Ryan On Social Security Cuts Plan: 'If I Lose My Job Over This, Fine'

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

February 8, 2010 11:54 AM in reply to Walter Mitty

Not so fast. They should have town halls across the country, similar to what they had in August on Health Care Reform. Let the public have a good look at their plan and have a chance to tell them what they think about it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jeffgee

February 8, 2010 12:07 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

Been there. Done that. Bush tried it in 2005. He failed.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

midnight rambler

February 8, 2010 12:40 PM in reply to jeffgee

I think that's the point. Look how well town halls worked for health care.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DownriverDem

February 8, 2010 3:27 PM in reply to Walter Mitty

The last time this was put up (2005) I was 3 months short of 55. I was terrified that this would pass and I would lose out.

Now I am protected, but I really know how someone 54 feels.

What do they want Baby Boomers to do? Just die!

February 8, 2010 11:44 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dorn76

Privatization would be a disaster, for sure. Imagine if we had our SS money in the markets last year!

But of course Ryan is right about cutting benefits. Who will be the first Democrat to admit that this will be necessary some day?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

caplane

February 8, 2010 11:49 AM in reply to Dorn76

I'm no fan of Republicans but a guy who says, "if I lose my job over this, fine. But I want to prevent a fiscal crisis," is certainly refreshing.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DrToast

February 8, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to caplane

At the very least it shows he truly believes in what he's offering. That doesn't mean he's right, but at least he's being sincere with his plan.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to DrToast

It doesn't mean he is right, it means he is clueless.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

John M

February 8, 2010 12:22 PM in reply to caplane

He would lose his job because his ideas bankrupt seniors by playing to lose their Medicare and Social Security in the Wall Street casino, and he would do the same with all federal money as well and lose it in the Wall Street casino as well. Republicans are against reforming Wall Street so the Bush generated recession would be a Republican generated full blown depression if these ideas were implemented.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

whachawant

February 8, 2010 12:23 PM in reply to caplane

Ryan wins his district with about 65% of the vote (It's a Dem area but some clever re-drawing of district lines under state GOP rule the year he got in has helped to keep him there) at this point he has no viable opponent.

When he says he's willing to lose his job, it's not refreshing honesty or commitment to his ideas, it's cock-sure hubris...he knows he can't lose.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

John M

February 8, 2010 12:35 PM in reply to whachawant

So when every senior and family and friend of a senior votes against him he would keep that support, would he?

http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/pressroom/default.asp?NewMessageID=25172

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

whachawant

February 8, 2010 12:38 PM in reply to whachawant

BTW: Ryan grants an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel because they haven't made a sweetheart deal with him and his staff to just print press releases in full form with no edits or questions like the Racine Journal Times has. The Racine paper doesn't even allow for comments in their online edition-which they do for every other elected official in the State.

It must have been really inconvenient for him to answer to anyone back home.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 12:32 PM in reply to caplane

You've got to be kidding.

My admittedly limited understanding is that he is a ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. The "Democrat attack machine" are not the ones who can make him "lose his job". That likely falls to the Republican leadership, who can tell any Republican member of any committee that it's time to spend more time with his family.

I can't believe you ate the whole "martyr" act. Obviously, the GOP is really not about to martyr a guy whom they put Out There in the first place, as the right-wing front line which makes their leadership look "reasonable".

Kind of the way Ann Coulter is put Out There, to make the Pat Buchanans of the world look "reasonable". Same scam.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

714Day

February 8, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to Barry Champlain

Obama seems to take him seriously. He was deferential to Ryan's "serious" efforts at the Republican caucus meeting, for example.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 2:15 PM in reply to 714Day

Oh please. Obama's "deferential" to everybody. That's his damned problem :-)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lux

February 8, 2010 10:51 PM in reply to Barry Champlain

You do realize that's an act, right?

