Having been critical of Mitt Romney in the past, I am frequently asked about my views of Romney as a presidential candidate, and more recently the Romney-Ryan ticket. I’ve received a few emails lately prompting a response on the blog.
Those who support Romney-Ryan tout Romney’s experience as a business leader. Paul Ryan adds a passion for reform, knowledge about the budget, strong communication skills, and solid conservative credentials. This ticket is more focused and reform-oriented than McCain-Palin. Obama has been a disaster, and Romney has a real opportunity to turn things around.
But others see things differently. Conservative-minded detractors don’t attack Romney’s character per se, but point out his lack of consistency on a number of key issues. Ryan’s passion and knowledge notwithstanding, his proposals don’t go far enough. Romney-Ryan might be better than Obama-Biden, but we’d still be headed for the cliff, albeit at a slower pace.
Consider that Ryan’s Medicare reform proposal would make no changes for anyone 55 or older. They’ve paid into the system and have planned their retirements around Medicare, so I understand the point here. However, the Medicare trustees tell us that the program will go bankrupt by 2016 if you exclude Obama’s double-counting. Even if actuary Richard Foster is off by a few years, this would happen before any reform takes place. Those on the left who characterize Ryan’s plan as draconian are burying their heads in the sand. To be frank, an ideal solution would be much more aggressive.
Our nation has declined precipitously since Obama’s election, but we must admit that he is not entirely responsible for the current state of affairs. We didn’t get to a $16 trillion debt overnight and we won’t get ourselves out of it rapidly either. In my view, Romney-Ryan appear to be offering a legitimate move in the right direction. It may not be as far as we need to go, but it could be the first step. Moreover, IF Romney wins AND he gets (real) conservative majorities in both houses, then we MIGHT see more aggressive proposals. There are no guarantees here, but consider the alternative.
Many of today’s so-called conservatives seem more like moderates and most fail to understand the seriousness of the current economic challenges. I’m not entirely optimistic about the fiscal future of our nation and I’m not sure what we would get from a President Romney, but four more years of Obama might be more that our nation can handle.
Both parties have moved to the left. Democrats are now soft socialists and Republicans are now moderates. It’s a choice between a fast death and a slow death.
I am struck by the use of the term ‘bankrupt” in predicting the fate of Medicare. Bankruptcy implies a certain finality, i.e., end of life. Medicare is a program which has been underwritten by the government since the law was enacted over four decades ago. You don’t hear about unemployment benefits going bankrupt (also law) or student aid or foreign aid or food stamps or even Medicaid. We do the same with Social Security, predicting bankruptcy. Why is this? Is it because these two programs apply to old people?
A very interesting question, Arthur…The word “bankrupt” is often used with Medicare and Social Security because the programs are supposed to be self-supporting. Other government expenditures are “discretionary” and are not tied to specific taxes. I don’t think age has anything to do with it, certainly not when I use the terms.
With changes in life expectancy and medical technology, Americans have been promised more than Social Security and Medicare can deliver. The progressives forecast this from the beginning but painted a picture of minimal taxes in exchange for long term security to get these programs passed. Once implemented, they knew it would be easier politically to raise “contributions” and shift the burden to “the rich” than to scale back the benefits. We have an obligation to fund Social Security and Medicare for current retirees as best we can because recipients have been paying into the program and planning their retirements accordingly. Reforms should be phased in, but we need to institute changes now. Some of the changes will have to be in the form of benefits (example- increase the age for coverage, modify how inflation is calculated in cost-of-living adjustments, etc.); these simply cannot be avoided if the programs are to remain solvent. The medium and long term shift must be toward market solutions, privatization, and opt-out possibilities. This will both lessen the burden of government on private citizens and improve efficiency.
I am happy with Ryan as a VP choice as it brings Medicare into the debate, along with Obamacare, which are in my opinion, intertwined. I have some strong opinions on what is wrong there but I want to make a couple of points regarding Social Security.
I don’t believe it is viewed as self-funding any more. Otherwise, the politcians on both sides would not have cut the employee FICA taxes for two years to the tune of about $100 billion per year. Secondly, the fund, or lockbox, has turned over and payments to retirees are now exceeding receipts. This is a double-edged sword since the Federal government has borrowed all the money from the fund to pay for the discretionary expenditures. This means they can no longer borrow from the lockbox, and what’s more they must be prepared to pay it back so that retirees can receive benefits. It may have started out to be self-funded but it has been ravaged over the years so that those facing retirement are also facing a bankrupt system. Instead of privatizing the choices, I would prefer to privatize the investment function. At least get a decent interest rate from the Federal government.
The truth is that the entire government is going bankrupt, not just Medicare and Social Security. We need true conservative majorities in Congress that will push Romney even further that he wants to go.
The best plan for Romney-Ryan is to abandon the planks in a platform (i.e., the issues) and run on the concept of an ideology. Obama, et al, have done this already. There are no plans to fix any system, organization, process, entitlement or law by either party. This has been successful for the progressive/liberals/Obama camp. What they have essentially run on is the concept of a society where each citizen receives everything from the government. It has been quite successful, as much of the electorate likes the idea of being cared for from cradle to grave. I have become more and more convinced that elections are won by the individual that “gives me something”. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. are far to advanced and complicated for the average person to understand. More so, I’m convinced that people have adopted more and more of a “I don’t want to understand” attitude. Really, people are willing to exchange personal liberty for security in the form of government control. What we have systematically removed from the electorate’s intelligence is the ability to comprehend that the exchange rate on security is equal to about 1 pound of liberty buys you about 1 ounce of security. And, when you’re all out of liberty, the government starts taking away security.
Romney-Ryan would do best to stay out of the “weeds”, the “tactical level” of issues, and campaign on the ideological question of “do you want liberty or security?” Each comes at a cost of the other, and are logically, mutually exclusive. Personally, I’ve stopped talking about issues, and ask that simple question of people, “do you want to be free, with all of its risks, or do you want to perceive security through government control?” This is the only question at hand. I’m disheartened by how quick we are to give up the freedom that was fought for and defended for over 250 years in order to prostitute ourselves to the government for a few kernels of corn.