Paul Ryan and the Perils of Realism
We've gone as a nation, in less than two years, from Hope and Change to "hope we can change the stuff we hoped for." Still, a question—one of pointed interest to Republicans—looms: change to what? Meaning, what are you all going to do, assuming you take the House and/or the Senate, to fix the problems you identified as reasons for throwing out the Obamacrats? People who push themselves as political saviors, like the Democrats two years ago, come to think of it, eventually find they have to start saving. It can be messy.
A Washington Post story by Perry Bacon Jr. underscores the GOP challenge: to wit, "Rep. Ryan pushes budget reform, and his party winces."
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin's First District, one of the smartest men in politics insofar as I can tell, goes around touting his brilliantly conceived free-market, limited-government approach called Roadmap for America's Future. Whose main defect appears to be that in facilitating economic recovery it would change the ways Americans interface with federal social programs and the tax system that supports them. The prospect of that seems to disturb colleagues; thus ... well, hear out Bacon: "[M]any Republican colleagues ... even as they praise Ryan for his doggedness, privately consider the Roadmap a path to electoral disaster."
In other words, do the right thing and the wrong things happen to you. Voters fume and rage. Some undertake to eject you from office, forcing you to resume the practice of estate law in Pascagoula or Pomona.
Not a few Republicans perforce wish Ryan would cool it with the reform stuff. First, beat the Democrats, then do the reform: That's the ticket. Sequentially, yes, that's the way it happens. But strange things tend to happen after victories. One is the choruses of adulation from people who see you as able to accommodate them, and would like to be accommodated in specified ways, some of which might address national problems, some of which undoubtedly wouldn't. Another thing that happens after victory is a surge in inner satisfaction—in delight with prerogatives and power. From the top, the bottom below—meaning ordinary life—can look unimaginably alien. The desire is to stay in office by doing the things people like instead of the stuff they need.
What has Paul Ryan in mind that makes particular Republicans, as the Post headlines puts it, "wince"? Well, rationalizing the tax system—abolishing capital gains taxes, compressing and lowering the rates, including the rates for "the wealthy." On Medicare, Ryan would let under-55s receive a Medicare payment they could use to buy Medicare-certified health plans. Social Security? He'd allow the same demographic to invest a third of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement plans.
And so on. The Roadmap is calibrated to whittle down, over time, the federal government's long-term commitment to programs it can no longer afford. Realism is the rock on which Ryan has sketched his plan: We can't do X, so we have to do Y. That's of course where the trouble starts. Realism gets your average politician in trouble. A certain kind of voter prefers fantasy. Better to spoon out fantasy in dollops of spun-sugar promises and let future Congresses figure out what comes next!
Or is it? No plan, however creative, however frank in its aspirations, is perfect through and through. Ryan's Roadmap—whose assumptions are verified by the Congressional Budget Office—can't possibly be ideal and untouchable. Which isn't quite the point. The point is the courage of the man in bringing forth so bold a measure. The point is, secondarily, the need for Republicans, if they really think themselves up to running the country, either to fall in line behind Ryan or show their own hands. So, the Roadmap won't get us there? Pray, and then show us a better, more plausible route. And show it without delay.
Ryan's unassailable, irrefutable point is that we can't go on as we're going; we don't have the money. Victorious Republicans, take heed.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Entries(RSS)
When Paul Ryan and the Republicans start cutting down the military and American funds to other nations, let me know. I'm surprised the good gentlemen at Chronicles ran this piece from a columnist I usually tolerate but comes off as a spear carrier in this work.
First and last, in whose name will they pray?
The George W. Bush administration projected in the 2002 budget that there would be a $1.288 trillion surplus from 2001 through 2004.[77]
In the 2005 Mid-Session Review, however, this had changed to a projected deficit of $850 billion, a swing of $2.138 trillion.[78] The document states that 49 percent of this swing was due to "economic and technical re-estimates", 29 percent was due to "tax relief", (mainly the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts), and the remaining 22 percent was due to "war, homeland, and other enacted legislation" (mainly expenditures for the War on Terror, Iraq War, and homeland security" God only knows the percentages by now!!
Mr. Murchison leaves out one key component of Paul Ryans long term strategy i.e. The United States must stop using their soldiers,sailors, airmen and marines as an extension of U.S. Big Government policy to the rest of the world and canon fodder for Islamic radicals.
Diebold voting machines can be rigged to throw an election. Always use the paper ballot. And never vote for the Stupid Party or the Evil Party.
@4
Yeah didnt you hear? Electronic voting machines selected one of their own as President:
http://www.theonion.com/video/voting-machines-elect-one-of-their-own-as-presiden,14286/
I used to think that the establishment right-wing of any nation is too hypocritical to ever cut military spending or top civil servant salaries, and only wants to lay off and mass-fire teachers, firemen, police officers, and the rest.
But in David Cameron's Britain, they have been undertaking a huge cut in military spending recently, and have been selling off helicopters and such to India. And unlike the previous left-wing British prime ministers, the Cameron administration has had the nerve to show deep skepticism about both Afghanistan and Iraq.
So in America's case, as long as a genuine fiscal conservative is allowed to come up, and as long as warhawks like James Inhofe are kept away in a dark closet, just maybe the wars could end.
Not a few Republicans perforce wish Ryan would cool it with the reform stuff. First, beat the Democrats, then do the reform: That’s the ticket. Sequentially, yes, that’s the way it happens. But strange things tend to happen after victories. One is the choruses of adulation from people who see you as able to accommodate them, and would like to be accommodated in specified ways, some of which might address national problems, some of which undoubtedly wouldn’t. Another thing that happens after victory is a surge in inner satisfaction—in delight with prerogatives and power. From the top, the bottom below—meaning ordinary life—can look unimaginably alien. The desire is to stay in office by doing the things people like instead of the stuff they need.
I believe Mr. Murchison is describing Newt Gingrich and 1995 Congressional Republicans.
Paul Ryan's ideas caught my attention about four years ago. This guy is extremely intelligent. His early ideas were quickly dismissed by all the "big boys" in DC. However, time does move along quite fast, and this man is rising to notable status - - - not only in Washington, but throughout his own district (he is re-elected in a predominantly Democratic district). Let's just hope he "stays" true to his belief of "common sense" reform and the "true" American way.
Murchison is right - - - no system is perfect. But I believe his leadership can provide the country with well-deserved optimism.
Keep an eye on future "President Ryan" - - - I kid you not.