Yes, he tends to respect opposing opinions, but much of that respect when applied to the supposed legislative attempts of Republicans is entirely for the cameras. There's no way that anyone could look at their 'bills' which completely lack any form of legislative structure or feasible means of fixing anything and not just laugh. He's pretending they are legitimate attempts.. it's called being polite - and without looking up the etymology I'd assume polite and politics share a root.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Ankhorite

February 8, 2010 1:27 PM in reply to caplane

It would be a lot more refreshing if it didn't sound like a public relations ploy.

Privatization is a ghastly idea, and the only people who'd be happy with it are the brokers who would suddenly have a massive new ocean of money to skim, scam, and steal. Oh, and the politicians the thieves support... they'd be happy, too.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

February 8, 2010 11:52 AM in reply to Dorn76

Actually, he's wrong about cutting benefits. All they need to do is raise the cap on earnings subject to the SS tax and SS is solvent into the distant future.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

shooter242

February 8, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to mans_best_friend

At which point SS becomes welfare. Particularly if those providing the extra money are told they won't be getting any benefits at all. After all, rich people don't need SS, right?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 12:00 PM in reply to shooter242

Don't worry, we'll all be happy to shoot you wingnuts when you get old so you won't be a burden.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DontFeedTheTrolls

February 8, 2010 12:22 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Please, don't feed the trolls.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ohyeathatsright

February 8, 2010 12:07 PM in reply to shooter242

IMO they should be able to opt-out or they should pay their proportional share.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DontFeedTheTrolls

February 8, 2010 12:23 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright

Please, don't feed the trolls.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ohyeathatsright

February 8, 2010 12:46 PM in reply to DontFeedTheTrolls

Please don't spam the comments.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Schmed

February 8, 2010 4:19 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright

Paraphrasing Fish (of Marillion fame):

And what do you call trolls who accuse trolls, anyway...
My friend?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

acf_ma

February 8, 2010 12:27 PM in reply to shooter242

Social Security was never a government run, person pension. It was always a government program, funded by payroll taxes, designed to insure that seniors don't live in destitution after their working days are over. It was only in the early '80s that it began to be spoken of as 'your account', and encouraged by the annual report from the SSA listing how much you had in your SS account and what you could expect at retirement, that the thinking changed.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

runfastandwin

February 8, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to shooter242

I'm rich, and I'm going to be getting SS. I am guessing you never had a real job, therefore you are not part of the SS system. The beauty of SS is everyone who pays in, gets back, rich or poor. And that ain't gonna change.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 2:11 PM in reply to runfastandwin

So, you are glad to be taking money you don't need away from people who need it. And you are glad that "ain't gonna change."

Why do you hate America?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 2:09 PM in reply to shooter242

Ah, shooter brings teh stoopid, right on cue.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Moose49

February 8, 2010 11:55 AM in reply to Dorn76

Why not just get rid of the cap on the Social Security portion of FICA? Won't that take care of most, if not all, of its long-term problem? And if more is needed, why not extend FICA to non-payroll sources of income, like investments? I think cutting benefits would drive a lot of seniors into poverty -- as it is, Social Security benefits are hardly enough by themselves to live on. Given that fewer and fewer people are covered by guaranteed benefit pensions and that most of today's workers don't have enough retirement savings, doesn't it make sense to look for revenue raisers rather than benefit cuts?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cool Blue Reason

February 8, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to Moose49

I don't know what country you think you're living in, but the oligarchs who run things will never consent to having the entirety of their wealth incomes subject to Social Security (and Medicare) taxation. That original concession by FDR was necessary to get any system at all, and that was done in the face of the threat of an actual socialist revolution during the Depression. Hated as they may be today, the forces of global capital are far more entrenched than during that earlier time, better situated at the levers of public power, and thus less interested in conceding to the likes of us.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jeffgee

February 8, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason

Now, even more, thanks the the Roberts Court opening the gates on overwhelming corporate cash going into campaigns.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Moose49

February 8, 2010 12:39 PM in reply to jeffgee

Maybe, but why not fight for it? And if the choice is between doing this and cutting benefits, why not make this a huge issue for the American people? It may be that voter sentiment would be so overwhelming that the corporate oligarchs might actually learn what it's like to lose now and then.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lux

February 8, 2010 10:56 PM in reply to Moose49

Social Security isn't even the problem. Medicare is.

