It’s obviously quite disappointing that Congressman Paul Ryan has teamed up with Senator Ron Wyden, a Democratic from Oregon, to put forth a significantly watered down version of his Medicare reform plan.
Ben Domenech of the Heartland Institute and Peter Suderman of Reason have good summaries of why the new plan is a less-than-exciting development.
I’m not happy, but I’m not surprised. Having read a lot of the commentary flowing back and forth today, I have two initial observations.
1. Blame Romney and Gingrich. Republican House members are very nervous about getting demagogued during next year’s election because of their courageous vote this year for the Ryan budget. And since the two frontrunners for the GOP nomination are very squishy on the issue (and likely to become even worse once one of them gets the nomination), this leaves House GOPers in a risky position.
2. Ryan-Wyden may be “Obamacare for Seniors,” but that’s still better than the current system, which is sort of a “UK-single-payer-for-seniors” plan. In other words, Ryan-Wyden isn’t a good plan, but it’s not as bad as the current system. It would be a small step in the right direction. But it’s hard to get excited about a small step when lawmakers earlier this year voted for a big step.
But here’s the problem. America needs leadership to make the changes that are necessary to save the U.S. from a Greek-style fiscal crisis. Given the weak set of candidates running for President, I can understand why Ryan and other congressional Republicans are trimming their sails. But that doesn’t change the fact that America needs something bolder.
[…] The current version of the Ryan plan, now known as Ryan-Wyden, is not as good as the original version because it keeps the current Medicare system as an option. […]
[…] His proposed Medicare reform, while far better than current law, also is not as good as what was proposed last […]
[…] His proposed Medicare reform, while far better than current law, also is not as good as what was proposed last […]
Even Paul Ryan’s original budget was a huge compromise. It didn’t even balance until 2040 or something crazy like that.
Also, step 1 is to cut government spending and step 2 is to liquidate debt. Yes, that results in a crash, but a short one. Then real growth ensues and the middle class grows, and people don’t need the government so much.
This has been done before in our history with good results. Let’s listen to the Dr. The Dr. knows best.
lol, Gloria … Newt just wants to shove a grenade launcher down our throats
What? Even you fail to mention Ron Paul now? c’mon he’s mainstream now. He has a real chance and he’s looking to make big changes.
Ron Paul 2012!!!
Reality time. We can be right all day long on the entitlement battle and lose the war because it would get Obama reelected. First, we must recapture the White House and get a filibuster-proof Senate packed with Tea Party patriots. Then we must dialogue with the American people about saving our country from fiscal ruin. I’m 69 years old. You can win my heart and mind by appealing to saving the future for our children and grandchildren. Newt is right about concentrating on getting us back to a growth economy. That really solves many problems and gives us breathing room to get spending under control. And Newt was also right about the American people not wanting ANYTHING shoved down their throat either from the left (Obamacare) or the right (social issues).