Is Paul Ryan the new Ronald Reagan, or the new Barry Goldwater?
84 days to the 2012 election
Mitt Romney’s pick of conservative budget-meister Paul Ryan to be his VP running mate puts liberals and moderates in both political parties on notice.
If the Romney-Ryan team prevails, voters will have embraced a set of ideas and policies that would literally change America.
A week ago, it seemed like the contest was between two fairly temperate defenders of the post-World War 2 consensus about our politics and society.
Quibbles aside, we would be remain a capitalist democracy where the government accounts for about a fifth of the overall economy and plays a big role in all our lives.
Big social safety net programs would need reform and tweaking — a view that Romney and Barack Obama clearly share — but no one was questioning their purpose or their fundamental validity.
It’s telling that Romney and Obama came up with nearly identical solutions (Romneycare and Obamacare) to the health insurance crisis that faced them both during their time as executives.
But Paul Ryan is the intellectual architect of the conservative latest counter-reformation.
He has taken the conservative concept that government is an essentially corruptive force — inspiring laziness, dependency and corruption — and translated it into a sweeping budgetary proposal.
Budgets, as someone or other famously said, translate ideas and policy into action. This is where lofty ideas get their grit and muscle.
If voters do embrace this vision, it will be a tipping point as profound as 1980, when voters embraced Ronald Reagan’s vision of America.
“Government isn’t the solution,” Reagan argued. “Government is the problem.” When it comes to the social safety net (as opposed to, say, military spending) Ryan’s spending plan takes Reagan at his word.
But we live in a very different age from 1980. Income tax rates are already far lower. The conservative movement’s ideas are far better known in full than they were in those days. The country is more polarized.
It’s also true that far more people rely (apparently without qualm) on the government for some form of financial support, ranging from Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid to food stamps and rent support.
The danger for the GOP is that voters will instead react to Ryan’s nomination the way they reacted to Barry Goldwater’s right-of-center campaign in 1964.
Like Ryan today, Goldwater laid out explicitly how he would downsize government — he didn’t simply talk in broad bromides. Voters got a clear picture of his conservative vision and they rejected Goldwater overwhelmingly.
In the online magazine Politico, some GOP pundits are already speculating that the choice of Ryan could either save the Romney campaign, lifting it to a narrow win, or the VP pick could lead to a big defeat.
If enough Florida’s seniors, for example, decide that the Republican ticket is just too nerve-wracking — at a time when the economy has already been jittery enough — another big state could slip beyond reach.
A narrow Democratic victory in November could very plausibly turn into a 332-191 blow-out in the Electoral College. That could have all kinds of implications, affecting House races, and the contest for control of the US Senate.
So what’s the right metaphor here? Have Republicans opened the door to the future of their party, as they did in 1980? Or have they found a formula for election night disaster, as they did in 1964? Your comments welcome.
Tags: analysis, election12, politics
.png)
Worth noting that for all Ronald Reagan’s rhetoric, federal spending under his budgets increased nearly 70%. Paul Ryan, as a Congressman from a rural district (without an executive track record) articulates a purist’s vision, more along the lines of Barry Goldwater.
In picking Ryan as his #2, Romney faced something of a Hobson’s choice. Had he chosen anyone in the center or left from the GOP’s stable, he would have risked not only disenfranchising Tea Party activists on election day, but—quite likely—an open revolt at the convention in Tampa.
As a result, the Romney/Ryan ticket faces an impossible uphill battle to convince seniors, women, hispanics, moderates, the middle class, folks who have a low opinion of Congress (golly, have I left anyone out?) that the GOP’s narrow platform of a faster economic recovery (by going back to the deregulatory policies of the previous administration) and a more bellicose foreign policy will trump all other concerns combined.
This, while fighting a far more skilled and articulate incumbent. Republicans might be in for a hard Fall.
Brian said: “It’s also true that far more people rely (apparently without qualm) on the government for some form of financial support, ranging from Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid to food stamps and rent support.”
