When President Obama met with House Republican leaders he noted that Rep. Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, had put forward a “serious proposal” for controlling federal spending and balancing the federal budget. Rep. Ryan has also supported an alternative approach to health care reform, the “Patients Choice Act.” Unlike some (many?) Republicans, Rep. Ryan wants the GOP to be more than the “party of no” and wants to put forward a serious, principled policy agenda.
This past week, Ross Douthat considered whether Ryan’s proposals represent a serious alternative agenda. Liberal blogger Ezra Klein also has a very interesting interview with Ryan about his proposals for health care.
AF says:
They’re not politically serious. They involve privatizing Social Security, which was rejected 5 years ago — with a Republican president and Congress. Faith in the markets has not grown since then.
Even more untenably, they involve turning Medicare into a voucher program, not tied to the actual cost of health care. In the not-too-distant future, these vouchers would cover a small fraction of the costs of medical care.
This coming from the party of “hands off Medicare” (or “get the government out of my Medicare.”) As soon as party leaders get their minds around what is in this plan, it will be unceremoniously dropped.
February 7, 2010, 11:04 amDaniel Chapman says:
What’s “politically serious” is not necessarily what’s best for the country. Bush failed to do anything about our impending disaster with social security, but it’s good people are still willing to talk about it.
February 7, 2010, 11:24 amDave N. says:
George Will praises Ryan’s proposals in his column today.
February 7, 2010, 11:40 amGuy says:
My mind is officially blown.
February 7, 2010, 11:42 amtamerlane says:
Anybody who uses this stale Democrat cant to characterize Ryan’s suggested policy reforms is not to be taken seriously in any way.
February 7, 2010, 11:48 amnewrouter says:
if you pay fica taxes how is that wrong? same with social security.
February 7, 2010, 11:59 amRoger says:
Anyone who uses “Democrat” as an adjective is not to be taken seriously.
February 7, 2010, 12:23 pmAllan Walstad says:
Ryan’s proposals as described by Will are of course massively sensible compared to what we have and where we are going now. Ultimately, however, the collectivist neck-millstones have to go all the way to the trash can and stay there.
February 7, 2010, 12:25 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Reducing healthcare costs is really quite simple: those associated with the industry accept lower pay, or those using their services do so less often, or both. A rousing speech and a call for volunteers should do the trick.
Seriously, there’s no scenario where everybody wins and nobody loses: and considering the hooks all the healthcare moneymakers have into both political parties, I suspect the way of the future patient will be hard.
February 7, 2010, 12:41 pmtamerlane says:
Sorry. Crrection follows: Anybody who uses this stale dimocrat cant to characterize Ryan’s suggested policy reforms is not to be taken seriously in any way.
February 7, 2010, 1:15 pmSuperSkeptic says:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/sen_bernie_sanders_health_care.html
Compare Ezra and Ryan with Ezra and Sanders.
February 7, 2010, 1:27 pmMrs Klein says:
Ezra Klein is a hack or a low-intellect ignorant. Don’t give him the credit of linking to him.
February 7, 2010, 2:14 pmBeldar says:
Prof. Adler, can you point us to any prominent Republican who has explicitly said that the GOP ought do nothing except vote “No”? I certainly can’t.
The GOP is, of course, currently out of power. The only reliable tool available to it in a government where the Democrats control the Executive and both branches of the Legislature is to vote “No,” so quite naturally there is indeed a lot of emphasis on that right now. With liberal a/k/a progressive forces ascendant within the Democratic Party, and with the Democratic Party in control, conservatives, including Republicans, are indeed obliged to (in Bill Buckley’s memorable words) “[stand] athwart history, yelling Stop!”
But pointing that out does not prove that any — much less that most — Republicans “[want] the GOP to be [nothing] more than the ‘party of no’ and [do not want] to put forward a serious, principled policy agenda.” That’s a logical fallacy. It’s an obvious mistake in reasoning, not a subtle one. And I think it’s also counter-factual.
So why raise it, even rhetorically (parenthetically, with a question mark)?
