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)
It is really funny to watch conservatives turn themselves inside out to preserve opposing ideas within their ideology.
They have the idea that the United States of America is the greatest nation on Earth on the one hand (U S A , U S A, U S A ) and the idea that the United States government is a set of wasteful, corrupt, incompetents on the other hand – well, wasteful, corrupt and incompetent except for their guys.
But the government is born out of their revered Constitution and some of the things they seem to hate the most are the most clearly defined by the Constitution like the Census and the Postal Service. I wish they could think straight, of course then they wouldn’t be conservatives.
A large portion of the deficit mess was created by the Bush tax-cuts (that were extended by Obama) where the largest portion went to the wealthy. After ten years it adds up. We can do the same thing in reverse – a ten year program to reverse those ill-advised tax-cuts.
Social security does not need cuts for middle class and lower. There are simple ways to assure its security.
The Medicare and Medicaid programs are not the problem. Dramatically increasing health care prices are. And Medicare is doing a better job of controlling costs than private insurance. Ryan’s plan provides a fixed amount voucher to try and buy private insurance where the costs are rising faster than under Medicare.
The deficit, created by Conservatives, is now being used by Conservatives as an excuse to defund and destroy the social programs they have always hated.
myown, as long as Stockman is being put up as some sort of expert on budgetary matters it’s fair to examine his credibility. Neither he nor Reagan were given much credit by liberals 30 years ago but now, when he has turned on his own, he’s a genius.
By now Obama should have balanced the budget, cut defense spending, reduced the deficit and fixed Social Security, but he hasn’t. From reading the comments here you would think a Republican was President. Democrats don’t seem to be able to do much more than blame the Republicans for all our problems. You think they would have actually fixed something by now.
“the things they seem to hate the most are the most clearly defined by the Constitution like the Census and the Postal Service.”
Come on Knucklehead, do some homework once in a while. Neither the census nor the Postal Service are “clearly defined” in the Constitution. The Constitution only says there should be a census every ten years and that the Congress has the power to create Post Offices. You make statements that don’t make sense and aren’t even correct.
Forget trying to denigrate Stockman and tell us where his (and many others) analysis of Ryan’s budget is wrong. Oh, and what about all the details in Romney and Ryan’s plan for what tax credits and deductions they will eliminate to pay for the tax-cuts for the wealthy?
Yes, our economic problems were caused by Republicans. How quickly we forget Bush inherited a surplus and Cheney said “deficits don’t matter”. The Bush tax-cuts, two wars and a gift program to the drug companies created the deficit – all under Bush. And then came the financial crisis caused by the Republican/Rand obsession with deregulation and a fatal view that self-interest would prevent big banks from making bad decisions. Bam!! The Great Recession that we are still trying to recover from. And we would be much further along if we had a larger stimulus program. After recessions in prior Republican Presidencies government spending increased dramatically – helping to restore economic activity. This time around government spending has actually declined.
Given the constant Republican obstructionism and their stated priority of making Obama a one term President (regardless of the negative impact on the American people) is it any surprise we still have unresolved problems.
I don’t know if Paul Ryan is the new Ronald Reagan or the new Barry Goldwater but that title got me to thinking about 1964 and the speech Reagan made to the Republican convention. I read it again just now and I am astounded by the parallels between 1964 and 2012. So many of Reagan’s words are relevant still and have real meaning in the context of the upcoming election. If Paul Ryan proves to be the new Ronald Reagan we will be lucky indeed. For those who are interested:
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/reference/timechoosing.html
Larry, what I meant was that they were clearly prescribed.
So when will Republicans and conservatives, people like Larry, admit the simple truth that the administrations of Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 ran up enormous deficits and through the nation into a spiraling cycle of debt in which the cost of debt service takes up ever growing portions of the national budget?
It is a simple question with a simple answer. Will any conservative just admit it’s true.
Let me start. Deficits and the national debt have ballooned during the Obama administration.
Should have been “threw” above. I blame auto-correct and George Bush.
“You could simply confiscate all of the income of all of the ultra rich and it would not be enough.”
No, but it would be a good start.
Look, Mervel, just because it wouldn’t be a complete solution doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. And combined with serious cuts in military spending and increasing corporate taxes and cutting unnecessary corporate subsidies, it would go a very long way towards putting the nation back on a sound financial footing.
