Why I Consider the Ryan Budget a ‘Cry for Help’

Mr. Ryan knows firsthand how lazy the government dole can make you.

Rep. Paul Ryan is fond of saying that our safety net has turned into a “hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives.”

He’s a leading purveyor of the belief that people who are getting rich off the government are the poor. The poor are the “lucky duckies,” the true robber barons of this Gilded Age.

With that in mind, Ryan recently unveiled a budget that guts Medicare, Medicare, student loans and every other program that helps struggling Americans in order to pay for more military spending and huge tax breaks for people who don’t need them.

The best part of Ryan’s budget? It explodes the debt.

Why does it explode the debt? Because Paul Ryan didn’t include one of the tax loopholes he would close to pay for the huge tax breaks he’s handing out. Not one. That’s complacency. Apparently, something has taken away his incentive to make the most of his life.

When the government pays your salary and your health care, you just feel the urge stop working apparently.

The President and the Democrats have named a loophole they’d like to close. It’s the one that allows millionaires and billionaires to pay lower tax rates than bus drivers and nurses.

Republicans deride the so-called Buffett Rule because it only will raise $30 to $40 billion over the next 10 years. Ezra Klein points out that’s much more than you save by eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood and NPR over and over.

The Buffett Rule is important because it starts balancing the budget where we should start: with the people who can afford it. It proves that the GOP simply won’t raise taxes on the richest EVER.

Everyone know the only way to cure laziness is to cut taxes on the richest who have never been richer and never paid lower taxes.

Unless we ‘starve the beast,” how else are we going to teach the “lucky duckies” a lesson? Those damn able-bodied duckies like Paul Ryan soaking us all.

I hate to interject reality into Mr. Ryan’s lazy political discourse but the able-bodied is not generally who our safety hammock usually helps. Harold Pollack explains:

I doubt Rep. Ryan was talking about my brother-in-law Vincent, who requires Medicaid and food stamps because he is permanently disabled. I suspect that most conservatives would be embarrassed to learn the true impact on the intellectually disabled of conservative state policies.

Ryan is speaking about many of the direct care workers who assist disabled persons such as Vincent. We trust these women and men to care for our loved ones. They clean soiled linens. They calm agitated people suffering from autism spectrum disorders. Their professional peers do similarly worthy work as nurse’s aides, and child care workers. They earn very low wages, nationally averaging just above $11/hr. Many provide health care while they, themselves, go uninsured.

Like their counterparts who scrub floors, change diapers, or operate cash registers at McDonald’s, these are the lucky duckies whose kids rely upon Medicaid or CHIP, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and other elements of our safety-net. Below them on the economic ladder are low-income single moms trying to raise their kids on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), traditional cash welfare. Many of these women can’t find a job in the midst of an economic crisis. Still others are quite poor, yet for one reason or another are ineligible for TANF aid.

Few people are resting on “a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency.” Welfare rolls are at record lows. In some states, maximum TANF cash benefit for a family of three are below $200. That’s well below the $350 that Rep. Ryan apparently paid for a single bottle of wine at a swank business dinner.

How can Paul Ryan not see who he’d really be hurting? I blame that government dole.

It’s time to send him home. He’ll just end up in the twisted world of corporate lobbying but at least he we won’t be paying directly. I hate to think I’m in any way responsible for making an able-bodied man so lazy.

[CC image by Muffet]


  • CB_Demented

    I take issue with part of this.

    Nobody things anyone is getting “rich” on the government dole. Noone. I don’t care what rhetoric they may have let slip in some speech somewhere, nobody, no matter how anti-social program they are, thinks anyone is getting rich from being a part of those programs, and it cheapens your argument to repeat such nonsense.

    What is believed, and can be demonstratably proven, is that there a great many people who take full advantage of lifetime benefits, and languish within the system rather than trying to pull themselves out of it.

    And there aren’t enough details about the Ryan plan to know what it “guts.” What is known is pure dollar amounts. How that would shake out has yet to be revealed, and what substantive changes that would make to the vast majority of people using Medicare.

    Just like the lack of details on what tax loopholes will be, the details on how cuts would be applied are missing.