February 7, 2010, 2:43 pmB.D. says:
Is Paul Ryan positioning himself as 2010′s Newt Gingrich?
February 7, 2010, 2:50 pmAlan Polonsky says:
I have long been in favor of a voucher system for all health care guaranteeing everyone legally in the US with at least basic health care. this could provide basic health care with the option of adding to it out of your own funds for a greater level of care. The option to simply take Medicare as your voucher choice would result in private plans offering plans at least that good (or bad) and provides for free choice to all.
Vouchers have been suggested before, including ironically, by Rahm Emanuel’s brother. Emanuel argues for paying the over a Trillion dollar annual cost for it through a VAT tax. Costly, of course, but considering that as a small employer I now pay 15% of payroll for coverage for my employees, even the alternative of an employer health tax of 8% looks like a bargain.
Additional funds could come fro existing Medicaid programs, roughly 300 billion per year. Savings could come from reducing the existing cost of health insurance in various other insurance such as car insurance, property insurance, and Workers Compensation coverage. As an aside, it could eliminate the need to litigate the coverage of medical costs in an accident as everyone would look to their own coverage.
February 7, 2010, 2:52 pmErik Siegrist says:
If the only tool the opposition chooses to wield is a NO vote, then the opposition has nothing to offer the party in power, and thus no voice in crafting legislation.
If you establish that there is no compromise you’re willing to vote YES on (which the GOP has just about done) then you won’t be offered further compromises.
There’s certainly political hay to be made from digging in your heels. But it does nothing to help govern the country — which is, y’know, actually supposed to be the jobs of Congresspeople.
February 7, 2010, 3:17 pmCJColucci says:
Some back-bencher in the out-of-power party puts together a budget based on “principles” the voters don’t share and promising consequences the voters won’t accept. The only people who will pay attention to this are the Democrats, if (a big if, I know) they’re smart enough to run against it.
February 7, 2010, 3:26 pmRyan’s Republican Alternative | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] the article here: Ryan’s Republican Alternative [...]
February 7, 2010, 3:28 pmorca says:
What “impending disaster?”
Social Security will only be able to pay 98% of promised benefits in 20 years?
February 7, 2010, 3:50 pmA. Zarkov says:
What’s your problem? The word “Democrat” functions as an attributive noun in the sentence. The use is no stranger than “water pump” or “chicken soup.”
February 7, 2010, 4:03 pmgeokstr says:
Ah, another True Believer that there is actually something in this “Trust Fund” besides IOU’s from ourselves to ourselves. The “Trust Fund” is a fake, a chimera, a fraud, and it has been robbed to pay for general expenditures for decades.
The government is on the cash basis. In the very near future, the IOU’s will start getting called, and the only place to get the money is from China (good luck with that), and/or massive tax increases/benefit cuts – period.
February 7, 2010, 4:11 pmA. Zarkov says:
According to the Social Security Administration itself:
Thus if I understand them correctly SS has to dip into the trust fund in 6 years. But what’s in the Trust Fund? Special issue Treasury Bonds. The “special issue” means not tradeable. In other words, the Trust Fund gave Treasury the surplus funds collected for bonds. The bonds are claims on the income to Treasury. So in effect beginning in 2016 the taxpayers have to make up the growing deficit in SS collections.
If the Trust Fund had bought bonds that trade in the secondary market, or stocks, then the taxpayer would not be responsible for the coming deficits. But then the budget deficits would have been higher. You can borrow from the future, but eventually the future arrives.
February 7, 2010, 4:28 pmBrian says:
WALLACE: All right. Handicap the 2012 GOP presidential race for us. Who’s the front-runner?
PALIN: No idea. I have no idea.
WALLACE: Well, you’re not a very good analyst.
PALIN: Well, fire me, then, Roger. Sorry. I already failed. But listen, no, we have some strong — some young Turks in this party. Paul Ryan — I’m very impressed with Paul Ryan.
WALLACE: Congressman from Wisconsin.
PALIN: Yeah. He’s good. Man, he is sharp. He is smart, articulate. And he is passionate about these commonsense solutions that America has got to adopt to get us on the right road. I can name a whole lot of people.