Social security has no real worries until 2037 and if we make only the slightest adjustment in the tax.. even as much as a half a percent anytime in between now and then it would not good indefinitely. Social Security was in danger once before - mid 80's I believe? We made the tiniest change and soon SS had a 1 trillion dollar nest egg. It still has this nest egg matter of fact.. we are only recently starting to concern ourselves about a day when that runs out..

Medicare is the problem - and the Defense budget entitlement - and the interest on the debt. Social Security is a false flag.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 11:55 AM in reply to Dorn76

None who is honest, since that's clearly bullshit if you're talking just about SS. Raising the income cap on the payroll tax would enough to make SS solvent forever.

If you're including Medicare, that also doesn't "need" benefit cuts, what it needs is for the galloping inflation in the whole system to be tamed, failing which far more than just Medicare is at grave risk.

Any Democrat who embraces dishonest Republican claims like this one is an idiot and disgrace to the party.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

zonk

February 8, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

The problem is - Medicare is the biggest player in those galloping costs... It's the single biggest payer -- by a huge margin - in our health care system and what's more, it's the only one that truly dictates payment rates.

Now... cutting rates on specialist care doesn't necessarily lead to benefit cuts, but it's foolish to think you can cut/better organize reimbursement rates without there being some degree of benefit changes. Doesn't mean something won't be covered -- but if you cut specialist rates, you'll certainly find fewer specialists participating in Medicare which means you'd probably see lower satisfaction due to longer wait times.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

John M

February 8, 2010 12:31 PM in reply to zonk

The cause of the US paying twice as much as any other industrialized nation is insurance companies. The US has double the health care spending, while being the only indsutrialzed nation not to have health coverage for all it's citizens. US health costs are $7800 for every man, woman, and child in the US. Canadian health costs are $3800 for every man, woman and child in Canada and Canada's costs are slightly above the average for the other 18 industrialized nation, yet are half of what Americans pay.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

zonk

February 8, 2010 12:58 PM in reply to John M

And if you don't think Medicare plays a large role in that, you're fooling yourself.

Medicare HCPCS, DRG, et al reimbursement rates are the baseline our entire system starts from.

It's good politics to point at the insurance industry -- and strictly as a beneficiary (and so far as private health insurance goes, that my ONLY relationship to the industry... I'm just a customer like everyone else), I don't have much need for private insurers, either...

But if you think 'fixing' our 16-17% GDP spent on health care is a simple matter of getting rid of private insurers -- or even the biggest component of the fix is getting rid of private insurers, you're quite mistaken.

The over-reliance on talking point simplicity in regards to what is a very complex policy matter afflicts both sides of the debate...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 2:15 PM in reply to zonk

Why don't you explicate your claims?

If you can't, then they are just hot air.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

zonk

February 8, 2010 3:34 PM in reply to farnsworth

What is it you would like explained?

Medicare spending actually makes up 15-20% (I think the exact number is about 17%) of total federal spending. That's larger than any other federal outlay other than defense (and spare me the need to cut the DoD's procurement budget... I heartily agree, but I'm not the one that needs convincing).

The initial post I responded to noted that the US "spends $7800 per man, woman, and child"...

Guess what's Medicare's per capita expenditure is among beneficiaries?

$13,426 as of 2003 (which, BTW, means the Part D benefit and the poor way it was implemented as an unfunded mandate isn't included).

Medicare ALONE pays 42% of that...

So... you're saying it's terrible that we're paying $7800 per person? I don't disagree...

I'm just saying Medicare is part of that problem, not the solution to it absent changes.

(data from Kaiser --> http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7731.pdf)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to zonk

I am not saying anything. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

You made a claim, which you did not back up. You also made a disparaging comment about people who over-simplified.