You know, it’s equally true that cutting aid to the poor wouldn’t solve our problems either, but that doesn’t stop conservatives from harping on the idea.
Well its easy to compare the deficit in 1970, 1980, 2000, 2008 and 2012.
Both parties have massively raised the deficit and both parties have held power during this period.
You can’t just blame one party. The Democrats had the chance to get rid of the “bush” tax cuts when they controlled all the seats of power and decided to keep them. They can no longer be called the bush tax cuts.
Certainly we can get our fiscal issues back in order but it will mean across the board cuts or broad based tax increases for all of these middle class entitlement programs. Yes Social Security can be put in order, it will take an increase in the tax or a decrease in the benefits. But considering that we already lowered the social security tax in the last three years without the political will to raise it back to even its pre recession rate, what are the odds that we will be able to do any of those hard things?
The odds are very low, you are looking at more long term gridlock regardless of who gets elected. Ryan’s plan/budget will never actually be implemented, there are far far too many Republicans for one who’s districts would rebel. Everyone is now part of the government handout system and everyone is going to have to give a little to make it work.
I have to say the one thing the President has said that has resonated with me recently has been that no business has created itself, we are all part of one system. Crappy education makes for crappy business development, crappy roads makes for bad economic growth and so forth. He was very correct about that and I know the Republicans jumped on that, but they are wrong. For me it is also true in a Spiritual sense I know Obama did not mean it that way, but maybe he did? We didn’t create ourselves, we didn’t decide our brain power or our families or our teachers or anything else, they were all given to us as gifts, certainly our gifts and efforts are not ours either.
“On the contrary, Paul, they’ve been pushing austerity just as we have.”
Walker, I was referring to tax policy in most European countries. They have the much higher income taxes that many democrats are saying is the ticket to prosperity.
“”You could simply confiscate all of the income of all of the ultra rich and it would not be enough.”
No, but it would be a good start.”
This is another lesson that we can look to Europe on. They are now calling London the “the 21st arrondissment (suburb) of Paris”. The reason is that many wealthy french have decided to leave Paris and move to London to avoid the higher income taxes.
Knucklehead, what you wrote was “clearly defined” and now you write that you really meant was “clearly prescribed.” You frequently change your meaning when someone calls you out.
Austerity is the only way to go whether it’s a household, business, or country.
There is no perfect plan but it is only common sense to see that robbing Peter to pay Paul is not working and will not work for our nation.
The wound is hemorrhaging and something has to be done now.
“Austerity” for all? or selected austerity?
Treat all income as equal and be done with it.
Capital gains is income. It should not matter if you work and get paid for your work or if you get paid for the work your money does for you.
Believe it or not, a tax break on capital gains is a form of social engineering the conservatives claim to be against. It is a loophole.
Mervel said: Everyone is now part of the government handout system and everyone is going to have to give a little to make it work.
Well said.
And if anyone balks at doing their part, it is indicative of the entitlement mentality we have fallen prey to. If not entitled, spoiled. Either way, results are the same.
America lacks true leaders with courage who are going to actually lead and not try to pacify all the crying toddlers in the room demanding their way.
Zeke, I’m beyond trying to define in terms of what is fair/unfair.
I had 8 kids and there’s times when someone “loses out” for the benefit of the whole. And sometimes, it appears as if US citizens have become a bunch of whining kids!
It’s apparent there are 2 visions for America. If we’re going to look back at history or the current state of Europe, let us be mature and intelligent enough to not point out those things that only support our view and/or affiliations so we can stay on our soapboxes.
Let’s find where we can agree and work together. It’s not about who is in power, it’s about preserving our nation. We must see beyond our team winning and think of future generations.
Pete Klein, your simplistic approach (“Treat all income as equal and be done with it.”) is based on unsound economic theory. All income is not equal and should not be taxed the same. There are many ways to resolve (or begin resolving) economic problems but confiscatory taxation and demonizing people with money won’t help. Neither will throwing good money after bad, as Democrats are wont to do. We have to stop throwing money at the poor; it doesn’t help them. If it did, poverty would be much less a problem today than it was in 1964 when Ronald Reagan first said exactly that.
