Ryan Budget Would Reshape Medicare, Medicaid & Tax Code

Republican Vice Presidential candidate, current House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., introduces his controversial “Path to Prosperity” budget recommendations, on Capitol Hill in Washington in 2011. (AP)

The flashpoint of the moment in the presidential campaign is who cuts Medicare more: President Obama, Mitt Romney or his vice presidential pick, Congressman Paul Ryan.

The Obama campaign says Ryan, in his latest budget proposal, would “end Medicare as we know it” by turning Medicare into a voucher program where seniors would receive a capped amount of money and if their health care costs more, they’d have to pay out of pocket.

In response, the Romney campaign is turning the tables, going on the offense, saying it’s President Obama who is cutting $700 billion dollars from Medicare and current beneficiaries to pay for health care reform that has come to be known as Obamacare.

But the Ryan budget actually includes those same $700 billion dollars in Medicare cuts that Ryan is slamming Obama for, and Mitt Romney has vowed to restore that money.

David Lauter, Washington bureau chief for The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune writes that Ryan’s proposed budget “would reshape American government, achieving long-sought conservative goals and reversing an 80-year path of larger, more expensive federal programs.”

ABC News: Paul Ryan’s Budget Plan Could Raise Middle Class Taxes
The Hill: Ryan Criticizes Obama On Medicare
Paul Ryan’s Budget Plan
Los Angeles Times: A Closer Look At Paul Ryan’s Budget Plan

Guest:

David Lauter, Washington bureau chief for The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune

We welcome comments from all of our listeners. Post below. Please stay on topic and be civil. Comments may be moderated by us, but you are solely responsible for the content of your comments.

WorriedfortheCountry

How about a little balance in the reporting please?
- Edtenny
  
  Apparently that means ‘something that I agree with.” The report on the Ryan Budget Plan, which I coincidentally just finally read last night, was objective and unbiased. If you don’t think so, I suggest you read the plan yourself.
  - WorriedfortheCountry
    
    Did you read the preamble where they admit to not having enough information to do the analysis?
    
    Everything after the pre-amble is speculation and fiction. What is amazing is Obama is using this fiction as his PRIMARY attack against Romney (after he stops going after dogs, felony tax charges and killing a man’s wife with cancer).
    - Buck Deaver
      
      I read the Ryan Budget Plan itself, not analyses of it by others. The guiding principles and choices are clearly laid out there. I give Ryan credit for being willing to articulate specific ideas and values but I disagree with all of his, at least in that document. But I also think that Ayn Rand, whom yes, I have actually read, is a sophomoric fool, so I guess Mr. Ryan and I probably wouldn’t agree on much.
- Nevar
  
  NPR is one of the most balanced news outlets you will find. Anywhere. They aren’t going to cover every single conservative talking point that you want to hear, and the speakers they invite may not say things you like, but honestly, 90% of the time they present competent speakers from many sides of an issue and let them speak without interrupting or trying to make them look foolish – even if they are foolish. Do they present a “liberal” perspective some of the time? I don’t know, define liberal if you can. I doubt that you can do so in a coherent manner. I have yet to find someone who can actually define “liberal.” People often confuse “skeptical” or “rational” as liberal. When I get into discussions with my dad about politics, literally the second I ask my first “Why?” he jumps down my throat and discounts me as just one of those biased “liberals.” So be specific about how it wasn’t balanced, or else go to Fox News or CNN and complain about fair and balanced they aren’t.
WorriedfortheCountry

The tax policy center study that the left and Obama’s team uses to vilify Romney and Ryan has been thoroughly debunked for making up assumptions. The TPC isn’t dishonest. They admit they are making things up in their pre-amble and then go on to MAKE UP assumptions.

Monday’s WSJ took apart their conclusions about the ‘potential’ math of Romney’s tax plan:
“The AEI analysis warns that these numbers change from year to year, but
it concludes that by eliminating these two deductions and a few other
smaller ones, Mr. Romney can make his math add up. In other words, poof,
no tax hike on the middle class.”

Maybe the AEI analysis is wrong but the LA times reporter should report both sides instead of relating the TPC report as FACT.
- WorriedfortheCountry
  
  You can read the entire WSJ analysis here and decide for yourself if Obama should be using the TPC ‘made up’ analysis as the entire basis of his attack.
  