    Now I’d love to take the easy road and use the Pelosi method of telling you we need to pass the bill to find out what’s in it, but it was insane when she said it the first time, so there’s no point in me being just as insane. The plan is a non-starter because it’s non-specific…and it needs to be.

    Krugman’s suggestion that the Obama plan is so much more superior because of it’s greater specificity is disingenuous claptrap for which he is justly famous. The Obama plan is damn near as vague, and even if it wasn’t, the current Senate has no intention of even voting on it, let alone sending it to the House for consideration.

    The sad fact that Americans are without doubt going to face in the not distant future is our debt is unsustainable. We’re either going to make tough, voluntary, cuts within the next couple of years, or we’re going to make even tougher involuntary cuts in the next half decade, much the same as Great Britain had to. We’re 2 to 5 years away from the Bond market sell off of our treasuries. The smart money has already stopped buying our debt. We have become so accustomed to the benefits of the seigniorage of our currency, but those benefits come with responsibilities. If we continue to abuse our privileged position in world finance by exporting inflation to the rest of the world, we are fools to ignore the reality that alternative options for the world’s investors are emerging all around us. The day they turn their back on us will be the day our financial house of cards will collapse with such fury it will do more damage to our domestic economy than the most unthinkable terrorist attack.

    The economic damage of an acute spike in interest rates would harm our economy more than most people realize. A flash crash of 10 year Treasuries that knocked long-term rates up several hundred basis points in a matter of a few days or even a few hours on our presently fragile economy would end American prosperity as we have known it. These are not times to play games with the bond market.

    There are 3 big expenses that take up more than 2/3 of our budget. Defense, Medicare and Social Security. If we don’t make some serious cuts to the first two, in addition to increasing our revenue, we’re going to end up like Greece. But there will be noone to bail us out, and we’ll take 4/5 of the world’s economies down with us.

    I don’t agree with the Ryan Plan, but it’s one of only a small handful that actually addresses the problem.

    • http://twitter.com/LOLGOP LOLGOP

       Weird. I thought you’d totally agree with this. Naming loopholes is hard work!

      • CB_Demented

         Hard work or not, I want to see what the hell he thinks he’s going to do to achieve the revenue goals. His plan is worthless until he does so.

        Personally, I like the Mack-Penny plan as the most workable solution that will hurt the least, but neither party is particularly interested in it.

    • spike

       You forgot to complain about Obama’s birth certificate, so you don’t get full credit for right wing talking points.

      • CB_Demented

        Well..what a constructive comment. Complain about talking points, and offer no rebuttal. Nice work.

        • spike

          I also don’t rebut when someone claims the earth is flat.  

          More Republicans think Obama was not born in this country than those who do, so you’re just adding to your record of being wrong.

          http://www.frumforum.com/poll-45-of-gop-voters-are-birthers  

          • CB_Demented

             yeah…a 1200 person telephone poll by the NYT and CBS. Nice sample group there.

          • Hobbes83

            You do realize that most nationally recognized pollsters have a sample of roughly 1200-1500 people, right?  Naw, you don’t , because you have no idea how polling and statistics works.

          • CB_Demented

             You do realize that most polls are fairly worthless unless they’re very carefully crafted, and that the media aren’t organizations known for good poll questions?

            And as someone who runs part of a large IT organization, yeah…i have a pretty good knowledge of how statistics work.

          • Hobbes83

            Wow, an appeal to authority combined with an abject lack of understanding that polls do serve a purpose; they are a snap shot of that time period and show underlying trends in society.  Spare me your fallacious arguments.

  • http://motivatedinohio.com MotivatedinOhio

    I simply block the trolls that give the Faux News talking points, they have nothing to offer (not an idea that hasn’t been thought up by one of the RW “Think (lie) tanks”.  If they had an original idea, it would be different.

    • CB_Demented

       I wasn’t aware that Economist Magazine and the Wall Street Journal are right wing think tanks.

      But hey…keep blocking people who don’t think exactly the way you do. Pretty soon, you can be just like the Republicans who ignore half of the electorate as well.

