For those closely observing the attacks on Medicare and Social Security, Ryan Lizza’s New Yorker profile piece in the August 6 issue is a must read. Lizza spent a lot of time with US Rep. Paul Ryan, R-WI, the chairman of the powerful House Budget Committee, who has pushed his ideas for privatizing Medicare into mainstream GOP thinking. If he gets his way—and the votes—the program that provides healthcare for nearly 50 million seniors and people with disabilities would become radically different.
Why read this piece? Lizza gave the reason high in the story:
To envisage what Republicans would do if they win in November, the person to understand is not necessarily Romney, who has been a policy cipher all his public life. The person to understand is Paul Ryan.
Lizza chronicles Ryan’s rise from an ordinary congressman representing the blue-collar city of Janesville, in southeastern Wisconsin, to major Republican thinker and shaper of party ideas. “Sitting in his office more than three years ago, Ryan could not have foreseen how successful his crusade to reinvent the Republican Party would be,” Lizza reported. “Nearly every Republican in the House and the Senate has voted in favor of some version of his budget plan.”
The plan would reduce federal spending for many programs, including programs for the poor and Medicare, an entitlement that cost the government about $551 billion last year. They are targets for Ryan’s voucher plan, which would shift much of the responsibility for paying for healthcare from the government to seniors themselves. Ryan’s plan, now called his Path to Prosperity, a version of earlier documents, also envisioned the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and effectively cutting Medicaid by a third. Lizza reported that doing that means the program, which pays for healthcare for the poor, would not keep up with rising medical costs.
The proposal stems from Ryan’s deeply ingrained conservative philosophy, framed by reading the works of Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek. Lizza recounts Ryan’s own political philosophy as being
Only by taking responsibility for oneself, to the greatest extent possible, can one ever be free. Only a free person can make responsible choices between right and wrong, saving and spending, giving or taking.
Ryan’s budget, Lizza believes, allows more Americans to do just that. But Lizza didn’t delve into what would happen if those affected by his budget cuts don’t have money to make the responsible choices he advocates. It’s unlikely Ryan suffered financial hardship growing up even though his father, a lawyer, died young, and his mother went back to school to become an interior designer—Lizza reported that Ryan belongs to an Irish clan, which along with two other families were known as the Irish Mafia and helped develop Janesville in the postwar era. The Ryans were major road builders. Ryan, Inc. is a national construction firm started by his great grandfather.
Perhaps Ryan’s family background and his conservative philosophical grounding helped mold him into the man to watch in the next Congress. Lizza depicted him as hard-nosed and unwilling to compromise, in line with fellow GOP lawmakers, as Brookings Institution political scientist Thomas Mann told CJR last week.Republicans are “now the primary source of stalemate,” Mann said. Accordingly, Lizza reports, Ryan helped scuttle three budget deals; last summer, when a group of Democratic and Republican senators produced an agreement for dealing with the deficit, “Ryan’s detailed criticism helped sink it”; he reportedly pressured House Speaker John Boehner to reject a potential deal with the president.
Ryan is not opposed to all government spending. Lizza brought up the matter of Ryan’s hometown, which is trying to reinvent itself after a GM plant closed. Federal dollars have flowed into Janesville to help with its transformation into a distribution hub for major companies like John Deere. When Lizza pointed out that federal government spending programs were at the heart of his town’s recovery, the Beltway’s chief budget cutter did not disagree. “Of course, we believe in government, we think government should do what it does really well, but that is has limits, and obviously within those limits are things like infrastructure, interstate highways, and airports,” he said.
- 1
- 2
Ooo. You'd best be careful, Trudy. As we know from your previous reporting, reporting that Paul Ryan is a "man who would remake the government" might put you on politifact's lie of the year list.
Really good article, by the by.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 8 Aug 2012 at 10:46 AM
So, it was Ryan "pushed his ideas for privatizing Medicare into mainstream GOP thinking," eh?