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443404004577581570978359112.html?mod=opinion_newsreel
  - Ericaashe
    
    Why do you think they aren’t specifying which deductions they are cutting in this plan? Considering the past trends and who will benefit, which seems more likely? And why wouldvthis remain undetermined? Hmmm. Does it really seem more likely that the republicans will increase benefits for the middle class, since billions in campaign contributions come from the wealthiest individuals. Really? Who is paying for this campaign and who is runnig? Let’s look at history and logic here. The only reason there is speculation is because the right is still hoping I deceive their ignorant supporters in the middle class so there is a chance that Romney gets elected. Otherwise, there is no need for any speculation. Read the wsj article again. This analysis is also “made up,” in your words. Romney won’t answer questions on his politics, nor will Ryan, because if they do get to specifics, the middle class will have to find out that they will be screwed if this pair is elected.
    - WorriedfortheCountry
      
      Romney and Ryan have offered a framework for tax reform. It is similar to the tax reform offered by Simpson-Bowles.
      
      The goal of the framework is to simplify the tax code to stimulate the economy. Frankly, the reform of the corporate will be more impact-full.
      
      They have also promised that the tax reform will be revenue-neutral — the primary difference with Simpson-Bowles which does raise a small amount of additional revenue.
      
      They have also promised that the top earners will have the same tax burden that they have now. Therefore, it isn’t a ‘tax cut on the rich’.
      
      There are many ways to achieve this framework. They have promised public hearings through the ways and means committee to get bi-partisan agreement on which loopholes are closed.
      
      The only way to solve our debt and deficit issues is to grow the economy. This plan (along with the proposed regulatory reform) seems like a reasonable solution.
      
      Mr. Obama offers tax increases for those making more than $250K. I don’t know one honest economist who claims this creates one job. It also covers less than one week of deficit spending so it really doesn’t do much for that problem either.
      
      I don’t see how growing the economy and creating 12M new jobs hurts the middle class.
      
      I believe we should hold President Romney accountable to his promises just as we should hold President Obama to his promises. Mr. Obama promised to cut out waste and abuse in the federal budget — line by line. He hasn’t passed a budget in 4 years. He promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. The deficit hasn’t gone down. He doesn’t have a budget than anyone in his own party will vote for.
      
      Once you get beyond the political bickering, this really isn’t a hard choice and I believe that the dirty methods the Obama campaign and Mr. Axelrod are using proves that they understand it isn’t a hard choice.
- Marty B
  
  Bravo…you saved me from having to write the same comments. Robin was hell bent to get the part out about higher taxes for the poor, benefits for the rich, slashing social programs and more funding for the military. Phewww…she was almost out of breath.
  Thank you!
Bhpalmer

Man O Man … YOu folks at NPR are so in the Repulican Camp I cannot believe it !!
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DPKS3HUGQBPILPIU7IVZSHGXLI Robert_N

Last I checked, most of the industrialized world had a graduated tax system, based on ability to pay, for a reason. It’s at least partly out of recognition that the wealthy have often benefited most from the national infrastructures (physical and otherwise), and that a healthy middle class helps everyone economically through the sheer purchasing power of the masses. Ryan’s leaning seems to be more failed “trickle down”. Romney might have a relatively reasonable plan compared to Ryan’s tendencies, but I’m not sure that has been sufficiently threshed out.
ockitaris

Tired of the spectrum of debate on the media. Which goes from right of center to the far right. The media is extremely fearful of tackling the true problem in America.    The militarism the military and secrete services.      Both congress and the president are afraid of both the military and the secrete services and they get the budget allotments they demand.      The powers that be found that the military and military spending was a quick antidote to the poison of the depression.     Both employing much of the former rural people in the actual military and the building of the military industries.   �
       Then because the government keeps secretes from the voting public as to who it is serving and the truth as to why we need such a big military we vote in the dark.      Having a military juggernaut benefits the wealthy so they maintain the moribund policy by controlling the media keeping leftist’s ideas from the public.�
   Our greatest loss will be our agriculture base.    The powers that be encouraged the total mechanization of agriculture turning agriculture into agribusiness.    We see down side of this food production policy this in the loss of top soil in the mid west the diet of America and now with the drought the soil is as hard as concrete, little organic matter in it, not holding moisture. Our farming method are short sited. �
So far every stable nation’s social structure has been shaped like a pyramid most of the people in agriculture.    Our country is becoming more unstable we see this with the introduction of home land security because the cost of living continues to rise and wages decreasing.    With agribusiness each food calorie costs 11 fossil fuel calories. Diesel fuel is $4 a gallon.    Most of the fossil fuel used in agribusiness is to spread poisons chemicals on the crops. �
   Both political parties pander to the military but we and the rest of the world cannot afford it. �
      We must seriously think about our country’s priorities in the media may be you could lead the way.
Anderserik