I ask you to clarify your statement, and you accuse me of a particular viewpoint.

Your initial claim was about health insurance not being the worst offender. And you back it up with data from a health insurance provider. Hmm.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

zonk

February 8, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to farnsworth

Ummm...

I think you're confusing the Kaiser Family Foundation with Kaiser Permanente. It's easy to do -- especially for people like you who prefer to oversimplify things because it's making rote talking point regurgitation easier -- as they were both emanated from Henry Kaiser, but Kaiser Permanente is an HMO while KFF is a not-for-profit, unaligned policy institute/charitable organization.

The two have nothing to do with each other. They were separate entities when they were created in the 1940s, they've been separate entities for the last 60+ years, and they're still separate entities today.

Just to preempt your next question... Germany also use to have a "Kaiser" -- but it is even less related to either KP or KFF than KFF and KP are to each other.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 5:26 PM in reply to zonk

Once again you are putting words in my mouth, and assuming I have a particular point of view.

Why are you doing that.

I didn't follow your link. I was incorrect about assuming it came from the insurance company. I apologize.

Perhaps you could do me the same courtesy regarding the assumptions you have made about me.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

artappraiser

February 8, 2010 5:29 PM in reply to John M

No, it's mainly fee-for-service insurance, with unmanaged care driven by the consumer, which Medicare is, and which a few private insurers still also offer. That's what has caused "money-driven medicine," where the consumer is the ultimate driver of the care produced, and it is the main reason for our comparatively high costs.

Some of those other countries you are talking about still have private insurance companies, but more regulated, where care is managed. Single payer is actually rare, and having a national health service even rarer.

If you don't inform yourself better, you are simply bound to be disappointed with everything that happens related to health care for the rest of your life. Some change is coming on that front one way or another, especially with Medicare, it has to, has to become more managed. Getting rid of insurance companies is not the magic pony on this front, properly managed care is.

Inform yourself, you really need to read the following entire by Maggie Mahar, liberal health care finance expert and former TPM columnist, I provide an excerpt but read the whole thing:

December 06, 2007
Health Care Spending: The Basics
JUST HOW MUCH DO PRIVATE INSURERS ADD TO THE NATION'S HEALTH CARE BILL?

....If I became czarina tomorrow, waved my wand, and closed own the entire private health insurance industry, how much could we save? Would our $2 trillion health care bill fall to $1.8 trillion? $1.6 trillion?

Here is the deeply disappointing answer. All of the money that private health insurance companies lay out for something other than health care—that $183,000 out of every million that UNH spreads around paying for advertising, underwriting, executive bonuses and lobbying —amounts to just 4.5 percent of our nation’s $2 trillion dollar annual health care tab.

Okay, 4.5 percent of $2.2 trillion is “real money.” But keep in mind that in 2005, total health care spending in the U.S. grew by 6.9 percent. So the 4.5 percent that I just shaved from our health care bill by snuffing out the private health insurance industry (and shifting to a single-payer government plan) would be wiped out by inflation in one year.

Moreover, a single-payer system also would have administrative expenses. Not as many, to be sure. The government doesn’t have to advertise or lobby itself. And it doesn’t pay its executives nearly as well as the private sector. Nevertheless, the government’s administrative expenses now equal 2.2 percent of our health care bill. If we expanded Medicare to cover everyone, those administrative expenses would grow. So the savings I achieved by wiping out private insurers could easily fall to just 3.5 percent of our total health care bill.

None of this is an argument for or against a single-payer system. My goal here is only to illustrate that no single sector of our health care economy is responsible for the high cost of health care in the U.S....

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dorn76

February 8, 2010 6:55 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Oh, I see, we can continue to expand SS forever, and never cut benefits or raise the retirement age.....

Cool!

