George Will: 'Paul Ryan is 8 Years Younger Than Obama But Vastly More Experienced' With Budgets
ABC's Jonathan Karl last week asked Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) if his 2012 budget proposal is a "political kamikaze mission" that will "ultimately cost Republicans" their majority in the House.
After Christiane Amanpour played this clip and asked if Ryan is a "visionary or a villain" on Sunday's "This Week," George Will marvelously responded - likely to the dismay of all present! - "Paul Ryan is eight years younger than the President but vastly more experienced and conversant with these issues" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JONATHAN KARL, ABC: What do you say to nervous Republicans who say that this is a political kamikaze mission? You've just given Democrats a big target that may ultimately cost Republicans your majority here in the House?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WISCONSIN): Look at these people, look at these new people who just got here. You know, they didn't come here for a political career. They came here for a cause. This is not a budget, this is a cause.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Congressman Paul Ryan, certainly not one to fiddle around the edges of the financial crisis confronting this country. This week, he unveiled a sweeping budget proposal to cut $6 trillion from the budget over ten years. That is trillion with a “T”. Ryan would also revamp, some would say dismantle, the cherished programs Medicare and Medicaid. Is he a visionary or is he a villain? Whatever your point of view, one thing is not in dispute: Ryan's plan will drive this epic debate.
So, let's bring back our roundtable, George Will, Chrystia Freeland, Ron Brownstein and Donna Brazile. George, you were just talking before we went to a break, how will this change the conversation? It will the Ryan plan.
GEORGE WILL: Paul Ryan is eight years younger than the President but vastly more experienced and conversant with these issues. The Republicans are now bound as with hoops of steel to this plan by Ryan. They really can't avoid it, and the President can't avoid engaging it. Now, the President's initial response was that the Democrats will say this is extreme. This extreme plan by Paul Ryan envisions over the next decade a 34 percent increase in federal spending. It envisions adding trillions of dollars to the national debt. That's how slow the glide plan is that he proposes. Furthermore, on Medicare, Medicare is doomed as we know it, not by Mr. Ryan, but by Mr. Arithmetic. It just doesn't work anymore. And therefore, when he preposes essentially what the bipartisan commission on Medicare proposed more than a decade ago, premium support, which is, no matter what Mr. Hollen [sic] said a moment ago, is essentially what every federal worker has from the man who delivers your mail to Harry Reid who delivers stuff.
Indeed, and what the media are going to do in the coming weeks is from the same playbook they used to prevent Social Security reform in 2005: distract, distort, and misinform.
These folks have been complaining for months that Republicans having just taken control of the House were making minor cuts to discretionary spending while avoiding going after the real meat in the entitlement programs. Some of the more honest ones even criticized the President for doing the same thing in his budget proposal.
Now that Ryan has come out with a plan that does go after Medicare and Medicaid, so-called journalists are going to forget all their previous squawking about there being no adults in the room willing to actually face up to the real budget problems facing the nation and instead demonize Ryan and Republicans for wanting to starve women, children, and the elderly.
It's getting old, isn't it?
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Ryan not afraid of INCOMING!
Submitted by StarAZ on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 12:47pm.
Ryan is not only younger, but does some sort of killer exercise thing called P90X instead of sashaying around a golf course. He put some cards on the table--someone had to. Now, I hear, our Dear Leader has a program for the deficits, too--well, let's see it, guy.
What impresses me about Ryan is his focus
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 3:18pm.
He knows the numbers; he offers a plan; and he stays on message without being dragged down into the mud.
For most Washington politicians, every issue is an oppportunity to drive a wedge between opponents and the public, and no doubt, many will use Ryan's message and plan in just that way. I'm not sure his plan goes far enough, but he understands the problem and it's worth hearing his plan and debating seriously.
But Congressman Ryan's voice is convincingly concentrated on the solution vice singling out specific individuals for blame. In other words, instead of using the issue to a means to slam the opposition, he stays focused on the issue as the central theme.
In a national capital chock full of demagogues hurling vitriol at each other, Ryan is a reasonable, confident, knowledgeable voice, and I think he'll gain momentum as the weeks goon..
half a century
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 12:57pm.
Obama's apparent youthfulness has been one of his connections to the so called youth vote but he turns fifty years old this year and in about any young persons viewpoint that ain't young. I'm waiting to see how much of a big deal they make out of the number or whether it will be downplayed.
They're afraid of him.
Submitted by Texndoc on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 12:59pm.
Paul Ryan scares the MSM. To the point where more than one liberal columnist has started the buzz that Michelle Bachmann is so much more serious than him.
Look for Tingles to do a 180 with what superior intellect she has.
This is exactly what we need
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 1:02pm.
And I, for one, will not consider ANY presidential candidate who does not wholeheartedly endorse Ryan's plan.
That, for me, in this election, is my make or break.