      • http://profiles.google.com/duckab234 Ducic Wrinklestein

        You mean The Economist magazine, the conservative-leaning pro-free-market magazine that has yet to endorse a Republican Presidential candidate this century?

        • http://motivatedinohio.com MotivatedinOhio

           Or the Newscorp owned Wall Street Jounal.  The WSJ used to be a really good newspaper, until it was taken over by Murdoch.

          • CB_Demented

             Oh. So you’re one of those. If it’s owned by a conservative a hundred levels up, everything below must be tainted? Wow. So should I disbelieve everything that comes from Huffington, or through a Soros owned company because it’s owned by a liberal and therefore all tainted by liberal thought?

            It must be a fun world to live in when you only read things that blow sunshine up your nethers.

    • CB_Demented

       Wasn’t aware that The Economist and Wall Street journal were RW Think Tanks or spewing talking points, but whatever.

      Keep up that policy of not paying attention to the opposition as well. Makes it alot easier to only hear what you want to hear, and for them to plan stuff without you knowing.

      Easier to justify ignoring that half of the electorate when they’re in charge too…since “ignoring” the other side is so acceptable to the other side. Kinda like the GOP is doing in Michigan with the roll call votes.

  • Jeff

    And where is this ‘unsustainable debt’ from? Do you remember a little word called ‘Surplus’? It’s what we had 11 short years ago, before we gave the keys to the Debt Bus to Mr. TaxCuts and Bombing.

    This bullshit that we have to balance the budget is exactly that: Ask Dick ‘Deficits dont matter’ Cheney.

    Eliminate the 15% Loophole, raise the top rate on Millionaires back to Clinton levels and cut the Pentagon budget 20%. Deficits gone.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IDB3NGGQO7QB6IQOSNLMWOSXAA mlod2

      Thanks for being sane, Jeff. 2001-2009 may go down in history as the worst 8 years in this country. 

    • CB_Demented

       ”And where is this ‘unsustainable debt’ from? Do you remember a little
      word called ‘Surplus’? It’s what we had 11 short years ago, before we
      gave the keys to the Debt Bus to Mr. TaxCuts and Bombing.”

      I remember a little thing called a projected surplus, and yep…it got thrown out pretty quickly by tax cuts, which were applied across the board and which no congress since, even the 60  democrat senate congress, has ever rescinded… and 2 wars. Course, just one of those wars would have wiped it out, all by itself, so that’s kind of a moot point because nearly everyone agrees we needed to go after Bin Laden, and Afghanistan was where that game was in the beginning.

      And Cheney, and pretty much every economist in the world, was right…deficits don’t matter…as long as they’re not so large you can’t service the debt. A small deficit is actually a good thing. But when you add multiple trillions of dollars in debt on top of an already large deficit, which the last 3 years have done, you rapidly reach that unsustainable level.

      So…go ahead an eliminate the 15% tax on investment income. Watch it all go overseas and stay there. You might have gotten away with it before the internet, instantaneous information transfer and 24/7 markets around the globe. But that horse left the stable a long time ago. You tax the hell out of the investors of the world and they’ll just invest elsewhere. There’s plenty of other emerging economies that would love to have the cash, and the Emir in the UAE will happily create a new island just for them to live in with all their off shore wealth.

      Have fun with the Pentagon budget too. Sell that to the American people.

      A simpler solution would be to freeze spending at current levels for 6 years and cut the overall budget, at the discretion of congress, by 1% per year. Congress can make the cuts wherever it wants, however it wants, but 1% of the total budget must be cut. If by the last month of the fiscal year, congress can’t decide where to cut, then the budget is automatically cut to every budget line item by 1%…across the board. No department in government would have a problem of cutting 1% of their budget in a year.

      In 6 years at current interest rates, the deficit will be wiped out and we will have the bonus of having had a balanced budget for 6 years. You can do it even faster if you eliminate some of the redundant, and rather stupid, tax loopholes that litter the system, especially at the top end, and stop subsidies for farm conglomerates and the oil companies. Can shave a year or two off that way, as long as you do the rest as well. You won’t have to raise taxes a dime on anyone, but you will change the effective rate on the upper income tax brackets, which is a far more effective than raising the marginal rate.