Privatizing everything has been "mainstream GOP thinking" for at least 20 years, if my recollection of the 1992 Presidential Convention in Houston holds any water. The party was suffused with nutballs even then, and Gingrich was ascendant.
Ryan is merely the GOP's latest Mr. White Keys: "If he can do it so can you!"
Why anyone outside the rarefied precincts of Powerline takes the man's alleged ideas seriously is a mystery historians--if there are any--will ponder.
#2 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Wed 8 Aug 2012 at 11:14 AM
I read the article a couple of days ago and while I found it interesting, I also found it disappointing. Why? Because no bridge was offered between Ryan's supposed wonkishness and attention to detail and his actual policy proposals. When you argue, in essence, that the tail is wagging the dog - that Ryan wants budget cuts and privatization for ideological reasons - you open up the possibility that there really isn't any thought, attention to detail, or even any real intelligence behind a proposal.
Despite his protestations, with a small amount of scrutiny it becomes patent that Ryan's budget plan is not about balancing the budget - it worsens deficits and increases the debt. It's about advancing an ideology of tax cuts for the rich and the privatization of Social Security and Medicare without regard for cost or efficiency. To the extent that cost factors in, it's third grade math. If you arbitrarily cap what the government contributes to the cost of a privatized Medicare insurance plan, you will spend only that much money on Medicare. But that ignores both the economic reality (over time you would render Medicare inadequate and/or unaffordable for most seniors, while increasing waste) and the political reality (seniors would be up in arms, and Congress would increase funding - but if the privatization 'succeeds' almost certainly at a much greater cost than under the current program.)
If Ryan cannot explain the math behind his plan, if he cannot describe what cuts his plan would require - not lump sum dollar figures, but specific cuts to specific programs - there's nothing intellectual, wonkish, or detail oriented about the plan. So either Ryan is the wonk Lizza would have us believe and Ryan knows his budget proposal is a charade, or he's not bright enough to understand the obvious defects of his very weak proposal. Either way the ideology behind his thinking is obvious; I'm just looking for the evidence that there's any substance to the man. At the end of Lizza's piece I'm still waiting for the evidence that Ryan is more than an ideologically driven stuffed shirt.
#3 Posted by Aaron, CJR on Wed 8 Aug 2012 at 02:11 PM
is this an article about ryan or an article about lizza's article on ryan
i
#4 Posted by james, CJR on Wed 8 Aug 2012 at 05:41 PM
Sentence 2 contradicts sentence 1:
1. "Ryan’s deeply ingrained conservative philosophy [is] framed by reading the works of Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek."
2. “'Of course, we believe in government, we think government should do what it does really well, but that is has limits, and obviously within those limits are things like infrastructure, interstate highways, and airports,' he said."
Ryan's plan calls for decreases in overall spending increases, not a true spending cut. His Medicare plan looks more like a mere move away from the current, corporatist-socialist system to a more corporatist one. Ryan calls for NO cut in military spending; the opposite, in fact.
Those traits are not indicative of someone whose philosophy is "framed by reading the works of ... Ludwig von Mises ... and Friedrich Hayek." The Austrian School philosophers are generally anti-state, abolitionist, anti-war, laissez-faire (Hayek much less so than Mises). Paul Ryan is none of those.
The contradiction is Paul Ryan's, but it is up to the journalist to point out the true nature and extent of Ryan's contradiction. Otherwise, don't throw out the names Mises and Hayek when you have no idea how distinctly they differed from Friedman, Rand, Ryan, and even each other.
#5 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 8 Aug 2012 at 08:22 PM
Good piece by Lizza. In my opinion, however, he gives Ryan too much credit (if that's the right word) for pushing Bush and Rove to launch their all-out assault on Social Security after Bush's reelection in 2004. That ill-conceived turned into a debacle that contributed strongly to the Republicans' loss of Congress in 2006 after 12 years of control. But the effort was entirely engineered by Rove, who had been planning it for some time as the capstone of Republican efforts to create an "ownership Society." Ryan's support was not instrumental in the White House decision to go ahead with it.