I hate chiming in on national horse-race posts, but Brian, could you supply some numbers on this? And how are you defining financial support? Awful lot of people on AFDC back then, as well as using GI Bill benefits, etc…. Would be good to clarify.
OA –
Here’s one data point from the Associated Press:
“The food stamp program has seen participation climb from 28 million at the start of the recession to 46 million today and has become a focus of fiscally conservative lawmakers critical of government spending.”
–Brian, NCPR
Ronald Reagan’s budget director David Stockman clearly has nothing but contempt for the Romney/Ryan budget plans: Paul Ryan’s Fairy-Tale Budget Plan (NY Times) There have to be a lot of old-line Republicans who are having trouble with the new Republican party.
Of course, there’s all that cash liberated by Citizen’s United– who know what effect that will have.
Brian, you said, “It’s also true that far more people rely (apparently without qualm) on the government for some form of financial support, ranging from Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid to food stamps and rent support.” You also could have added everyone who works for the government, including anyone who is an elected official, works for the states, the counties and local governments, and everyone in the military.
The numbers are huge. And let’s not forget that while private business is doing some hiring, helping to turn the economy around, it is government at all levels that is laying off and dragging the economy down and pushing the unemployment numbers up.
Ryan and Romney are living in a fantasy.
Thanks for the link to the Stockman article Walker. As an independent, social liberal, fiscal conservative I agree with Stockman’s assessment. The Ryan budget proposal smacks of Ayn Rand’s beliefs that greed is good and altruism is evil. I’m disappointed in Obama’s failure to back a single payer plan which would have been (IMO) the most fiscally responsible way to control health care costs plus his failure to break up the big banks and restore Glass-Siegal but I’d much rather have 4 more years of Obama than these clowns and, as Stockman calls it, their “crony capitalism”. Sadly, with enough advertising dollars you can sell almost anything to gullible Americans these days so who knows, they might actually win.
“Ronald Reagan’s budget director David Stockman clearly has nothing but contempt for the Romney/Ryan budget plans: Paul Ryan’s Fairy-Tale Budget Plan (NY Times) There have to be a lot of old-line Republicans who are having trouble with the new Republican party.”
And here is what Erskin Bowels, President Clinton’s chief of staff said about Ryan and these ideas in 2011:
“Bowles told the audience “this guy is amazing.”
“I always thought I was okay with arithmetic. This guy can run circles around me, and he is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere,” Bowles said. “And the budget he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, honest, serious budget.”
Then this year he said this:
“But in a March 29, 2012, PBS interview, Bowles said that Ryan’s plan to offer government payments to buy private insurance should nevertheless remain an “option” going forward. He even said “you would want to consider” a newer version of the Ryan plan that lets people keep traditional Medicare as an alternative.”
And President Obama weighed in in 2010:
“In 2010, Obama said at a Republican retreat that Ryan had “made a serious proposal” with his budget. Obama criticized the idea of giving “vouchers” for Medicare, but acknowledged the need to address the deficit spending that Medicare and Medicaid fuel.”
Following this Ryan drafted a new proposal that would give folks a choice between government subsidized private insurance (voucher idea) and traditional medicare.
I think people are too hyper focused on political spin to even consider trying to come up with real solutions to real problems.
If this VP choice starts a real conversation about what kinds of things we need to do moving forward then good. Even if that means that we are stuck with 4 more years of gridlock and accomplishing nothing under a second term for president Obama.
Is Paul Ryan the new Ronald Reagan, or the new Barry Goldwater?
Everyone seems to be quickly trying to define Ryan.
He will define himself. I don’t think he is the bashful type.
I’m sorry, but I can’t take serious ANY budget plan, or any politician/candidate for that matter, that completely ignores the largest dept. of our federal gov’t that is just as responsible for digging our fiscal ditch as SS and Medicare/caid. That being of course the dept. that no one dares question. The dept. controlled by the military/industrial/congressional complex we call the Pentagon….
