Friday, 05 February 2010
If You Thought the Gregg/Conrad Commission was a Bad Idea...
...wait until you read this.
On the day of President Obama's State of the Union address, Republican Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin introduced a budget proposal that would, according to the Congressional Budget Office [pdf], create a budget surplus of about five percent by the year 2080. The three main changes that Ryan's Roadmap for America's Future would make are:
• Restructure the federal tax code to eliminate all taxes on interest, dividends, capital gains and estates (which mostly benefits the rich)
• Privatize Medicare and Medicaid
• Privatize Social Security
In other words, the proposal would transfer even more wealth from the working and middle classes to the rich while making it more difficult for everyone to get the health care they need and deserve, not to mention jeopardizing everyone's retirement.
As Ezra Klein put in the Washington Post, “Ryan's budget proposes reforms that are nothing short of violent.” The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare agrees: the plan “decimates Social Security and Medicare in the name of deficit reduction.”
Nowhere in Ryan's Roadmap does the word "defense" appear in relation to the military. There are no spending cuts in it except to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and it increases costs to individuals for those programs and private coverage as it simultaneously cuts benefits.
Medicare and Medicaid
People age 55 and older are grandfathered into the current system. Younger people would be issued vouchers pegged to income to purchase private coverage, but the vouchers' growth would be far slower than the projected growth of health care costs. And because private insurers pay providers more than Medicare does and their administrative costs are much higher, beneficiaries would face far higher premiums for coverage similar to Medicare.
The plan also provides for tax-free medical savings accounts. I've never been able to figure out how families who live paycheck to paycheck are expected to afford these. Ezra Klein again:
“This proposal would take Medicare from costing an expected 14.3 percent of GDP in 2080 to less than 4 percent. That's trillions of dollars that's not going to health care for seniors. The audacity is breathtaking.”
Social Security
As with Medicare, people 55 and older are grandfathered into the current Social Security system. Ryan's proposal would gradually raise the age of eligibility for Social Security to 69 and there are a couple of other tweaks. But here is his main objective: workers would be allowed to invest more than a third of their Social Security taxes in private retirement accounts.
Didn't we just kill President Bush's privatization plan a few years ago? Did Representative Ryan sleep through the economic disaster of the past two years? What is he thinking?
I'll tell you what he's thinking: like Bush, he wants to transfer the trillions of dollars in workers' Social Security accounts to Wall Street bankers who would make billions servicing the accounts and then be bailed out when the next financial meltdown occurs. Perhaps the congressman has a stash of refrigerator boxes to sell to elders to live in the next time that happens.
This plan puts every citizen's security in the hands of the Republican-beloved free market and we all know how well that's been working even before the crash.
A reminder: Whatever you hear from slash-and-burn legislators (and more than a few know-nothing journalists) about Social Security being broken, they are wrong (more likely, disingenuous). Just a couple of minor changes that would cause no undue pain to anyone would secure the program for decades to come.
Medicare, however, is a pressing issue. Its financial problems must be addressed which Congress tried to do with health care reform that is now moribund thanks to the Republicans. And the general budget deficit is not as urgent to fix now as Representative Ryan and others in Washington say; it's mostly an anti-Obama political ploy in an election year.* But whether it is addressed now or later, why do certain Congress members think elders should pay for it all.
Representative Ryan's bill, H.R. 4529 [full text here – pdf], was introduced in the House on 27 January. According to TalkingPointsMemo, it is “highly unlikely to ever see the light of day beyond a perfunctory party-line vote as a substitute to the Democrats' budget.”
We can only hope so. But you've got to watch these guys every day and take names. They have failed so far, but they never stop trying to kill Medicare and Social Security, and they become more brazen with every succeeding attempt.
* 5AM UPDATE: I wrote this post yesterday and this morning in The New York Times, economist Paul Krugman agrees with me about the non-threat of the current deficit, headlining today's op-ed, "Fiscal Scare Tactics."
[NOTE: I have left out a lot of detail contained in Ryan's bill and various useful commentary to keep this post from wonking out. You can find all the particulars you might care to know in the links scattered above.]
At The Elder Storytelling Place today, Nancy Leitz: The Depression Coat
Posted by Ronni Bennett at 02:35 AM | Permalink | Email this post
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.







America's biggest war is against its own citizens.