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=450020&subsecID=900194&contentID=254807

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dorn76

February 8, 2010 7:04 PM in reply to Dorn76

Look, I should've included Medicare, and shouldn't have limited what I said to "cuts". As I say below, that was sloppy on ,y part..Just pointing out that Dems have not proposed the easy fixes that so many good thinkers progressuve thinkers have laid out. Example:

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Overreach THIS!

February 8, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to Dorn76

President Bush said it was good! Are you suggesting our President was **wrong**???!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JadeZ

February 8, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to Dorn76

really?

tell us all why that is true.

tell us where the trillions of dollars are that were looted from the "trust" fund.

why cant SS be made solvent for 100 years with sinple fixes?

spare me all the people that affect my life with their "understanding" of things.

geeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzz

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jeffgee

February 8, 2010 12:11 PM in reply to JadeZ

Bush ransacked the fund for his wars and tax cut.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dorn76

February 8, 2010 7:00 PM in reply to JadeZ

Feel free to provide me with your knowledge of these easy fixes, because I am all ears.

I didn't mean to limit the "fix" to cutting benefits, that was sloppy. But I did meant to suggest that a fix is required.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

skitzo

February 8, 2010 1:11 PM in reply to Dorn76

There is no reason to reduce benefits. Its a matter of reallocating priorities. Benefits are at subsistence level now, and for most, it is their only retirement income. Reduce benefits, and you will see a lot more shopping carts on the streets.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Scott in PacNW

February 8, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to Dorn76

SS is solvent until at least 2040, and even if its reserves went dry it could still pay 65-70% of benefits based on its receipts on a pay-go basis. Simply raising the income limit for SS taxes above the $100K threshhold will keep it solvent longer. Reagan did it, Dems can repeat it.

It's Medicare and Medicaid that need help soon due to escalating costs. Just like private health insurance costs are breaking US business.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Grdn_Grrl

February 8, 2010 2:03 PM in reply to Dorn76

The first Democrat to propose cuts in service? How about one of many many Dems to propose that. The Dems want to reign in Medicare spending because it is fraud. Look at the GENERATIONAL FRAUD in Florida. State officials pleaded with the the Bush Administration to do something about it and they did nothing. Every Diabetic in the county would have to move to Miami to even come close to justifying the reimbursements. Republicans HATE big government and the best way to convince Americans of that is to not let fraud and waste go unchecked. Don't fund a way to investigate and prosecute Medicare and everyone will think we are incapable of providing the service. This has been their strategy since FDR!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

twirling fartknocker

February 8, 2010 4:08 PM in reply to Dorn76

re: Who will be the first Democrat to admit that this will be necessary some day?

not necessarily. how about exploring raising the SS cap first? how about bringing income tax rates for the wealthy back to where they were even during Reagan's time, or better yet the 1950s?

cuts are the first choice for those who buy into Repug dogma geared toward protecting the top 10% in this country from having to contribute back to the society that made and keeps them rich

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dorn76

February 8, 2010 6:58 PM in reply to twirling fartknocker

I shouldn't have limited necessity to cutting benefits, I meant to include raising taxes, the retirement age, etc...

Just suggesting that a fix is required, and I don't see any on our side proposing one...

Glad to know the 3rd rail is still electric though.

February 8, 2010 11:51 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Moose49

He deserves credit for putting his "ideas," such as they are, out there and for standing by them. There aren't exactly a lot of politicians of either party who have the courage of their convictions.

That said, the fact that he's still advancing long-discredited -- and budget-busting -- schemes to privatize Social Security and Medicare shows the bankruptcy of the Republican Party's philosophy and its dearth of any real new ideas.