Instead our new potential VP choice, like his potential boss, wants to INCREASE that depts. budget. This supposed fiscal brain child also voted for TARP, Bush II’s Medicare Drug plan, and the Iraq war while at the same time voting for both of Bush II’s tax cuts. He also advocates for the elimination of the Capital Gains tax. This guy is one of the politicians who’s exacerbated our fiscal problems not solved them.
“He also advocates for the elimination of the Capital Gains tax.” He advocates for the elimination of capital gains taxes on individuals who make and income of 200K or less. This is basically an economic stimulus plan aimed specifically at job creating entities. It is a very good idea. Clapton, besides why would you want the government to have this money anyway, you know they will just spend it on the military/industrial/…, whatever you called it?
If people understand his medicare proposal, they wont like it. Yes it gets the government out from under increases in health care costs for the elderly, but not by reducing health care costs. Rather it pushes the risk of health care inflation onto the fixed income elderly. That is good for the deficit, good for the very young who wont have to pay for their parents health care so much via taxes, but…. its going to make it harder for the middle class retirees to make ends meet.
He would do more people a serious favor if he (Ryan – or Romney) could come up with a credible plan for reducing health care costs that isnt simply cutting people off access.
Peter, I partially agree. What we need is a plan that cuts off access to people who don’t need it (people like Mitt Romney and President Obama and lots of other people don’t need medicare or social security). At the same time we need to increase benefits for those that do need it. Both can be done without increasing anyone’s taxes and hurting the economy.
I like the idea of a zero capital gains tax for a certain income level. But 100K rather than 200K because it might encourage middle income individual to save more.
As for whether Paul Ryan is the new Reagan or Goldwater? I’ve read about Reagan and Goldwater. Ryan is no Reagan and he is no Goldwater.
PNElba, that might be a good idea. But I think that it may be folks in this slightly higher tier that are more willing to take the plunge and cash in their investments to start a small business. With a gains tax cut you have about 20% more capital to work with. That is the kind of activity I think we need to encourage. If you set the bar too low you risk having the change only cover individuals that do not have many investments to cash in. The idea would be to maximize the flow of capital into the economy without giving a tax benefit to an individual that is less likely to do anything with it (setting the bar too high). The other proposal that I like being floated by Romney is one for closing many of the tax loophole that currently exist in the tax code, like the ones that Romney himself is using currently.
Paul – thats the theory. But if people instead buy a bigger yacht? On the other hand, middle class people under 100K (or 200K) are going to leave that money in their 401K’s where it will go into the stock market for investment.
I get the impression that conservatives think everyone wants to start a small business. I’m happy just saving for my retirement by investing in the stock market and I wouldn’t mind some tax relief on the earnings to encourage me to save more. Folks in the higher tier can just take their income over 100K and use it to start their durn small business. If they don’t have enough savings to invest in a small business, they can take Mitt Romney’s advice. Borrow from their parents.
The overwhelming majority of capital gains are generated by the wealthy. Cap gains are not a significant portion of income for those under $200,000 income so lowering the rate is not likely to produce much of anything significant job wise. People under $100,000 would benefit greatly from having no taxes on interest, dividends and cap gains.
Taxes on cap gains have been dramatically lowered the past 30 years under the Republican philosophy that lowering taxes creates jobs. So how did that work out? Oh yea, a trillion dollar deficit and high unemployment.
It is unreal that there is still a portion of the American public that takes the bait every time Republicans offer more of their failed economic policies.
It is absurd to think that lowering taxes on the wealthy will create jobs and there is absolutely no data to support that notion. If you want to use tax policy to create jobs, give a tax credit when someone actually creates a job.
Ryan’s problem is that he is too honest. He proposed a specific solution that many may agree with and many may really disagree with, but he put himself out there. Medicare can’t and won’t survive as is and neither will our other large government programs, what we have today is unsustainable. So what are the plans to save it? Ryan has a plan, I don’t agree with it, but he has a plan.
