Worshipping at the altar of John Maynard Keyes, the President, David Axlerod, Joe Biden, and other members of the democratic machine have denounced Paul Ryan’s economic plan.
You see, for many years, Republican and Democratic administrations have run up an unsustainable debt by using their political power to buy votes with welfare spending, pork barrel projects, and earmarks. And let’s not forget incompetence. Some politicians are honest. But you know the old saying. Ninety nine percent of the politicians give the others a bad name. The honest ones (both of them) just can’t get the job done in the of corruption.
Now, something has to be done. We can’t put it off anymore.
For perspective, let’s review the President's path to economic prosperity.
The President’s plan to get out of debt is to borrow money from our economic enemies so he can spend money we don’t have on non-shovel ready projects that soak up more than they produce while costing taxpayers more of the money they don’t have supporting companies like Solyndra while they go bankrupt, forcing Americans to subsidize (with money they don’t have) electric cars that nobody wants and that cost taxpayers (with money they don’t have, or did I mention that) about a half a million dollars per car sold, and changing our dependence on foreign oil from the Middle East to dependence on rare earth metals needed for the car batteries for the cars that nobody wants, from our economic enemies in the Far East,……
And then…
And then…
And then leprechauns and unicorns will fall from the sky and make everything better.
And that’s all there is to it. The Obama Plan in a nutshell.
Ryan’s plan, in contrast, was conceived on this planet, in this dimension, where the normal rules of economics and human behavior apply.
You see, humans are not perfect. In spite of whatever altruistic ideals we may have, we look after ourselves, first and foremost.
Keynesian economics can’t work unless people can be trusted to be incorruptible. Since that isn’t possible, the increased size of government envisioned by John Maynard Keynes will always put people in a position of power where they can better their own situation without having to concern themselves with whether other people benefit. Oh, they may feel bad if other people don’t benefit, but it has no effect on their own lives.
In Paul Ryan’s market driven plan, people still look after themselves first and foremost, but this time, each person finds that their own wellbeing is tied up with helping others look after their own selves.
With a big government approach, a farmer can grow a particular crop because the government says he should, even if the demand is low for that crop, and said government will subsidize him to keep him business. And he doesn't’t have to worry about quality. All farmers will produce about the same crappy quality, since they will be paid the same whether anyone buys their product or not.
With a free market approach, the farmer has to grow a crop that people want to buy, and where the demand is high enough that the farmer can sell his crop for enough money to make his risk worthwhile, and he has to compete. He can compete based on having a lower price, better quality, more selection, a sexier TV commercial, or some combination of all of these.
You see, if the farmer doesn’t make other people’s lives better by growing a product that people want, at a quality they are willing to accept, and for a price they are willing to pay, then his life doesn’t get better. It gets worse.
Free market principles force prices down, and quality up, and pushes bad people out of business, sooner or later. Those people who like the Presidents approach are horrified that a Bernie Maddoff, or Enrons Ken Lay could be allowed to exist for even a second, much less prosper. But they went out of business. Maddoff is in jail, and Ken lay would have been if he had lived long enough. And they had victims. But corrupt politicians and government officials also have victims, and they are harder to get rid of than a bad businessman. You can’t eliminate corrupting this side of Heaven. What you can do is discourage corruption by choosing not to buy from corrupt individuals or companies.
Anyway, one of the democratic talking points is that Ryan wants to end Medicare as we know it. I have only one thing to say to that.
Well, duh.
Medicare is broken. It can’t be fixed. It can be prolonged by borrowing money we don’t have from (oh, you get the idea), but it can’t be fixed. It needs to be remade.
So, let’s dump all old people over a cliff, shall we?
I think not.
Ryan’s plan does prolong Medicare for everyone who is 55 or above. For those people, nothing will change. They will become eligible for Medicare upon attaining the age they were promised, and they will be covered with no regard to preexisting conditions, and they will be able to buy private insurance to cover what Medicare doesn’t (a medigap plan), just as they can now.
Repeat, under the Ryan Plan, nothing will change for anyone who is on Medicare, or anyone who is scheduled to go on Medicare in the next decade.