February 7, 2010, 4:40 pmcubanbob says:
You must be a democrat. No ordinary person could be such a fool.
February 7, 2010, 4:49 pmPrivatized Social Security at least offers the individual real, tangible assets. The current Ponzi scheme offers us nothing. The Supreme Court ruled fifty years ago that no one has a property right to their “contributions” and Congress can modify or repeal it at any time. The fraud is the government’s sending us an annual “statement” as if were an annuity. Having seen a Madoff account statement and the accompanying documentation, they were far more believable than the statements the government puts out.
Allan Walstad says:
I think orca is on to something here. Let’s just keep on like we are with SS, same taxes and all. Whatever money SS takes in, in any given year, is what it pays out in benefits. What’s the problem? That’s what you had in mind, right orca?
February 7, 2010, 4:54 pmMark Buehner says:
When you get to define what ‘serious’ means, its easy to dismiss the opposition. Obama’s entire view of the Republican party consists of a giant ‘when did you stop beating your wife’ challenge. Conservatives are being asked for the kind magical cure all silver bullets that Obama claimed to have (and obviously doesnt), and if they can’t produce them they aren’t ‘serious’. How is asking conservatives ‘where is your big government solution?”
So i ask- who is the serious party, the one engaged in titanic magical thinking giant government programs bereft of reality, or the party asking for small, step by step, common sense reforms?
February 7, 2010, 4:56 pmMatthew Carberry says:
When did “compromise” become a gold standard for action?
If your principled, educated, perfectly rational view is the other guy’s plan will take you over the cliff and your plan will barely manage to stop you short of the edge, then a compromise puts you where?
On some issues in the real world “compromise” on the other guy’s terms nay be functionally no different than capitulation, particularly if you’ve already compromised on the same issue in the past. To say you’re obliged to do so in those cases is nonsense, the only rational, principled response is to dig in your heels and hold.
February 7, 2010, 5:27 pmmatt c says:
i like when nothing happens. quit acting like saying no is evil
February 7, 2010, 5:29 pmorca says:
Sorta, more that it’s up to future taxpayers whether they want to cover the shortfall or not.
In any case, Social Security certainly isn’t facing any “crisis.” Even if it can’t pay 100% of promised future benefits decades from now, every retiree will still receive bigger checks than current retirees with a similar work history gets from Social Security now.
February 7, 2010, 5:34 pmbyomtov says:
If the Trust Fund had bought bonds that trade in the secondary market, or stocks, then the taxpayer would not be responsible for the coming deficits. But then the budget deficits would have been higher. You can borrow from the future, but eventually the future arrives.
You mean if they held marketable Treasuries? Why wouldn’t the taxpayer have been responsible?
The whole idea that there is something significant about thebonds not being tradeable is just wrong. As you point out yourself, if the Trust Fund held other securities then the government would have borrowed the money elsewhere, and would be no better off. The taxpayers would be on the hook just as much.
February 7, 2010, 7:01 pmgeokstr says:
Of course, but the real deficit would have been much more visible all along, and there might have been some pressure to do something about the out-of-control spending a long time ago. You know, transparency and all that…
February 7, 2010, 7:11 pmDesiderius says:
Re: Ryan/Klein,
Liberals have always been in the minority, and so we’ve worked on both of the conventional “sides”. When we’ve been successful was when we’ve known friend from foe. These two sure seem like friends to me.
February 7, 2010, 7:15 pmA. Zarkov says:
I never the said the government would have borrowed the money elsewhere. We know there is political pressure to hold down deficit spending, and as such with the true deficit out in the open, it would have been harder to spend. In other words, I contend the national debt would be smaller today if the Trust Fund held tradeable securities. Suppose the Trust Fund held foreign bonds. Then foreign taxpayers would be pay for the SS shortfall after 2016, not Americans.
February 7, 2010, 7:21 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Anyone who says “is not to be taken seriously” is not to be taken seriously.
February 7, 2010, 7:44 pmrpt says:
Not that Ryan and his party didn’t create the current deficit or anything….