It would be much safer just to demagoge the issue, something we all complain about but when someone actually does put forward specifics they get creamed.
There is nothing inherently wrong with using block grants to fund Medicare it is not destroying medicare. I don’t see this huge re-ordering of society that is being spoken of here.
What did happen when voters embraced Reagan in 1980? Nothing changed is what happened, we spent more than ever and grew the debt. I doubt much will change with a vote for Romney either, it certainly is not some sort of tipping point in the US. That is just over the top language.
The underlying forces that are currently shaping our economy, our culture and our domestic policies are not going to change regardless of who we elect to be President. The only thing that could possibly change is our war making policies, that is where we should be asking questions.
Ryan’s problem is that he is too honest.
You might partially convince me of that if only Ryan would explain what tax deductions he is going to take away from me to pay for my income tax cut. Or does he believe tax cuts pay for themselves? Oh yeah, he might also point that his budget actually increases future deficits. That would be honest.
The danger for the GOP is that voters will instead react to Ryan’s nomination the way they reacted to Barry Goldwater’s right-of-center campaign in 1964.
and
Voters got a clear picture of his conservative vision and they rejected Goldwater overwhelmingly.
As the article stated, “we live in a very different age than 1980″… we live in a very different age than 1964.
Ryan believes that his budget works based on some of the things you mentioned PNE. I don’t happen to agree with him, cutting taxes is going to increase the deficit, I think his budget is out of whack on a number of different items. But at least it is a detailed plan. What I meant by honest was it is in black and white and we can all read it, we may disagree on the impacts or the assumptions but at least he is going for it.
I don’t see any real plan from the other side, including the tea party types and the democrats, its all just about arguing and scoring points. But what it really is about is letting things slide on as they are. Now I happen to believe that things will end up sliding on as they are now. Forces are at play that are larger than our ability to control what happens based on political decisions, we are mainly going to be re-acting at this point in my opinion. We live in a global economy which we do not control.
Perhaps the Democrats and Liberals are very nervous. If so, this is about power and not sensibility.
Do the math.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwv5EbxXSmE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJIC7kEq6kw&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Aewj_IndN4&feature=relmfu
Paul Ryan is brilliant. It’s refreshing to hear someone who only has a plan, but is articulate and cuts through the continual regurgitation of political talk. He and Romney give off vibes – leadership, patriotism, and truly caring for their constituents. I don’t get that with Obama/Biden.
I think seniors are going to see the sensibility of Romney and Ryan’s vision. After all, that generation knows how to do without and make sacrifices.
We’re all going to have to work together to save our country.
Taxing the very wealthy or not is a social point not an economic point, there are not enough of the wealthy to make a big difference. What we need to do is look at raising taxes on the upper middle and middle class or reducing benefits to the middle class and lower incomes. Those are the choices.
The Ryan budget in general chooses to reduce benefits, the other choice is to raise taxes on most of people in the US.
My choice would be to increase taxes marginally on most Americans, massively slash the defense budget and transfer that money to infrastructure and fully reform the health care industry to radically reduce its costs to equal other developed nations.
Part C of my plan I have no idea how to do, but it can be done we know that from Canada, France and Great Brittan and Costa Rica for that matter. I think we can figure it out.
Additionally, Romney/Ryan have a plan to preserve Medicare.
Obama cut Medicare 700 billion and what is his plan? For Medicare to eventually phase out completely?
Taxing the very wealthy or not is a social point not an economic point, there are not enough of the wealthy to make a big difference.
Mervel, you bring up a great point.
I listened to an interview yesterday or today pointing out that many, many in the middle class have not been paying taxes in the first place. I don’t know the percentage but I know we have gotten back almost everything (if not all) that we had deducted from weekly paychecks for many, many years.
Mervel,
How can Ryan’s plan be detailed if you don’t know how he is going to pay for his tax cuts?
You want a real honest, courageous, budget plan? Try this one:
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/
And yes, it raises taxes on everyone.
