Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ELECTION: Ryan pick panders to the far right

Letter by Bambi Lin Litchman, Tacoma on Aug. 13, 2012 at 10:01 am with 22 Comments »
August 13, 2012 3:32 pm

Mitt Romney put the flip in flop, but his choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate signals a clear intention to pander to the right wing of the Republican Party.

Ryan, highly revered by the tea party, is the author of a national budget so draconian that The New York Times called it “the most extreme budget plan passed by a House of Congress in modern times.” Ryan supports ending Medicare as we know it and would cut and privatize Social Security. The Ryan plan would slash the budget mercilessly for the less fortunate – all the while cutting taxes for the wealthiest individuals in the country.

Catholic bishops and nuns have stated outright that Ryan’s cruel plan is immoral. President Obama stated that the budget is “nothing but thinly veiled social Darwinism.”

Ryan credits the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged,” for spurring him into politics. She stated that altruism is evil, believed selfishness is a virtue and condemned Christianity for helping the poor.

Romney, once a moderate and effective Republican governor, appears to have lost his core. His choice of Paul Ryan is a stark move to the far right.

Leave a comment Comments → 22
  1. aislander says:

    When you punish productive behavior–as the progressive agenda has done for about a hundred years–and reward unproductive (counterproductive?) behavior–as liberals have done since the Thirties–you will have much more of the latter and less of the former.

    As Benjamin Franklin, a person known for his wisdom, said: “The best way to help the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their circumstances.”

    That doesn’t mean starving the poor, but it does mean to stop equating being poor and taking government charity with virtue. It is shameful to demand that those who are giving, voluntarily or not, give even more or there will be another OWS-style tantrum.

  2. Ohhhhhh, so sorry bambs… the TNT didn’t give you your usual favored lead-off spot on the LTE list. Probably should have sent it on tuesday – less traffic, ya’ know.

    Ryan supports ending Medicare as we know it…

    And you support Politfact’s Lie of The Year, 2011:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/20/lie-year-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/

    Are you referring to the Ryan-Wyden Medicare Plan? You remember Ron Wyden dontcha’ bambs? Liberal democrat from oregon.

    Oh, and you might not have heard this, but Ryans mom is on medicare (60 minutes cut it out of their interview w/ Ryan on Sunday). I’m sure he can’t wait to push her over the cliff too.

    and would cut and privatize Social Security.

    Complete lie. Ryan’s budget would gradually reduce automatic spending increases in SocSec, which only in liberal la la land translates to a “cut”. The budget does not privatize Social Security or Medicare, nor does it propose any changes to these programs for Americans 55 and older. The government guarantee remains in place for both of these programs. It protects both of these programs for those 55 and older and saves them so they can provide benefits to future generations of Americans when they retire.

    His budget spends more each year on Social Security and Medicare than the year before and, each year, beneficiaries will receive more than the year before. But this budget does so in a fiscally responsible manner that ensures the long-term sustainability of these programs.

    But if you dems and 0bama have another plan… oh… that’s right…

    The Ryan plan would slash the budget mercilessly for the less fortunate – all the while cutting taxes for the wealthiest individuals in the country.

    More left wing hyperbole. The Ryan budget cancels a scheduled 4 Trillion dollar tax increase. Again, only la la liberals call keeping tax rates at current levels a “tax cut”. Further, the
    Ryan tax plan proposes reducing the top individual and corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent—and this is fully paid for by eliminating extraneous tax deductions, exemptions, and loopholes that currently allow some wealthy individuals and businesses to escape their fair share of taxes.

    Catholic bishops and nuns have stated outright that Ryan’s cruel plan is immoral.

    Uhmm, you are aware he’s Catholic… right?

    Ryan credits the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged,” for spurring him into politics.

    LOL, okay, realllly reaching now. So… I get it; Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Bill Ayers (to name but a few) = GOOD – Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead = BAD.

    Okey-dokey.

    Romney, once a moderate and effective Republican governor, appears to have lost his core. His choice of Paul Ryan is a stark move to the far right.

    Anyone got any Purell? I feel all grimy now.

    Geez, libs are as original as cornflakes.

  3. RegisteringFool says:

    Bambi – Ryan is not the ideologue you fear. That is he is a new kind of RINO, a Randian In Name Only. He voting record clearly demonstrates that he will use the power of government in circumstances that would may Ayn Rand ill, his TARP votes being exhibit #1. He is as much in the pocket of Wall Street as Romney, Obama and Biden, and 99% of the rest of Capitol Hill is.

