privatizing Medicare, and its costs are higher than traditional Medicare. In fact, Medicare's per patient costs are much lower than private insurance. The fact is that we already have a private health insurance system in the US, and it has led to much higher health care costs than you see anywhere else in the world, where government is more involved in every case.

This isn't because conservatives are wrong about the free market being more innovative- it certainly is- it's because the unusual nature of the health care industry seems to have caused the innovation to go into new and high tech treatments that are probably more effective but clearly not increasing efficiency. How many people will be willing to pay much less money for treatment that is a little less efficacious? I'll buy a Dell computer that costs half as much as a Mac even though it's only 75% as good a product, but I wouldn't do the equivalent transaction with my heart surgery.

The burden of proof that a market solution will save us money really rests with conservatives, and so far there's just not much evidence in their favor.

True Conservatism

Joe Scarborough pissed me off again this morning on MSNBC.  He's the conservative host, and he's complaining about Rick Perry.  I guess Perry was Al Gore's campaign manager back in the day, and has a history as a less conservative guy.  Joe doesn't trust him to be a "real conservative".  He twice said that Real Conservatives, "and there are only a few of us left, small government conservatives like me and Paul Ryan..."

Paul Ryan!!??!!  The Paul Ryan who voted for the prescription drug benefit?  The Paul Ryan who voted for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars without paying for them?  The Paul Ryan who votes for the Medicare "Doc Fix" every year?

Look, maybe Paul Ryan has seen the light and is no longer a Big Spending Conservative, but has truly converted to the Tea Party Small Government.  But then Joe Scarborough should consider that Rick Perry has done the same thing- that's what his record says, anyway.

It's amazing how these narratives develop and get stuck in the public consciousness.  "Paul Ryan is a fiscal conservative" is just accepted as fact, like "John Kerry is a flip-flopper", "John McCain is a maverick", etc.  Evidence ceases to matter in the public and press corps.