Romney/Ryan have a plan to voucherize Medicare. Ryan’s budget takes out $700 billion dollars from Medicare to give tax cuts to the rich. Obama proposes to slow the growth of Medicare and reinvest the savings in more healthcare.
Im tired of that “Obama cut Medicare 700 billion” . He moved some medicare money to “obamacare”. Thats not the same as “cutting medicare”. The money was from the medicare advantage subsidies to private insurers and from some hospital subsidies that supposedly wouldnt be needed under Obamacare because I presume the money comes in from a different place.
Thats very very different from Ryan’s proposal to cut medicare benefits for seniors, or to repeal Obamacare, but not put back the 700 billion.
While everyone debates Paul Ryan’s merits as a budgeteer we shouldn’t forget that the underlying fiscal problems that we have to deal with were created in large measure by a long-term far-right plan to drive the nation into severe financial crisis so that we would be forced to cut the size of government, except of course the military which needs more and more and more.
Enough with this mindless defending of Ryan’s budget as a serious plan with detail. Every article I have read says both Ryan’s and Romney’s budget are shams. They cut taxes for the wealthy and increase defense spending. Neither specify what tax credits or deductions they want to eliminate. Both will seriously cut social programs for low-income workers. Show me the details of how Ryan pays for his tax cuts for the wealthy.
Don’t take my word for it that Ryan’s budget is a joke, here Reagan’s Budget Director, David Stockton, who says, “Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html?_r=1
“It is absurd to think that lowering taxes on the wealthy will create jobs and there is absolutely no data to support that notion. If you want to use tax policy to create jobs, give a tax credit when someone actually creates a job.
I am not talking about the wealthy. But yes this is good idea as well. You can have a break on capital gains as long as you invest the money in job creation. But I guess that is any spending really. If use the extra money to renovate your house for example that creates work for a whole score of people. The alternative is give the money to the government (not to your local contractor) and hope they don’t squander it. They don’t have much of a record in that regard.
That is why I think this VP pick may be a good one. It allows folks to choose which entity can do more with our money. In this case the local contractor that I described, along with the roofer, and the guy who runs the hardware store… or that military/industrial/congressional.. thing that Clapton described above?
I don’t see any politician saying they are going to do what is needed, including Obama. I mean we can’t even get anyone to agree to raise the Social Security Tax back to where it was everyone KNOWS that with the current social security tax cut in place social security really is doomed.
Yet no one is talking about raising that tax back up to where it has been for many many decades. That is the minimum that must be done. If we can’t do that what are the chances we can ever raise taxes or cut benefits enough to actually secure the future of social security.
The same goes for medicare, no one is even really allowed to talk about cutting medicare, which must be done. The way you cut medicare is tell the US health industry and the drug industry, this is what you get, live with it.
Ryan is not the sensible policy wonk that the press is desperate to make him out to be. He is a far right ideologue that has a voting record as far out as Michelle Bachman. He is infected with Ayn Rand’s culture of the individual that led her to celebrate a psychopathic serial killer as the ideal hero who does what he wants without regard for others. See if you can stomach this philosophy:
http://exiledonline.com/paul-ryans-guru-ayn-rand-worshipped-a-serial-killer-who-kidnapped-and-dismembered-little-girls/
You guys crack me up. One one side as you say people are making him out to be a policy wonk, but the Left is just as desperate to make him out to be a “far right ideologue” .
Its just more packaging. I remember in the early 70’s everyone was a fascist or a commie.
The reality is the guy is pretty conservative politician who is not that far out of the mainstream in most of the US, maybe a little, but not that much.
The Bush tax-cuts were not paid for. Most of the tax-cuts went to the wealthy. We had to borrow to pay for the tax-cuts which is one of the biggest reasons we now have a large deficit. In other words, we borrowed money for tax-cuts that primarily benefitted the rich.
Now, the Ryan and Romney plans have the middle and lower class paying off deficit. Essentially they want the middle and lower class to pay back the money that was borrowed for tax cuts for the wealthy.