No amount of pandering on any other issue will even make a dent for me.
It's very obvious that the House Leadership (Boehner and Cantor, whom I don't trust farther than I can throw) actually understands that the Tea Party freshmen will demand no less. Mitch McConnell will be smart to climb on board as well. Because as Allen West says, the 2010 election was merely a shaping action, a preparing of the battleground. 2012 is the real deal. And the Tea Party isn't going to go away, Dingy Harry. We're going to run all of you idiots out on a rail.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I don't think you'll see Paul Ryan...
Submitted by PJRyan on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 1:14pm.
...on 'Meet the Press', anymore. He was terrific. Absolutely in command of the FACTS. His appearance made that much more effective because he followed David Plouffe, who was just spinning his ass off.
David Gregory tried his hardest to shill for the Dems, but
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 12:04am.
Paul Ryan's expertise overwhelmed Gregory. Ryan knows his stuff!
The Meet the Press videos of the interview have been posted HERE.
Bit off topic
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 1:51pm.
This has got to be a Democrat poll.
Real World Ryan!
Submitted by Cincinnatius on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 2:26pm.
The big difference between Paul Ryan and the joke we have in the White House is much more than a simple difference in ages, Paul Ryan lives in the REAL world. A world where 2+2=4, a world where decisions have consequences, a world where real people, i.e., US, live. Obama lives in the liberal, socialist, communist, fascist, progressive world wherein some animals are more equal than others and NOTHING works. Just as Lennin, Stalin, Mao, et al, announced the completion and marvelous success of every "five year plan", that never happened, Obama will continue to live in the rabbit hole with Alice and the gang that thinks there is a "free lunch" out there for all to enjoy. Oh yeah, there is another difference too: Ryan has ba!!s!
I still don't think Ryan's
Submitted by VBaxter on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 5:02pm.
I still don't think Ryan's plan cuts enough. Definitely better than what the libs want, but I could find places to cut more spending.
Ron Paul 2012
We have to be realistic,
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Sun, 04/10/2011 - 6:18pm.
We have to be realistic, though. As much we would like to, we can't wave away the decades of overspending we have voted for over the years. Ryan's plan is not perfect, but we're unquestionably going in the right direction with it.
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
VBaxter.....I agree that we could and should cut more.
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 12:11am.
Conservative cost cutters such as Rand Paul will propose even larger cuts. Here is an informative news article titled titled: Congressman Paul Ryan Budget Takes Fire From the Right.
Okay, Will has a point. But riddle me this...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 2:05am.
"Furthermore, on Medicare, Medicare is doomed as we know it, not by Mr. Ryan, but by Mr. Arithmetic. It just doesn't work anymore. And therefore, when he proposes essentially what the bipartisan commission on Medicare proposed more than a decade ago, premium support, which is, no matter what Mr. Hollen [sic] said a moment ago, is essentially what every federal worker has from the man who delivers your mail to Harry Reid who delivers stuff." [George Will on This Week]
The GOPers--who are now worshiping at the altar of fiscal responsibility--just in the past two years (forget about their wild spending rampage during the Bush administration years) were screaming bloody murder over the Dems healthcare proposal which would have trimmed 500 billion from Medicare.
Of course demagoguery, hypocrisy and political opportunism are the easy and obvious answers, but is there a more laudable and less ignoble explanation?
Thanks...
Jer
Jer.....Since I am one of those who are currently on Medicare,
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 3:17am.
the use of the verb "trim" does not seem appropriate, when we are discussing $500 billion in cuts to Medicare. Approximately $132 billion of those cuts would be to Medicare Advantage plans that I use. President Obama believes Medicare Advantage plans are a waste.
You are usually clear and concise in your posts, but I admit I am having some difficulty understanding the point you are trying to make. It's my understanding that Paul Ryan's fix for Medicare, based on a premium support model, would not affect those currently on Medicare or 10 years from Medicare. It's also my understanding that Ryan's plan would use some of the savings from the repeal of Obamacare to reinstate the proposed Medicare cuts.
The Bush Administration certainly lacked fiscal responsibility. Although as a senior I benefited from Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug program, I felt it was another burden on an already debt-ridden Medicare program. As for the Republicans who acted like Democrats during the Bush years, I credit their makeover to the constraining influence from the Tea Party movement. Let's hope this influence continues until our government is fiscally healthy.
Actually, the Medicare Rx
Submitted by dscott on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 3:50am.