February 7, 2010, 10:01 pmMark Buehner says:
The previous deficit, yes. The current deficit? Not so much.
February 7, 2010, 11:02 pmbyomtov says:
It’s important to note that there is no reason to believe the claim that Ryan’s proposals balance the budget.
The CBO, per Ryan’s instructions, did no analysis, none, nada, zip, of his tax proposal, instead assuming, again per Ryan’s instructions, that tax revenues would be 19% of GDP.
So let’s get a grip.
February 7, 2010, 11:08 pmEli Rabett says:
Anyone who uses Republican when the all around accurate traitor is available is not to be taken seriously.
February 7, 2010, 11:10 pmrpt says:
They created the conditions that made the current deficit spending necessary.
February 7, 2010, 11:11 pmWayne says:
Social Security is supposed to be a safety net, to ensure that people who are too old or otherwise unable to work don’t have to live on dog food under a bridge. If you privatise the system, some people will do better, some will do just as well, and a not insignificant number will end up worse, even much worse, due to bad investments, bad judgment or bad luck. I realize many of the readers of this blog have no problem with this, but I suspect that is a minority view.
February 7, 2010, 11:17 pmorca says:
Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for President, got 0.40% of the vote last election.
February 8, 2010, 12:00 amEricPWJohnson says:
After listening to this thread and the Democrats for the last three plus years
More no is needed, after all – just say no to democrats. If someone says something is wrong – just say no – if someone says we need reform – just say no
Because reform, wrong, troubling, action – these bussy words always involves your money at some point, going into the pockets of someone else – usually of another political party
February 8, 2010, 1:52 amDaveM says:
The 19% figure for revenue is reasonably close to what we’re paying in now. I believe the point of the Roadmap is that for the same money we’re spending right now, we can either have a debt-financed future that overwhelms the county with interest payments by 2058, or we can have a debt-free future that allows the economy to grow. The Roadmap also includes a 9% consumption tax on business, an additional source of revenue.
The Fair Tax people estimate that a 23% rate would be completely revenue-neutral. So, I don’t think assuming a 19% income tax rate + 9% business consumption tax rate is all that unrealistic.
Your point is well-taken, however, that the CBO scoring did NOT include an analysis of the tax reform proposal. The Roadmap does a good job as a very high-level comparison of a debt-based vs. a debt-free government, but it needs a lot more detail.
February 8, 2010, 8:07 amMark Buehner says:
Bush MADE us do it. Bush forced these budgets and the pork laden, ineffective stimulus bill that largely hasn’t been implemented. That’s the ticket. Let us know when anything Obama does is his own decision and not Bush’s fault.
February 8, 2010, 9:38 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Ryan’s Republican Alternative -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Walter Levin, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Ryan’s Republican Alternative: When President Obama met with House Republican leaders he noted that Rep. Paul Ryan… http://bit.ly/aYklUg [...]
February 8, 2010, 9:46 amMark Field says:
What makes many of us skeptical is whether the Republicans would keep that revenue figure steady, or give in to the temptation to score cheap political points by cutting it, just like they’ve done for 30 years now. There was a time when you could trust the Republican party to be fiscally responsible. No longer.
This is silly. Bush’s policies did the following: reduced tax revenues via tax cuts and recession; increased government spending via Medicare and 2 wars.
There are short term and long term consequences that need to be kept separate. In the short term, Obama needs to run larger deficits to get us out of the Bush recession. In the longer term, he needs to reduce the deficits Bush’s policies, if continued, would have continued to generate.
February 8, 2010, 10:14 ambyomtov says:
So, I don’t think assuming a 19% income tax rate + 9% business consumption tax rate is all that unrealistic.
He’s not assuming a 19% income tax rate. He exempts all dividends, interest, and capital gains, gives large standard deductions, and has a rate of 10% below $100,000 (for a couple) and 25% above. I’m dubious that averages out to 19%, but admit I haven’t checked.
I’ll try to do that later today.