I am a regular listener to npr and i have to say your lefty bias has gone over the top. I listened to 2 pieces today one on voter id and the other on the Ryan budget. You did not offer anyone to support the other position on either piece. Your mistaken assumption thrat only liberal( lefty) people have any intelligence is sorely mistaken. Do not be surprised when you are de-funded you deserve it.
- Someguy
  
  If by “intelligence” you mean “the ability to notice actual drains on the economy as opposed to the pittance NPR, NASA, and other right-wing bugaboos get versus military and subsidies to already profitable sectors,” then that’s hardly a mistaken assumption.
  
  And I note that all of the defenders of Ryan/Romney aren’t pointing out where the analysis is incorrect or not based on what they said.
  
  It’s also telling that the GOP never wants to acknowledge that taxes have been dropping for the rich for over 40 years, yet there’s no resulting increase in jobs and real wages. The GOP even filibustered an attempt to rescind tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas recently. This also accompanies the Republicans crying “it’s all about jobs, it’s all about jobs!” and then trying to restrict birth control and impose other religious baloney on everyone.
  - WorriedfortheCountry
    
    Don’t ask me to defend the GOP but please tell me how raising taxes on the rich will create jobs and increase my wage?
    
    The top 10% ($400K+) of earners pay 70% of all federal income taxes yet only earn 42% of the income.
    
    Do you want them to pay 80% of the income taxes? 90%? 100%?
    - Buck Deaver
      
      I haven’t seen anybody suggest that increasing taxes on the wealthy so something like they were before Bush would “create jobs and increase your wage.” Not the point. But it could certainly help us balance our budgets, improve our ability to fund key programs, and at maintain at least the appearance of equity and fairness. The tax system now is a paragon of greed and selfishness.
      - WorriedfortheCountry
        
        Mr. Obama’s proposal would cover less than 1 week of deficit spending at the current spending levels.
        
        The CBO claims that his tax hike will cost thousands of jobs.
    - Thinkin5
      
      It just might be that taxes going up or down have little to do with job creation. Maybe some deeper thinking and analysis of where & why jobs are created would be more helpful and less of an ideological fight.
    - Nevar
      
      If you had read about Romney’s budget, you would know that non-partisan economists unanimously agree that it would be mathematically impossibly for Romney to meet his own stated targets with his stated tax cuts and program cuts. Where is the money going to come from?
      
      I don’t know whether Obama or anyone in the administration has stated that taxing the wealthy is supposed to create jobs. That’s neither here nor there. The fact is that Romney is not being sincere about what is necessary and what he’s willing to do to reign in federal spending. He says he’s going to cut taxes, but the only way his plan will be able to do it is basically by raising taxes on the middle class. Obama is at least being up front about how revenue needs to increase. The fact is that revenue needs to increase in conjunction with program cuts.
      
      Also, there are lots of reasons why jobs are stagnant. Part of the problem is employers are forcing workers to work faster to make up for fewer workers. It’s called workplace speedup. Have you noticed? I have. I’m now doing the job of 2 people. Corporate profits have recovered. Jobs have not.
Bishop-713

The problem comes down to a simple fact. Ryan’s budget cuts plus Romney’s proposed tax cuts does minimal change to the actual budget deficit. 20% cut from ind marg tax rate, 25% cut from corp tax rate, and a total repeal of amt amounts to a loss of billions of dollars in tax revenue. Look the GDP to National debt post WW2 high was 117% in 1947. The Low was 52% in 1980. We had our first major tax cut in 1981. By the 90′s it was back to over 70%. This happened because we the people allowed the Federal Gov. to cut its revenue with out coming up with a plan to live with its new lower income. So how about both sides quit trying to sell us brooklyn bridge and we the people accept the fact that the actual solutions are things that are neccesary no matter how much we hate them.