February 8, 2010 11:54 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JO'N

The real key to solving our budget problems is to cut our military budget. A LOT. Until we do that, all of our domestic programs will continue to be attacked.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to JO'N

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! And good luck finding a "fiscal conservative" who is willing to address this at all. That's the fundamental dishonesty that's distorting our whole political system.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

GTFOOH

February 8, 2010 12:14 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

If only we could figure out a way to turn the military complex against the right-wing kooks. A few gay generals might help.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Given Up

February 8, 2010 12:17 PM in reply to JO'N

The really sad part is that we could probably cut an absolutely massive portion of the military budget just by increasing the efficiency of the procurement system. Maintaining more or less the same capability (this would be helpful in keeping the wingnuts from going on their "he's trying to destroy America" tirades, not that they wouldn't do that anyways but at least this way the argument has even less intellectual honesty than usual).

February 8, 2010 11:57 AM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

MrSmith1

Privatize? Hell, no!

February 8, 2010 12:02 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Steaming Pile

In other news, there is a Democratic attack machine.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

RedMolly

February 8, 2010 12:48 PM in reply to Steaming Pile

Unfortunately, it's an Edsel.

February 8, 2010 12:06 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jeffgee

"Democratic attack machine." What a hoot! He's got an entire propaganda network -Fox- to do the attacking for his party. He declares his victimhood right out of the gate. There's a winning approach. He must have been consulting with the Tea Partiers.
Wis. voters: make him lose his job.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 2:19 PM in reply to jeffgee

When I mention that Fox is the propaganda wing of the GOP, I always get CNN thrown back at me. Kind of like comparing my nephew's T-ball team to the Yankees.

February 8, 2010 12:13 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FlownOver

Yes, fine. By-bye. Write if you get work.

February 8, 2010 12:19 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

UTMark

'If I Lose My Job Over This, Fine'.

Yep, that would be mighty fine.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Scott in PacNW

February 8, 2010 1:24 PM in reply to UTMark

Second

February 8, 2010 12:20 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

zonk

While I disagree wholeheartedly with his solutions, I've got more than a little sympathy for Ryan... this isn't a Bushy shiny veneer job or a trojan solution, it's a legitimate policy stance that makes a serious attempt to address what IS an issue (we can disagree, to what extent, that's true for SS -- but I'd actually agree with him on Medicare).

Ryan is a rarity - one those intellectually honest fiscal conservatives who isn't all talking points and nonsense.

Like I said, I disagree with him - but I had a fair bit of respect for him before this, and it's only enhanced my respect.

If we had more honest brokers like him, we could actually have honest national policy discussions and just let the electoral chips fall where they may.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 12:41 PM in reply to zonk

REALLY?!? It's "honest" to suggest the Democrats can make him "lose [his] job" on the Budget Committee?

I will stipulate: I have no goddamned clue how the wires and bolts of committee assignments work.

But I just want you to imagine the reaction of the GOP leadership, if any Democrat on that committee tried to oust one of their guys. Get real.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

zonk

February 8, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to Barry Champlain

I don't think he's referring to his committee assignment, I think he's referring to his seat in general.

He didn't just touch the third rail (two third rails, actually) -- he's embracing both of them, and he's smart enough to know that the opposition response is to use his own plans to go after the senior vote with his budget in hand.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to zonk

Oh well, in that case, I hope he does lose his job :-)

Look, Ryan put this whole plan Out There, in the hope that he would be seen as a "serious" player in the mythological war on the deficit. His district, as has been pointed out, votes for him overwhelmingly. The part about privatizing Social Security was not supposed to get a lot of hype.

I rather like the idea of exposing the paragraphs within his "plan", that call for (essentially) the abolition of Social Security as we know it... the right's wet dream since about 5 minutes after FDR initiated it, and the program that has always been known as "the third rail of politics".

Let's take that to his (otherwise blue) district, and see how the voters like him, now. This is a win.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lux

February 8, 2010 11:16 PM in reply to zonk

cut and privatize? That's a 'serious attempt'?

that's not a serious attempt.. it's not a legitimate policy stance - it's the typical same old Republican wet dream.

cut entitlements.. kill the poor - it will save the rich!