David Stockman is a borderline nut job who once said of the Federal budget (while he was Director of it), “None of us really understands what’s going on with all these numbers.” Additionally, he has been spectacularly unsuccessful in several Wall Street business ventures, at least one of which ended up with him under indictment. I wouldn’t take him too seriously. He’s been maligning the Republican Party for almost 30 years, ever since he “left” the Reagan administration.
“Erskin Bowels”
“Glass-Siegal”
“David Stockton”
“Michelle Bachman”
“Great Brittan”
Really? If you’re going repeat superficial banalities you should at least spell the names correctly.
Paul writes: “The alternative is give the money to the government (not to your local contractor) and hope they don’t squander it.”
How does the government squander money without creating jobs, Paul? I mean other than giving no-bid contracts to military contractors with close ties to certain recently departed administrations? Or massive tax cuts for those people and corporations that don’t need it.
That is why I think this VP pick may be a good one. It allows folks to choose which entity can do more with our money. In this case the local contractor that I described, along with the roofer, and the guy who runs the hardware store… or that military/industrial/congressional..
Yes, vote Republican and, if we get the Ryan budget, the defense department will get more money and the middle class/working poor will get less. Almost every analysis of the Ryan budget says this.
As for David Stockman, I can remember the days Republicans/Conservatives thought the guy and his napkin walked on water.
How does the government squander money? Let me count the ways…
And the typical conservative response is to attack the messenger (Stockman) rather than the points he made.
There are plenty of other experts who have looked at Ryan’s and Romney’s economic plans and found them lacking in specifics for the cuts they would make (other than tax-cuts for the wealthy). And the only way to pay for their plan to reduce the deficit is to seriously wack the middle class and low-income workers.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/matt-miller-the-talented-mr-ryan/2012/08/12/1afaaaa2-e4ad-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/deconstructing-paul-ryan-ideologue-of-the-rich-2012-08-14?siteid=rss&rss=1
Ryan is not in the mainstream. This article says, “…Mr. Ryan is the most conservative Republican member of Congress to be picked for the vice-presidential slot since at least 1900. He is also more conservative than any Democratic nominee was liberal, meaning that he is the furthest from the center.”
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/a-risky-rationale-behind-romneys-choice-of-ryan/
He economic plan would reduce US government to austerity levels (except for defense spending of course) that will rival the wrong-headed policy Europe is following which has only made things worse, including riots over the failure of austerity.
This pick has certainly energized some at the in-box. Impressive. Should make for an exciting election run up.
Myown, Europe should not be having problems, in the recent past they have implemented all the tax policies that someone like Paul Ryan thinks are a bad idea and many here support.
On the contrary, Paul, they’ve been pushing austerity just as we have.
We do need higher tax rates. But once again the way to finance our government is going to have to come from the upper middle class and middle class. You could simply confiscate all of the income of all of the ultra rich and it would not be enough. It is a fairness and social issue to tax them or not tax them, its not a policy issue. The rich do not hold the key to our future, in some ways we give them too much credit and power, “if we just taxed the rich and if the rich would just act right our countries problems would be solved”.
We need broad based changes and some cuts (not huge) but some cuts to our middle class entitlement programs, Medicare, Social Security and Defense spending. Defense spending is essentially a middle class program. Sure some of the CEO’s get paid a lot, however there are hundreds of thousands of engineers, scientists, mechanics and machinsts etc, who design and make all of these advanced and not so advanced weapon systems, not to mention all of the soldiers and officers who would lose their jobs with a major defense cut back.
I do agree that Ryan is a very conservative choice, I just don’t think he is some sort of right wing maniac, which is how he will be portrayed. I don’t think it will stick to him though. We will see.
Paul is right look at the energy already!
Ryan’s 2010 budget was draconian. His revised budgets of 2011 and 2012 were so lacking in specificity that it is impossible to tell what the outcome would be.