  4. Clamat0, please see my note and Wyden’s comment about the Ryan plan on another thread. Wyden did not co-lead, co-author or even support the Ryan budget.

    Ryan’s plan would cut Medicare payments about 40% per person by the year 2030 from its present level and make the individual responsible for the difference. As we know medical costs are going up, so the difference will be much greater that the individual will have to come up with.

    Here is what Politifact rated as “mostly true”:

    … the plan would “privatize” Medicare, and “the Medicare proposal “would voucherize the program and you potentially have senior citizens paying $6,000 more.”

    And, I guess you haven’t see legitimate analyses of the IRS plan in Ryan’s budget. If we kept military spending at the level Republicans want, domestic spending will have to take a 30%-40% cut for the income tax cuts and other tax cuts to balance.

  5. Come back when you’ve got a “lie of the Year” in your quiver, tuds. Otherwise it just isn’t even fair, LOL.

    And like I said in your “other thread”, I’ve no desire to follow you down rabbit holes again.

  6. Clamat0, believe in fairy tales all hyou want. The right wing believes in such all the time,a nd that is the very reason that our nation is heading downwards. There isw a group who wants America to fail, and hyou have bought into their lies, hook, line and sinker.

    The truth will set you free from your reliance on Fox lies. Your “lie of the year” had nothinhg to do with what I was talking about and you know it. Sorry you cannot discern what people are actually saying.

    Your refusal of looking at actual real quotes and statements is very telling about your conclusions – baseless.

  7. Cheers Tuds! You should not post after so many. And a Tuesday! Obamabucks must have came in the mail.

  8. BigSwingingRichard says:

    “Catholic bishops and nuns have stated outright that Ryan’s cruel plan is immoral.”

    Bambi: Is any cut in spending “cruel” when the government borrows 40 cents on every dollar spent? How do you propose we fix this?

    PS: Speaking of cruel, have you talked to your parents about naming you Bambi?

  9. CT7, I’m not a drinkin’ man. At night, its even harder to see these darn tiny keys and screen. Sorry for the typos.

    I do get a well-earned Veteran’s retirement, put into place long before Obama. When you get to be my age you can turn back your Social Security payments if you don’t believe in the program. The Treasury does take donations. You’ll still have to pay taxes on them if you have earnings.

  10. BSR, attacking a person’s name is the lowest form of behavior.

    We fix the economy like good conservatives, we cut inefficiencies and raise revenue appropriately. We raise revenue where we can and where it has been shown will not harm anything, on those who can afford it. We modify or cut those tax cuts that do not benefit but actually hurt the nation, like inheritance tax cuts, corporate tax shelters, oil and gas cuts.

    (As our forefathers knew well, family dynasties created through inheritance created an oligarchy of the rich, which the two-thirds from mostly northern and mid states opposed. The South, of course loved their plantations and would even have had nobility and titles for inheritance.)

    We charge a reasonable rate for use of public lands, like a percentage of profits instead of giving away land rights for almost nothing.

    We put into place policies and programs which have been shown to actually work, like the stimulus and we get rid of theory-based policies that don’t work, like trickle-down tax cuts for the most wealthy.

    We institute programs that the CBO says will reduce the deficit, like the Affordable Health Care Act.

    We get rid of inefficiencies and overhead – like 20%-40% of government insurance payments to private companies going to CEO’s and top executives and overhead while government-run medical programs average less than 5%-10% (and that is taking the conservatives estimate, not the actual accounting, which shows 3%).

  11. whitecap says:

    Bambi…seems to me you’d be happy with the selection of Ryan. Where is he more powerful and able to push legislation and policy that you oppose, in Congress or as VP?

  12. 20-40% going to CEOs and top exec’s?

    I do not like to do this, but can you back that up with a reputable source? An SEC filing doc?

    Glad you took the earlier post in jest. Thanks for your service.

  13. The truth will set you free from your reliance on Fox lies. Your “lie of the year” had nothinhg to do with what I was talking about and you know it. Sorry you cannot discern what people are actually saying.

    Your refusal of looking at actual real quotes and statements is very telling about your conclusions –
    baseless.

    Wow, not only do you manage a Gowin’s Law Corollary # 3 with your fall-back Fox platitude, but you’re showing “progressive” signs of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf syndrome with the rest of that statement.

  14. CT7, don’t forget “and overhead”. Since you like it I’ll use Politifact. (I was going to use a study done by a liberal organization that showed 20%-40%, but you’d attack the source, for sure.

