Finally, an adult conversation on Medicare.

Too bad it's only hypothetical. That's a shame.

Time to synergize

I blogged yesterday about Steven Pearlstein's column on the inability of the two parties to come together to offer constructive, synergistic solutions on a range of issues facing the country.

The Economist opines about how Kathy Hochul's victory in upstate New York will only just exacerbate the problem, comparing solutions to Medicare's finances to a used car dealer selling a lemon. Dana Milbank of The Washington Post goes further by explaining how Paul Ryan was a victim of his own scare tactics, which illustrates the problem but doesn't help solve it.

Lastly, Matt Miller writes a column about acknowledging that the entire RyanCare plan is not a disaster and it does have some good ideas to build around.

Getting back to the Economist piece, a very good point is made that represents a very sad reality:

"Both parties have, somewhere inside them, a serious proposal to reform Medicare. If they thought they could be elected by offering such a plan, they would do so."

What both parties miss in all of this is they've inadvertently synergized already. The "Premium Support" (aka Vouchers) in RyanCare were a Democratic idea. The individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act were a Republican idea. And the fact that each is being ripped apart after being embraced by the other side is the saddest part of all.

Social Security's "Mason-Dixon Line"

A great explanation of Paul Ryan's Social Security proposal:

"If there was ever going to be a generational war in this country, that high school class of ’74 would be its Mason-Dixon line. It’s the moment when Bill Clinton’s promise—“if you work hard and play by the rules you’ll get ahead”—began to lose its value."

"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy"

Matt Miller wants you to repeat after him, "The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit. The House Republican budget adds $6 trillion to the debt in the next decade yet the GOP is balking at raising the debt limit."


I prefer this comparison though:

"The classic definition of chutzpah was a kid who kills his parents and then asks for the mercy of the court because he’s an orphan. The new definition of chutzpah is Republicans who vote for the Ryan plan that adds trillions in debt and who then say the debt limit goes up only over their dead bodies!"

Where are the answers Mr. Ryan?

Steven Pearlstein again with another stellar column asking some questions that really haven’t been answered yet:

“Is it fair that the market economy has directed virtually all of the benefits of economic growth to the top 10 percent of households? No answer.

Given this increasingly unequal distribution of incomes, isn’t there room to make the tax code slightly more progressive? No answer.

Given that people with low incomes rely disproportionately on government services and transfer programs, wouldn’t a deficit reduction plan based solely on domestic spending cuts require more sacrifice from the poor than the rich? And why isn’t that as much class warfare as raising taxes on millionaires? Again, no answers.”

We’re waiting Mr. Ryan. We’re still waiting…

Obama Blasts Ryan Budget Plan

Well duh. (More on this later...)

The duplicitous choice between "Bad" and "Ugly"

This Matt Miller column in today's Washington Post is a must-read regardless of your political ideologies. Regular readers of my blog (all two of you!) know how big a fan I am of Matt Miller's pragmatic thinking or, as he puts it in his weekly radio show, 'Radical Centrism'. In today's column, he spells out the reasons why neither the Obama budget nor the Ryan budget is intellectually honest about the deficit and is really pandering to its own political agenda. A great point from the column:

"Paul Ryan proposes that the federal government spend $40 trillion over the next 10 years, as opposed to Barack Obama’s $46 trillion. The first thing to note is that there is thus about a 15 percent difference in the size of government envisioned by our two major parties. This difference matters greatly, of course, but shouting aside, this is a fight taking place between the 40-yard lines on either side."

My personal thought on this is although the president's budget is much closer to Ryan's budget, his preference would likely be what was proposed in the Simpson-Bowles Commission Report. That's just my hunch; I'm not basing it on any information confirming or denying it. Unfortunately, the President won't get it today from a Republican Party set on the emotional victory of making him a one-term president. The problem this would raise isn't that Republicans don't have the nation's best interests in mind. The real issue with the sport of politics being what it is, a Republican President in 2012 would only work between the 40-yard lines for four more years in hopes of securing a re-election, pushing off further necessary pain until 2016 at the earliest, which may be too late.