In case any liberals are reading, let me phrase that another way. Widdle bitty baby don’t need to cwy. Dat mean old nasty boogie man, Paul Ryan promises to weave oou awone.
For people under 55, there are no changes unless the individual wants a change.
They will have choice between going on traditional Medicare, or opting out of Medicare, and using government subsidies to purchase a plan from the private market.
So, in a nutshell, nothing changes for ANYONE over the next decade. Anyone fifty five and up will be able to stay on Medicare just the way it is, even if they live to be eleventy seven years old. (A little Dennis the Menace reference there.)
The idea, of course, is that the old version of Medicare will fade away, as more and more people start to take advantage of the private plans.
But, but, but, but Debbie Wasserman Schultz says that the Ryan Plan kicks poor people to the curb.
A side note. A question, really. If Debbie Wasserman Schultz ever told the truth, would the world really come to an end? Just wondering. Also, if we could just hook up a power generator to her jawbone, how many cities could we provide electricity to? (And did I just end a sentence with a preposition? That’s the sort of nonsense up with which I should not put.)
The Ryan Plans takes the money that the Federal Government is spending on Medicaid, and gives it to the states to add to their own Medicaid funds. These grants will be indexed for inflation and population growth.
So, the people managing the Medicaid money will the same ones who will have to live with the benefits and/or consequences of their decisions, instead of faceless Washington bureaucrats, so they will make better decisions.
Starting a decade from now, the age for Medicare eligibility will be pushed back two months per year, until it reaches (I can hear Debbie Wasserman Shultz screaming now) 67. Two whole years added to Medicare eligibility, starting a decade from now, and taking twelve more years to attain. How can Paul Ryan be so cruel? Oh, the inhumanity of it all.
A few other details.
The plan would include Tort reform, limiting punitive and non-economic damages. I’m not sure how much difference this will make, but it should have some effect on health care prices.
The plan reduces both mandatory and discretionary spending from 12 percent to 6 percent.
The plan reduces tax rates, but also eliminates many of the exemptions that many people (including me) use to reduce their tax liability. I mean, let’s face it. With all the current convoluted tax laws, nobody pays the top marginal rate. Or at least, very few people do. With lower rates, but fewer ways to game the system, revenue will increase. Not only will there be more economic activity, but there will be less cheating. It’s just a fact of life that the higher the taxes are, the harder people will look for ways to avoid paying them. With lower taxes, and fewer ways to game the system, people are more likely to feel that the financial reward of cheating is simply not worth the risk of getting caught.
Would you like a definition of The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)? Too bad. I’ll give you one anyway.
The CBO is that organization that liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, and libertarians refer with god-like reverence when they release figures that conforms to that persons predetermined beliefs, and that they dismiss as being puppets of the other side whenever their figures don’t agree with what someone has decided to believe, with no regard to facts.
I guess what I’m saying is, the CBO tries hard to be right, but they don’t have a crystal ball, and they are often wrong. They can’t predict major events like September 11, 2001, or the subprime mortgage meltdown, and when something like that happens, all of their previous calculations become moot, and decisions based on CBO figures won’t work out the way they predicted.
Nonetheless, here is what the CBO says about the Ryan Plan.
The CBO claimed that the Ryan Plan would balance the budget by 2030 and reduce the level of debt held by the public to 10% GDP by 2050, vs. 62% in 2010. The Path assumes revenue collection of 19% GDP after 2022, up from the current 15% GDP and closer to the historical average of 18.3% GDP. A grouping of spending categories called "Other Mandatory and Defense and Non-Defense Discretionary spending" would be reduced from 12% GDP in 2010 to 3.5% by 2050.
Folks, that’s about as good as it gets.
The Ryan Plan is not perfect, but it is firmly rooted in the free market principles that have proven to lower costs, and raise the quality of products and services. The alternative is based on principles that, however well intentioned, have been proven to run up costs, lower quality, and encourage corruption.
In November, you will get a chance to choose which set of principles you have the most confidence in.
Let’s all get together and see the movie “Throw Obama From the Train”.