If you think that is a clever proposal.. or legitimate in any way.. well you gotta be kidding me. I could have come up with that in 5 minutes..

here... here's another legitimate proposal for ya to fix the deficit -

Cut the defense budget to 1/3 it's current level. Raise taxes on the rich another 10%.

there. fixed it for ya.. no thanks needed. Now Zonk... are you going to tell me how my idea is'at least a legitimate policy stance that makes a serious attempt to address what IS an issue'?

February 8, 2010 12:21 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

acf_ma

"Democratic attack machine". That's a funny thing coming from a Republican Congressman.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Cool Blue Reason

February 8, 2010 1:12 PM in reply to acf_ma

The more remarkable thing is that he didn't say "Democrat Attack Machine."

February 8, 2010 12:33 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

afisher

I will admit up front that I am not a math whiz, so someone please check my math. Take the median income (ok, I rounded up to $55K) using the Ryan Plan donation would be 650/year. If you make $147K/yr, donation would be $1570. Using those numbers, the length of time required to get from the lowest risk investment (which I am guessing to be like a savings account rate) would be a decade for Hi income, 2+ decades for median income and (essentially) never for low income individuals. Then who needs the social security income upon retirement? My guess would be those in lower economic rungs, but their investment grows the slowest.

Past that, there are a couple of other astounding facts. All the money is tax free, so the higher income group invests more and reduces their taxes. Even more, that money is theirs forever, if they die, it goes to the their beneficiaries. And just one more thing, if the amount that is accrued in this privatized account meets a specific level (funds to purchase an annuity that pays 150% poverty rate), then the individual can withdraw those funds (lump sum with no tax penalty).

IMO, this plan sounds great for those with incomes that may not be at risk for needing this income at retirement. Some economist or math guru needs to take a look at these numbers and determine who would be the "winner v loser" if this plan succeeded.

Also, this is an outline and many more details would need to be included before a real informed decision could be made.

One more thing: This PLAN also "outlines" health care and Income Tax reform. Is this an all or nothing plan?

I'm all for new and fresh ideas, but this one seems to be stacked FOR those who have a better than odds chance of not needing the benefits Ryan is prescribing to and essentially never giving the lower / middle (median)income individuals a realistic opportunity to retire in a state other than poverty.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

John M

February 8, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to afisher

Definitely seniors would be losers when their Social Security and Medicare are lost in the Wall Street casino.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

February 8, 2010 12:50 PM in reply to afisher

Gee...I wonder why Republicans would be FOR such a plan???

February 8, 2010 12:52 PM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

BBpdx

Kudos to him for bringing it up. Privatization is a terrible idea. But we're headed for a cliff at 90 mph. At least this guy is willing to talk about it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 8, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to BBpdx

I'll give him kudos when he talks about cutting our obscenely bloated military budget. Until then, he's just another hypocrite.

And military aside, a big chunk of the short-to-medium term aspect of the problem comes from the simple fact that we're in a deep recession. A good jobs bill is another thing he should be serious about if he wants to be taken seriously.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

calbearinillinois

February 8, 2010 1:03 PM

I spent several years with a salary over the FICA withholding threshold. It was like getting a bonus the last several paydates of the year. Since I now make 1/3 as much, I'd kind of wish that money had been going into SS/those years of excess ocunted towards my average salary/benefit calculation.

Guessing there's a few folks who thought they'd never "need" SS who today wish their benefits were based on their whole salaries, too.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jackster

February 8, 2010 1:17 PM

Ryan repeatedly ignores the parts of his district that vote overwhelmingly Dem. and only considers the areas that are more conservative. Not coincidentally there is a undeniable urban vs. rural, racially diverse vs. majority white.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

rmwarnick

February 8, 2010 1:19 PM

I know right-wingers in general and Republicans in particular have a penchant for projection, but "Democratic attack machine"? Come on.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lux

February 8, 2010 11:23 PM in reply to rmwarnick

I've yet to see this 'liberal media' they talk of...

here's my example -

if FOX runs a story saying 'Obama is soft on terror'

CNN runs the story 'is Obama soft on terror?'

they both have the same effect - they both attack the liberal stance.. just the non-fox world poses it as a question to be 'explored'.. and the responses the question bring about are just as bad as anything the right wing media arm offers.