Posted by: mary jamison | Friday, 05 February 2010 at 06:17 AM
Agree with everything you write here with a couple of additions:
1) it's not just due to Republicans that we have not finished the very moderate attempt at health care reform recently attempted; Democrats could pass it tomorrow, still, if they weren't scared of their own shadows.
2) it's not just prospective costs of Medicare that will run up the deficit. Until our politicians put a) more taxes from the very rich and b) the bloated military on the table, they are trying to bamboozle us.
Posted by: janinsanfran | Friday, 05 February 2010 at 06:47 AM
Ayn Rand lives and breathes! How bad would things have to get before the Marketeers altered their pitch?
Posted by: Nance | Friday, 05 February 2010 at 06:54 AM
You do have to pay attention and look behind every proposal. Under the clever guise of saving money the Repblicans (and some Democrats) are always trying to sneak in a new way to privatize everything. A pox on their house.
Posted by: Darlene | Friday, 05 February 2010 at 07:28 AM
I have an idea about reducing the deficit at least in regard to Social Security. How about we have people who draw salaries pay Social Security on ALL of their income instead of the pocket change they get away with? And they can only draw after retirement up to the level of the median income of all workers. How long do you think it would take until the median income went up instead of down? Of course, it will be a cold day in a hot place before that happens.
Then they want people to work until 70.
How many of you are out there who are having a hard time finding any job after the age of 50? I have friends who are having a hard time after age 40. That is a non-starter as far as I am concerned. In case they haven't noticed, there is not a plethora of jobs out there for anyone at any age.
Too bad most of the politicians don't live in the real world with the rest of us.
Posted by: Twin City Joan | Friday, 05 February 2010 at 08:17 AM
Fixes for Social Security and Medicare.
Surtax on all Stock Options, Security transactions and Bonuses.
Completely remove Social Security from both sides of the budget. Surpluses can't be added to annual income and deficit isn't counted against current account spending.
Posted by: Kevin | Friday, 05 February 2010 at 09:34 AM
Why isn't this something that our leaders are waving around in their districts to get people clued in? Talking about really destroying health benefits.
Posted by: Marti Weston | Friday, 05 February 2010 at 10:09 AM
Thanks for this rundown, Ronni. At least we can be informed! But the lunacy on this topic never seems to end.
Posted by: Hattie | Friday, 05 February 2010 at 11:13 AM
Idiots!!!!! Why do we keep electing them? And you can bet if checked Ryan's canpaign contributions and accounts tied to him, there's a LOT of corporate money. If I were in his district, I would camp in his office until they let me explain the facts of life to him.
The way things are now are far from the best with lots of elders living in poverty but this is obscene. I will drop a note to my Congressman about this.
Thanks, Ronni!
Posted by: Kay Dennison | Friday, 05 February 2010 at 02:23 PM
Why do we keep electing "them". Because there are a lot of stupid uninformed people out there who choose to believe the scare tactics from the Republicans. There are many who hate the fact that Obama is in office and they will do/say/write/sabotage anything to see that his administration fails and that includes lying to and misleading the public. Sorry for the heated response but the crap the other party tries to pull off just gets me going.
Posted by: Donna | Friday, 05 February 2010 at 03:38 PM
It's breathtaking, all right. The current recession has wreaked so much havoc on retirement plans as it is that you'd think we'd heard the last of privatizing Social Security.
Why do we keep electing these clowns? I've been reading about Reconstruction. Hatred -- and I mean hatred -- of blacks drove everything and trumped rebuilding the region, creating a decent place to live, and raising the standard of living. But the demagogues knew the right button to push with the mass of poor whites, who shared economic common cause with the former slave, and irrationality triumphed over rationality. That's the way it is with demagoguery.
Today, I suspect that the hidden hot button is guns, but that's speculation. It would be interesting to know the percentage of gun ownership and high gun ownership among tea baggers and how that relates to the same among the rest of the population.
Posted by: Citizen K. | Friday, 05 February 2010 at 06:39 PM
BTW, thanks for pointing out that Social Security's "problems" are greatly exaggerated. Seattle's Economic Opportunity Institute has done some great policy work along these lines. Read up on their conclusions here:
http://www.eoionline.org/retirement_security/social_security.htm
Posted by: Citizen K. | Friday, 05 February 2010 at 06:45 PM
Paul Ryan is nutts!!!
Posted by: Donald R Rosentreter | Friday, 12 February 2010 at 02:19 PM