Actually, the Medicare Rx plan is the ONLY part of the Medicare Plan that is NOT going broke as it is self supporting via premiums from the participants. My information comes from the annual Social Security Trust Fund report. This is exactly why liberals hate the plan with a passion because it was implimented under W and it's not broke because it neither generates positive or negative cash flow. If it were generating positive cash flow, liberals would love it because that money would be able to be embezzled. Remember, In the liberal world if you decrease the rate of increase OR not create a negative cash flow by only taking just enough, it's a cut and drain on the Treasury.
btw- I am also very familiar with Medicare since my parent is on it and I handle the bills.
dscott......I agree with you that Bush's Medicare prescription
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 11:10am.
drug program costs are much lower than initially projected. This is proof that competition, as well as other factors, in healthcare work just as well as in other markets. However, I don't believe it is self-supporting as you claim. Based on this Newsmax article titled Bush Drug Plan Beats Cost Mark, the prescription drug program cost taxpayers $60.8 billion a year.
<p>I believe they screwed up
Submitted by dscott on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 3:03pm.
<p>I believe they screwed up that attribution. The taxpayers, i.e. the seniors collecting SS are the ones paying the 60.8 billion via deductions from the monthly SS check. The government maybe be "managing" the money that was collected as a conduit and thus are cutting the checks for the distribution of the $60.8 billion. The Trustee Report is quite clear on this point of who pays for SMI Part D. Exerpts: </p>
<p>...The SMI Trust Fund is adequately financed under current law because of the automatic financing established for Medicare Parts B and D. The ACA’s reductions in the Medicare payment rates to most service providers result in substantially lower projected costs for Part B than reported last year. Note, however, that Part B costs are almost certainly understated as a result of incorporating substantial reductions in physician fees during the next several years that would be required under current law, but are very unlikely to occur. The ACA is expected to have a much smaller net effect on projected Part D costs. Lower-than-anticipated drug spending in 2008 and 2009, and a lower projected rate of growth in Part D costs during the next decade, are partially offset by the ACA’s phasing out of the benefit formula coverage gap (or “donut hole”) during 2011-20. Part D costs are projected to grow at an average rate of 9.4 percent annually over the next decade. Despite the reductions in cost growth described in this year’s report, the SMI Trust Fund will require large increases in enrollee premiums and general revenue funding over the long-range projection period...</p>
<p>...In 2010, the Part D "base monthly premium" is $31.94. (Actual premium amounts charged to Part D beneficiaries depend on the specific plan in which they are enrolled and are expected to average around $30 for standard coverage.)... </p>
<p>...Part D is similarly financed on an annual basis. Moreover, the operation of Part D through private insurance plans, together with a flexible appropriation for Federal costs, eliminates the need for a contingency reserve in that account. ...</p>
<p>...What is the Long-Range Actuarial Balance of the OASI, DI, and HI Trust Funds? Another way to view the outlook for payroll tax financed trust funds is in terms of their actuarial balances for the 75-year valuation period. The actuarial balance of a fund is essentially the difference between annual income and costs, expressed as a percentage of taxable payroll, summarized over the 75-year projection period. (Because SMI is brought into balance annually through premium increases and general revenue transfers, actuarial balance is not an informative concept for that program.)...</p>
Because Part B and Part D are often wrapped up together in Medicare, it is understandable that the financing for same is often confused. Part D is the ONLY part of the Medicare scheme that is in balance. Part B has problems. DI is screwed.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
Jer.
Submitted by Par for the Course on Mon, 04/11/2011 - 9:20am.
The GOPers--who are now worshiping at the altar of fiscal responsibility--just in the past two years (forget about their wild spending rampage during the Bush administration years) were screaming bloody murder over the Dems healthcare proposal which would have trimmed 500 billion from Medicare.
If anyone was "screaming bloody murder over the Dems healthcare proposal" to trim $500 billion from Medicare, it was because the $500 billion was being used to fund a whole new entitlement program, not really extending or improving Medicare. (Sorry, no double counting allowed - See HHS chief actuary) If the $500 billion was used for the sole purpose of improving and extending Medicare, you probably wouldn't have heard as many people screaming bloody murder.
While I agree with you that spending was excessive during the Bush administration years. I believe if the Democrats had their way, spending would have been much worse during those years. As an example, I offer the Democrat substitute for H.R. 1, CBO's preliminary estimate of the impact of the Democratic amendment to H.R. 1, the Medicare and Prescription Drug Modernization Act of 2003:
The net effect of the bill, we estimate, would be an increase in the deficit of $0.4 billion in 2003, $5.1 billion in 2003, $255.0 billion over the 2004-2008 period, and $968.7 billion over the 2004-2013 period.
In other words, if the Democratic substitute, offered as an amendment to H.R. 1, the Medicare and Prescription Drug Modernization Act of 2003, had passed, we would have added almost ** $600 billion more to the debt by 2013. So, spending during the Bush years could have been much higher, and we would be calling it something even worse than just a "wild spending rampage".
** Note: The CBO estimate for H.R.1, showed a projected deficit of $372.5 billion over the 2004-2013 period. So, $968.7 billion, the Democrat substitute, minus $372.5 billion = $596.2 billion.