There is no liberal media - unless you mean Bono.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jackster

February 8, 2010 1:22 PM

After bailing out all of those private money handlers, who in their right mind would suggest we put SS in private hands. When they screw up again using our SS funds, who's gonna be there to bail them out? Keep the funds out of the general coffers.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lariokie

February 8, 2010 1:53 PM

What altruism! I will give up my job to "avert a fiscal crisis"? WTF does Ryan think we've been in since Bush took office? Are these guys sleep walking? Are they hypnotized? Maybe they are Goldman-Sachs zombies. Anyone who believes that the guys who "led" us into this current fiscal tar baby (depression) are the ones to get us out are candidates for a lobotomy. It does not bode well for America that people like Ryan are among the powerful in Washington.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

glblank

February 8, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to lariokie

Ryan's a coward. He goes to heavily tilted listening sessions and has Joe Law toss out any one who dares to openly disagree. The only thing he recycles is Bushit. He's too prissy to pass muster with the Nut Suckers. He'll run to Dickie for his spine, War and torure cred. Look for him to be a safe veep pick.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

glblank

February 8, 2010 2:10 PM

I wouldn't read too much into this,Ryan is a pussy who will get back in line once his surrogate father, the GOP leadership pulls his chain. Ryan lost his father as an adolescent was raised on Welfare and has been searching for a surrogate until finding it in the GOP. Obama should put him on a podium in the Rose Garden and do the dance of conciliation and the Nut Suckers will fry Ryan, point Obama. But then Ryan probably wouldn't show up once Boehner activates the shock collar. Point 0bama. Let the Smackdown begin. This reaching out business better not turn into another Gang Rape of Six.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

condew

February 8, 2010 2:21 PM

Check your back pocket. The only reason I can see to once again trot out this horrible idea is as a distraction. So while we are talking about Social Security, what are the Republicans getting ready to steal?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lariokie

February 8, 2010 3:26 PM in reply to condew

I wish it were as simple as "what are the Republicans getting ready to steal?" I am afraid the two-party mambo is little more than a staged event any more. Rahm Emanuel is above party. He is pure evil in the same mould as Dirty Dick Cheney. I am afraid Obama is either horribly naive or an accomplice to the theft of American democracy. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have yet to see anything of substance that gives me "hope I Can Believe In" from the current WH. Looks like the same ol' shit in a shiny new package to me.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lux

February 8, 2010 11:30 PM in reply to lariokie

completely disagree.

The obstruction party and Joe LIEberman are responsible for preventing most of the change that we could have had..

You're blamin the wrong guys - and it's as if you haven't been around the last year to watch the show... death panels.. signs showing piles of dead from dachau.. people bringing rifles to health care meetings.. tea party goons fighting with skinheads because they would hate to be confused with them.. you've watched the antics of the Republicans - and yet can blame the Democrats for not supplying enough change? The blame falls on Republicant's, blue dogs and independents that caucus with the Dems.. but don't vote with them. It takes 60 votes to get through the senate - that's a fact. Even if we removed the filibuster rules that would have political ramifications too.

Obama has done a tremendous job.. to me, if you think otherwise, you weren't paying attention.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

MichaelD

February 8, 2010 4:26 PM

He wants to avoid a fiscal crisis? Where was this guy when the current fiscal crisis was being hatched in the boardrooms of Wall Street? Did he vote for pay-go? Did he vote for the deficit reduction commission? Who is this guy kidding? He's not good-looking enough to be an actor, and not funny enough to be a comedian.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Nancy Irving

February 9, 2010 6:45 AM

It still amazes me (although I know it shouldn't) that when speaking of government insolvency, the first words out of any Republican's mouth are always "Social Security"--a program that actually brings in more in tax dollars than it pays out in benefits, and has done for the past quarter of a century.