A country’s economics are not anything like a household. With countries there is a time to borrow to stimulate the economy so households can prosper. And there is a time to reduce debts when the economy is humming. Unfortunately Republicans want to do the opposite in both situations, ignoring what we have learned from past economic disasters.
Again the current deficit was created by the Bush tax-cuts, two wars and a drug program, not spending on social programs. The deficit can be reduced by reversing the tax-cuts, ending the wars and cutting back on military spending. There is no need to cut social programs. Republicans are trying to blame spending on social programs for creating the deficit and it is just not true.
Besides, Ryan’s austerity is joke. Where is the shared sacrifice? While seniors, middle class and low income workers get the shaft the wealthy get tax-cuts.
Ryan is also extremely socially conservative, co sponsored a bill in the house trying to get the “personhood” idea passed into federal law. I would think once women are made more aware of his draconian ideas about their issues he will be even more of a liability on Romney.
Pete, Romney is trying to treat all income levels as being equal. He plans to cut taxes for all income levels including the lowest. He also has plans to close tax loopholes to make it possible. You could argue that this isn’t fair to the wealthy since they are more likely to take advantage of the loopholes (for example someone like Mitt Romney) but we have to pay for the tax cuts in some way if we want to keep them revenue neutral. Many here will argue that only government spending can improve the economy, but the truth is increased consumer spending is what is needed. This is a proposal that makes sense. This talk by the president’s campaign that the Romney plan increases taxes on the middle class is based on made up stuff. In other words it just ain’t true. But it is getting near the home stretch so you say what you gotta say. I agree that the administration appears to be scared and is acting desperate.
Paul – the “loopholes” are the mortgage deduction, the pre-tax health care deduction etc.
Its not “made up stuff”. Its the math. They dont say what “loopholes” they will close, but to make their tax-rates work, they have to close them all.
Just stop with this nonsense that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy. We have spent the last 40 years doing just that so the top income tax rate is now less than half what is used to be. According to Republican theory we ought to be in economic nirvana by now. But what did it produce – just big deficits.
And again, Romney and Ryan’s tax-cuts will increase the deficit unless they severely cut social programs and eliminate tax credits and deductions which they conveniently do not specify.
Zeke, what is President Obama’s specificity?
Wait, this is about Paul Ryan. We are told he is a policy wonk with a detailed plan. Except that when anyone looks at it there are not enough details for it to make sense. Just more snake oil that tax-cuts for the wealthy will deliver us economic nirvana while the rest of have to suffer austerity to pay for it.
Peter, The “made up stuff” I refer to is that the plan does not raise taxes on the middle class as the president claims. That is “made up”. Yes, many loopholes need to be plugged.
“Just stop with this nonsense that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy.” This is the claim being made by both parties. This isn’t a republican only idea. Getting capital into the markets is what is needed, there isn’t much argument there.
Paul, companies are famously sitting on vast hoards of cash.
” Many here will argue that only government spending can improve the economy, but the truth is increased consumer spending is what is needed.”
If the government would spend money on badly needed infrastructure construction, that would pump money directly into the hands of workers who would turn around and spend it on consumer goods. What part of this picture don’t you understand?
Kathy, the president offered a package that cut the deficit by 4 trillion dollars over ten years that yes did involve some revenue increases. It was more specific in nature than Congressman Ryan’s 2011 or 2012 budgets. How about we just go with “sequestration”?
Paul – its not the president claiming it. Its what the budget analyzers come up with. If you eliminate the loopholes and the go with the tax rates in Romney’s plan, the middle class pays a nominal lower tax rate, but a higher total tax amount. The very rich get lower tax totals.
Its probably not going to happen, but thats what they are proposing. They imply that only the loopholes for the rich will be effected but there arent enough of them to make the budget revenue neutral. If Romney wants a revenue neutral change to the tax code that doesnt blow out the deficit, and he wants the simple tax rates he mentions, then he has to get rid of the mortgage and health care deductions. No other way.
Romney’s defense was that one of the three authors was an official in the budget office during Democratic administrations, although the other two were officials in Republican administrations.
“What part of this picture don’t you understand?” I understand perfectly. The question is why would you want to go with such a circuitous route to getting money in the hands of consumers?
If you are a politician the reason you want to go this route is so that you can buy votes by doling out money to your supporters and special interest groups.