February 8, 2010, 11:36 amAn_Idea says:
If you want government to feed you, you get mac-and-cheese, not filet mignon.
If you want government to house you, you get a section-8 apartment or a spot in Cabrini-Green… not an estate in the Hamptons.
But health care is different… everyone is given filet and a mansion.
Government needs to define a substance level health program with vaccines, preventative care, high value-for-the-dollar services — but no transplants, no big-dollar items, no expensive meds, and a lifetime cap. Let groups run clinics for the government that provide the basics. Government can buy in bulk and provide supplies to clinics too. Wal*Mart will do them, as well as many large employers. Clinics and docs can’t be sued — there is a system like worker compensation with defined benefits.
You want more than the basics, it is just like if you want a higher level of food or housing — you get your own insurance… or pay for service.
February 8, 2010, 11:45 amricky says:
Second that, An_Idea. Unfortunately, we are not capable of dealing rationally with our health, especially life and death decisions.
February 8, 2010, 1:02 pmDan Weber says:
Government needs to define a substance level health program with vaccines, preventative care, high value-for-the-dollar services — but no transplants, no big-dollar items, no expensive meds, and a lifetime cap.
I would make some changes from your proposal, but as a starting point I think it’s good.
Now, can you get the Republicans to agree with it? The ones who talked about death panels and government rationing?
I pray that the GOP’s dalliance with “get government out of my medicare” last year was a youthful indiscretion and we can move past that.
(The Democrats will have their own issues with your proposal, but if we can’t get the party that is nominally about limited government spending to talk about it, don’t even bother.)
February 8, 2010, 1:17 pmAllan Walstad says:
Ryan’s a pretty young guy, just entering the Senate–I doubt much of the deficit can be attributed to him personally. As for parties, both share the blame for deficits. It appears the best we can hope for right now is a gridlock situation: the less that pols of both stripes “accomplish,” the safer our liberty and our wallets are.
February 8, 2010, 1:45 pmAllan Walstad says:
Wayne, if you’re concerned about less well-off folks, feel free to contribute charitably to their aid. Kindly refrain from robbing your neighbors theough the political process to sooth your feelings about that.
February 8, 2010, 1:48 pmJK says:
I’m definitely impressed that Rep Ryan put forward this proposal. It makes very hard cuts to entitlement programs, but that’s going to be necessary if we’re going to balance the budged without substantial tax increases or massive cuts to defense spending. When Republicans were acting like we could balance the budget and cut taxes if we just reformed earmark abuses they really couldn’t be taken seriously as an alternative to the Democrats plan to raise taxes and cut defense spending.
February 8, 2010, 1:58 pmorca says:
Social Security enjoys the support of a large majority of Americans. Perhaps it’s time for the glibertarians to accept reality and actually found their own dog eat dog country?
February 8, 2010, 2:09 pmG. May says:
Speaking of silly. Blaming Bush for policies he voted in favor of while he was a senator is one of Obama and his legions’ more humorous episodes of projection. Pretending that the only option Obama has is to run large deficits to pay for policies he supported reveals the sort of strict dogmatic thinking that cannot extract us from this mess.
Oh, and in other news, apparently the POTUS is the one with control over government spending.
February 8, 2010, 3:33 pmAllan Walstad says:
So, robbery is popular, hence robbery is ok. QED.
I think not.
February 8, 2010, 4:28 pmWayne says:
Mr. Walstad: In this country, we have decided we will not leave the subsistence of the least well off up to the vicissitudes of private charity. Apparently you disagree, as you are entitled to do. If you can convince a sufficient number of your fellow citizens of your position, that policy preference can be changed. Good luck with that.
February 8, 2010, 4:51 pmorca says:
I think it should be against the law for Libertarians to use the government-funded internet because of the dangerous levels of irony involved, but that doesn’t make it a crime.
February 8, 2010, 4:54 pmDesiderius says:
Wayne,
“Mr. Walstad: In this country, we have decided we will not leave the subsistence of the least well off up to the vicissitudes of private charity.”