#6 Posted by Eric Laursen, CJR on Thu 9 Aug 2012 at 08:14 AM
The litany of lies about senior issues from this author continues. She says:
"... Ryan’s... plan... would shift much of the responsibility for paying for healthcare from the government to seniors themselves."
Seniors already pay more than 50% of the cost of their healthcare. See the 2012 MedPAC Data Book (section 5 pegs the average senior's share at 37% but that chart does not count the $1200 in Part B monthly premiums paid annually by the seniors which -- with a few other minor items -- brings our share of our healthcare costs over 50% already).
Nothing in the Wyden-Ryan plan would make this situation any worse (and might make it better). Wyden-Ryan adds catastrophic care to Medicare Parts A/B and reduces co-[ays (potentially). On the other hand doctors are going to drop out of the Medicare program and costs for over 35% of seniors are going to skyrocket under current law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 as amended)
Why is the author tyring to lead the press on this assault on senior citizens by printing lie after lie after lie day after day after day?
#7 Posted by Dennis Byron, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 01:44 PM
Aaron
You write: "If you arbitrarily cap what the government contributes to the cost of a privatized Medicare insurance plan, you will spend only that much money on Medicare..."
But that is not what the Wyden-Ryan Medicare Reform Proposal or Ryan budget does, so what's your point.
You write:
" but if the privatization 'succeeds' (it would ) almost certainly (be) at a much greater cost than under the current program."
Where is your proof point for such a claim? The jury's still out on Medicare Part C since we have only about four years of results (and I think an honest debate is needed -- maybe there was one back in 2003? -- about why Part C beneficiaries should get more per capita than those on Medigap/retiree insurance/etc.). But so far Medicare is expending only 24% of its funds ont he 28% of beneficiciaries on Part C. That's good math.
#8 Posted by Dennis Byron, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 01:59 PM
"It’s unlikely Ryan suffered financial hardship growing up even though his father, a lawyer, died young, and his mother went back to school to become an interior designer . . . "
True, it is unlikely he suffered financial hardship. Per numerous sources, including http://ssworkswa.org/2011/03/14/social-security-helped-congressman-paul-ryan-when-his-father-died-unexpectedly/ he was able to save money for college, unlike many students today who cannot "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" enough to pay for college even with the help available from various government programs.
"Fortunately, Congressman Ryan could count on receiving Social Security survivor benefits. He collected payments until the age of 18, putting the money away for college. Using the Social Security checks he saved, Ryan enrolled in Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. As a student, he became an intern for Wisconsin Senator Bob Kasten."
#9 Posted by whatelse?, CJR on Fri 10 Aug 2012 at 03:32 PM
An article entitled "Nine Things You Should Probably Know About Paul Ryan" in The Village Voice on Aug. 12 more or less states: "In high school, Ryan's superlative was 'Biggest Brown-Noser' -- someone who has his or her head stuck so far up a boss's rear end that his or her nose is brown for obvious reasons."
#10 Posted by mark kay, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 06:31 AM
Was Ryan high on dope all the time like Obama was in high school?
I don't recall once seeing any article advising about things you should know about Obams...
Go figure!
#11 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 07:36 AM
That's kind of neat. So Paul Ryan, Ayn Rand, and Fredrick Hayek have the same ideas in common.
And what else do they have in common? They All used the government safety net they believe is immoral and makes people, other than them, lazy.
Aren't they charming.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 01:36 PM
Oh yeah, and from here:
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/making_more_money_is_groovy_an.php#comments
We find out Ryan's drinking buddy was the aptly named Clifford Asness.
According to them, social security is immoral, the nation can't afford to take care of the elderly, pass me the bottle of Pinor.