  • Andy Kinnard

    Social Security does not contribute to the deficit.

    • CB_Demented

       Sure it does. Payments exceed revenue, not to mention the fact that every congress since it’s inception has raided it like a personal piggy bank. It will increasingly add to the deficit as it continues to slide towards complete insolvency.

      • Hobbes83

        No they don’t.  As currently constituted, SSI is still running surpluses, and we raid the fund to pay for our budget deficits.  

  • CB_Demented

     ”One of the reasons that people tend to languish within the system is
    because even though those benefits help them to survive, it doesn’t
    change one of the core problems with being at the bottom: you work
    simply to survive, and the limited actual cash resources you have
    usually isn’t enough to provide a meaningful way out.”

    That’s one of the reasons, certainly. But even for those that this is true for, the system isn’t designed to change the problems. It’s there as a safety net. And a big problem with that safety net is that a great many people get stuck in it and never get out. And even bigger problem is that many don’t even try. In either case, it often becomes a generational habit that you either can’t, or won’t, get out of.

    The danger in creating additional nets is snaring more people in the trap of being taken care of. A great people never escape from that net…and a great many don’t want to. They feel they are entitled to be taken care of, and that the government owes them. They forget Kennedy’s words about asking what you can do for your country.

    Unfortunately, a great many of the privileged forget that as well.

    ” But no one will hire a music grad in this economy to teach. I am also
    automatically ruled ineligible for financial aid (with the exception of
    loans) because I presently have a BME”

    I’m paying off $70k in school debt for the same reason. Care to take a guess how many BA’s in Business Admin there were by the end of the Gordon Gecko 80′s? Know what kind of a job you find with that BA in Business, and a double minor in Human Sexuality and Theology? Even if you’re a veteran? Heh…not many. So I paid, and continue to pay, to retrain myself after 10 years of scraping by, with no insurance. And I scrape by now because I chose public service in which to use the new degree, and make half of what I would in the private sector. And I work my ass off as well.

    So I get a bit irked at those who choose to stay on the dole because it’s easier. And I don’t mean those who got caught in the collapse, and are now screwed because of high unemployment and close to 2 million fewer jobs in the system. That’s who the net is for, and I don’t begrudge them using it.

    What irritates me is the holier than though crackpots who think that they can spend their way out of trouble…and who know that if they get enough people dependent on them, they’ll never lose power, which is what they’re really concerned with in the first place. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s democrats selling free everything you need, or republicans selling fear, they’re all looking to do the same thing…stay in power and manage the sheople.

    What is reality…and what doesn’t care what political philosophy you subscribe to…is that we must pay for whatever we decide to do. And  what is also reality is that we are not doing so. We are leveraging our future to an alarming extent. And no matter how great it would be to give the people this or that, and no matter how badly some of them need this or that, we will run out of money and collapse the whole system if we don’t do something immediately to stem the tide of spending.

    What is also reality is we aren’t going to do that without cutting something…something it’s going to hurt to cut. It’s also reality we’re not going to do that without creating revenue…and just taxing people more isn’t the right answer there either…because investment of people who have money is what eventually creates jobs, whether it’s doing it at a rate you want or not…that’s where the jobs come from.

    We have to be responsible and quit buying into the bullshit rhetoric both parties are spewing and take a good look at the numbers. They’re there for everyone to see and you don’t need some pundit to analyze them for you. We take in X amount. We’re spending Y amount. We owe Z amount. If X isn’t greater than Y, Z is going to crush us. And 3 things are the biggest items on the plate contributing to Y and Z. They will have to be cut in order to balance the budget.

    Either Americans get used to the idea of self imposed scarcity, or the world will impose it for us in dramatic fashion with the collapse of the bond markets. If that happens, not even the 1% are all going to survive it.

  • JoyfulA

    The public sector is not getting good value for its money from CB_Demented, who seems to spend all his time and effort trolling blogs rather than doing his work. I suggest he should choose to move to the private sector, which he claims would double his income.

    Then again, trolling may be his public sector job on the staff of Kasich or Corbett.

eXTReMe Tracker