Oh, get off your high horse. We’ve outsourced it to the government so we don’t have to deal with those messy vicissitudes first-hand. Never mind that in doing so we’ve set up a system that confiscates the capital of the working class, skims the float for forty years, then promises to return it to them without so much as a whiff of a property right to back up that promise.
Social Security alright – Security for the old, rich, overwhelmingly white folks who vote – insecurity and immobility for the young, struggling, not so white who foot the bill.
What a joke we have left for a Left!
February 8, 2010, 5:05 pmDesiderius says:
“In the short term, Obama needs to run larger deficits to get us out of the Bush recession.”
The stimulus pipe may be running short on the rock.
February 8, 2010, 5:08 pmAFJ says:
The Democrats can’t just be “the party of no”.
Rep. Ryan has offered a plan to balance the budget. The Democrats have offered complaints that the deficit was balanced ten years ago [after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995], and isn’t balanced today.
So what is their alternative plan to return to balanced budgets? The Democrats control both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, have controlled Congress since 2006, and they’re offering $trillions more in debt as far as the eye can see. So enough whining and blaming Bush – where is their plan?
February 8, 2010, 5:57 pmdw says:
I don’t understand what incentive any private insurer would have to take on seniors with pre-existing conditions in Ryan’s program. And what senior doesn’t have a pre-existing condition?
February 8, 2010, 7:45 pmAllan Walstad says:
Oh that’s cute, Wayne. “We” decided. So, “we” decided to make criminals out of people who grow and smoke pot? “We” decided to squander thousands of American lives and a trillion bucks on an imperial war in Iraq? “We” decided to bail out the Wall Street fat cats, GM, and the auto workers’ union? And if the pols came up with a plan to murder 49% of the population and divide their wealth among the other 51%, why, “we” would have decided that too?
You’re talking about the result of a political process. I question the legitimacy of political processes that result in wholesale robbery of some people to supply the wants of others. Even by the standards of the US Constitution, Social Security is patently illegitimate.
February 8, 2010, 7:55 pmAllan Walstad says:
So, the government robs us blind and uses the loot to crowd out all the possibilities that might develop in a free market, and that makes my use of the internet somehow ironic? Tell you what–suppose I get my cousin Brutus to rob you of everything you’ve got, then build you a little doghouse to huddle in when the rain comes? Would you be a hypocrite for complaining?
February 8, 2010, 8:07 pmAllan Walstad says:
dw, if it’s a pre-existing condition, then what you’re talking about is not insurance. If somebody slips and falls in my driveway, can I expect to buy insurance to cover me after the fact? Forcing insurance companies to go along with that would be just a way of robbing the other customers to cover my expenses.
February 8, 2010, 8:13 pmdw says:
Since 99% of seniors have pre-existing conditions, you are saying that Ryan’s proposal will cover virtually no one. In which case it’s useless.
February 8, 2010, 8:49 pmAllan Walstad says:
dw, it depends on what you mean by “cover.” If you mean rob taxpayers to an unlimited degree to pay for any and all health care costs that any older person would run up, then no, it doesn’t (quite) fill that bill.
From Will’s column:
What all this sounds like to me is a very welcome move away from the entitlement-to-everything-regardless-of-cost nonsense to a more modest program of enabling and subsidizing people to help themselves and prepare for their own futures. In the absence of cost-increasing government restrictions and mandates, there is a market for low-cost catastrophic health insurance that you pay into and keep paying into from when you are younger, which contractually maintains your insured status. Meanwhile, you save in medical savings accounts to pay for less-than-catastrophic medical needs. The underlying ideal is one of individual self-responsibility, as befits a free society.
And like I said earlier to Wayne, if you’re concerned about the needs of people less-well-off than you, feel free to contribute charitably to their aid. Kindly refrain from seeking to rob your fellow citizens (such as me) through politics.
February 8, 2010, 10:46 pmWayne says:
Allan:
Are you assuming that in your preferred system the amount of private charity will be enough to provide for those who are destitute through bad choices or bad luck (and their children)? If not, what happens to those who do not practice sufficient “self-responsibility”?
February 9, 2010, 4:36 am