And Mitt Romney and Ryan are going to give these blood suckers more tax cuts.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 01:58 PM
Well, I think the Romney ticket has lost the nun vote:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/10/romneys_death_squad_ties_bain_launched
"We begin today with new scrutiny Republican candidate Mitt Romney is facing about his record at the private equity firm Bain Capital. The latest controversy surrounding Bain concerns how Romney helped found the company with investments from Central American elites linked to death squads in El Salvador. After initially struggling to find investors, Romney traveled to Miami in 1983 to win pledges of $9 million, 40% of Bain’s start up money. Some investors had extensive ties to the death squads responsible for the vast majority of the tens of thousands of deaths in El Salvador beginning during the 1980’s. The investors include the Salaverria family, whose former U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador, Robert White, has previously accused of directly funding the Salvadorian paramilitaries. In his memoir, former Bain executive Harry Strachan writes, "Romney pushed aside his own misgivings about the investors to accept their backing." Strachan writes, "These Latin American friends have loyally rolled over investments in succeeding funds, actively participated in Bain Capital’s May investor meetings and are still today one of the largest investor groups in Bain Capital.""
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/paul-ryan-foreign-policy-11644918
"More than one person has noticed that, for all his zombie-eyed granny-starving, young Mr. Ryan is something of a blank slate on the subject of foreign policy. No worries, though, because some veterans in that area have taken him in hand. The zombie-eyed granny-starver is meeting with the best friends of our onetime Central American subcontractors, the zombie-eyed nun-killers....
Back in the cowboy days when St. Ronnie winked at the rape and murder of American churchwomen in Central America — noted funnyman Al Haig suggested the four murdered nuns ran a roadblock, and radio comedian Laura Ingraham once told a reporter from the Times magazine that she was going down to stay "at the Four Dead Nuns Inn."
Yes, they're all sociopaths — besides being a co-conspirator, Abrams was the pre-eminent cheerleader for that policy, which included the murder, on the altar, during mass, of Archbishop Oscar Romero, a crime committed by men for whom Abrams was a conspicuous apologist. In that hilarious hometown fluffer in the Times today, we were told by the story's four authors that...
The Ryans are Catholic — Paul was an altar boy — which was "an important part of Paul's value system," Tobin Ryan said. "We were raised to develop our faith and beliefs independently." Mr. Ryan, more than his wife, Janna, often takes their three children to church, Mrs. Thorpe said.
Maybe, during a break at his next foreign-policy briefing, Paul Ryan, devout Catholic, can ask his primary foreign-policy mentor whether the guy's feelings about gunning down archbishops in the middle of mass have evolved over the years."
I'll bet those nuns were moochers and leeches, by the Ayn Rand definition.
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 03:27 PM
If crowd turnout is a valid metric... The selection of Ryan was a good decision.
He seems to be invigorating the conservatives who had a problem with Romney
#15 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 13 Aug 2012 at 04:09 PM
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/romneyryan-the-real-target/
"So, let me clarify what I believe is really going on in the choice of Paul Ryan as VP nominee. It is not about satisfying the conservative base, which was motivated anyway by Obama-hatred; it is not about refocusing on the issues, because R&R are both determined to avoid providing any of the crucial specifics about their plans. It is — as Jonathan Chait also seems to understand — about exploiting the gullibility and vanity of the news media, in much the same way that George W. Bush did in 2000.
Like Bush in 2000, Ryan has a completely undeserved reputation in the media as a bluff, honest guy, in Ryan’s case supplemented by a reputation as a serious policy wonk. None of this has any basis in reality; Ryan’s much-touted plan, far from being a real solution, relies crucially on stuff that is just pulled out of thin air — huge revenue increases from closing unspecified loopholes, huge spending cuts achieved in ways not mentioned...
So, a memo to the news media: you have now become players in this campaign, not just reporters. Mitt Romney isn’t seeking a debate on the issues; on the contrary, he’s betting that your gullibility and vanity will let him avoid a debate on the issues, including the issue of his own fitness for the presidency. I guess we’ll see if it works."
Sure worked in 2000 and 2004.
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 14 Aug 2012 at 11:37 AM