    The CBo put it this way in 2009:

    Plans covering companies with at least 1,000 employees had an average of 7 percent in administrative costs. Those covering companies with fewer than 25 employees spent 26 percent of premiums on administration. The individual market spent on average 30 percent.

    (to get to that average, some plans at least had to have higher than 30%)

    Politifact has it at 20%-30% in some companies. (note, I never used ‘average”, not a weasel out, but the fact that many people buying insurance have a very hard time discerning what the overhead is, and even 20%-30% or even the Politifact claimed average of 11.1% is much more than the 1.3% of documented administrative costs for Medicare.

    I do not trust a Republican administration to provide proper regulations and oversight of private companies, so I think the overhead will rise and rise if Medicare is privatized.

    The reason is past history. That is exactly what happened under the private policy Advantage program during the Bush administration. Admninistrative costs rose so dramatically that the government subsidized the program and then charged other Medicare beneficiaries the costs.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/

  15. http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/06/30/the-myth-of-medicares-low-administrative-costs/

    Sorry Tuds, the cost per beneficiary is higher for Medicare.

    At best I would call it a wash. Yes, private companies obviously pay beyond the govt scale, but they are more efficient.

  16. CT7, the figures in the Forbes article are highly arbitrary, as the Urban Institute points out in the Politifact link. They bump up the costs to 3.5%-5% for Medicare when the issues the Forbes article mentions are taken into consideration, Hardly an even swap. That’s why I mentioned the 5%-10% conservatives like to use because they do count in othr agencies’ involvement.

    The private insurance overhead costs would need to be bumped up, also, due to the involvement of regulatory and other agencies that provide oversight and regulatory activities. Those costs are not taken into consideration when overhead for insurance is calculated, so why would they be for Medicare?

    Also, it was pointed out that the costs Forbes article tries to lay solely on the Medicare program are really activities spread out among a lot of agencies. In this case, I’ll take Politifact.

    When you look at per beneficiary, you are ignoring that Medicare provides many more services per beneficiary, on average, than regular insurance. There have been some studies on a per service basis, and medicare by far trumps privagte inurance. I’ll look those up for you, if hyou’d like. (See how nice I am, offering to look something up for hyou when I could ahve just said, “look it up”) ;-)

    In the only apples to apples comparison, the GAO in 2006 showed that the Medicare Advantage plans (private) spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6 percent to profits—a 16.7 percent administrative share while the public Medicare plan was less than 2 percent of expenditures.

    The CBO also reports that payments per unit of service in Medicare is only 81% of private insurance cost. That should be included in any look at efficiencies, not just administrative costs, but negotiating power.

    Here is a good study that has lots of links and references and looks at more than jsut administrative costs. One striking difference is how much Medicare has kept the cost per service from rising compared with private insurance – 37% less increase in comparable costs.

    http://institute.ourfuture.org/files/Jacob_Hacker_Public_Plan_Choice.pdf

  17. Tuds, I have to give you credit. If not or my fear of govt size and reach, I might be sold.

    I will continue to research and look forward to further debate.

    Last thought, with such progressive (i.e. the poor to middle income pay little to zero) govt benefits, how can you increase healthcare without already hammering those that pay? Employers or individuals?

    Also, without limiting lawsuits and base costs, we made no progress. Just billed the taxpayer and increased debt.

    Efficiency, lower costs, no additional debt, increased coverage, healthier people are my metric of succes.

  18. aislander says:

    Don’t forget that the federal government adds to the cost of private health insurance simply by requiring that it be purchased with after-tax money. Bet that might even add up to more than executive salaries…

  19. aislander, I don’t quite get the “after tax” info. (Maybe its too late). In my business, I pay my portion of employee’s insurance and then later get to take a deduction as part of business expense. The employees’ portion is taken out of their gross. If medical costs reach a certain amount, employees get to take an itemized deduction, too.

    Individuals and businesses pay taxes on net after deductions are taken off.

    I’m not sure what you mean that insurance is paid with “after tax” money.

    As to limiting base costs, I think keeping the increases down 37% below the increases in private inurance is a feat. That was done through negotiations, a good capitalistic principle, and not cost controls a favorite of liberals, but not available since conservatives would certainly howl.

  20. fanciladi says:

    I talked to someone who talked to this writer and her guy friend… He said it was very hard to talk to people who didn’t really know what they were talking about! :(

  21. fanciladi, do you always go for the ad hominem attack, or only mostly?

    I talked to someone who talked to you and a friend of yours and he said it was very hard to talk to people who just want to put people down instead of talking about issues.

  22. fanciladi says:

    I’m just stating what happened…I heard the conversation… :)

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0