Walker, clearly the easiest way to “pump money directly into the hands of the consumers” is to do it by letting them keep more of the money they earn for working.
Paul – “Walker, clearly the easiest way to “pump money directly into the hands of the consumers” is to do it by letting them keep more of the money they earn for working.”
maybe what you mean is the easiest way to pump money into the consumer market is to give more money to consumers. But that can be done by letting them keep more tax money or extending unemployment benefits, or by hiring them to do some useful work like rebuilding the infrastructure or discovering a cure for cancer etc.
All of the above require borrowing money in the bond market to be repaid later when times are good.
Wrong again Larry. I usually mean what I say although like everyone I misspeak sometimes as I did above. If I make a mistake I try to be the first to correct it.
Sometimes I say things that are apparently too nuanced for some people to understand. That isn’t a problem of my writing but of other people’s ability to understand what is written.
This article gives you a good idea of the difficulty of getting money in the hands of consumers via government spending. This was last year so I hope by now they have finally spent most of the money they have received but maybe not.
This is a telling quote where they are trying to explain why they are sitting on so much unspent stimulus money:
“Public works takes time. There are valid reasons it takes time,” explains Maari Porter, Philadelphia’s Recovery Officer. “We had to identify providers in Philadelphia. It takes time to ramp up.”
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/17/news/economy/stimulus_bill/index.htm
I imagine that the “recovery officer” doesn’t want to give out the money too quickly or there will no longer be a need (or salary) for the “recovery officer”.
All this just seems inefficient to me.
“That isn’t a problem of my writing but of other people’s ability to understand what is written.”
I like this one! You are kidding right?
no need to be so cynical about the “recovery officer”.
A lot of the money went to states and local governments so they wouldnt have to fire so many public employees (teachers, police and firefighters). That kept a lot of money in the consumer market.
I’m sure you have noticed that the austerity plans involve laying off lots and lots of public employees. That both takes money directly out of the economy and boosts unemployment numbers. Cynically, the point might be to keep a lot of Republican politicians employed by tanking the economy and blaming it on Obama.
I think there were two issues, federal and state.
The state governments were the ones laying off public employees not the federal government.
For the federal government I don’t understand why we would lay off public employees, which is very harmful, and not simply trim back some benefits?
Its like no one is willing to give up a freaking dime, so a small amount of people have to suffer a lot. Why not trim social security by 5% across the board and medicare 5% across the board and not lay off anybody? In addition raise taxes 5%. I mean why not? What is the HUGE problem with those things? Its not like 5% is going to break anyone.
Mervel, 5% on Defense too?
You know what I would love to see?
Many of our leaders giving up something to set an example. That speaks volumes.
Full pension at 62 after 5 years of service? etc.
Walker, the picture I don’t understand (or like, for that matter) is the one where we all work for the government, pay confiscatory taxes, have the government involved in every aspect of our lives and have to rely on the government for everything. We can also surrender our freedom and our security while we’re at it and then the picture will be complete.
Larry, you mean like in the 1950s when the top income tax rate was 90%? And when contraception and abortion were illegal, as was interracial marriage? What do you figure? Have things gotten better or worse?
“…our leaders giving up something to set an example.”
I’m with you there Kathy!
I’m sick and tired of all the bash/tax-the-rich nonsense I read on these blogs. All the hate-the-rich rhetoric is nothing more than thinly disguised jealousy and advocacy for socialism. Sadly, we’re just about there now. Nearly 50% of Americans, most of them low and low-middle income earners, pay no Federal Income taxes at all. That means that the other 50% are paying the entire tab. Think about that for a minute: 50% of Americans are paying 100% of federal taxes. That’s a pretty neat divide; the “haves” pay for themselves AND they also pay for the “have-nots.” 50-50 seems fair in some respects so let’s stop trashing the so-called “rich” who are already paying all the bills. And by the way, all you Bush haters out there: if the Bush tax cuts expire, the percentage of Americans paying no tax will fall under 40%. How’s that for a guy who supposedly cared only about his wealthy friends?
Mervel said: “Why not trim social security by 5% across the board …”
Because we don’t need to. There is no crisis with social security. It is solvent. And it will stay solvent basically forever if the FICA tax is extended to all wages, not just those up to 100K or so as it is now.