|
FOCUS | Paul Ryan, an Entitlement Destroyer |
 |
|
Saturday, 25 August 2012 12:54 |
|
Reich writes: "Ryan isn't an entitlement reformer. He's an entitlement destroyer. And in an era of rampant economic insecurity, Ryan's destruction would cause American families even greater hardship."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Paul Ryan, an Entitlement Destroyer
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
25 August 12
 avid Brooks in today's New York Times commits the standard error of pundits who want to appear neutral but know the Romney-Ryan plan would be a disaster for America. He asserts that Ryan makes a serious effort at entitlement reform. "If you believe entitlement reform is essential for national solvency, then Romney-Ryan is the only train leaving the station."
Baloney.
Ryan "reforms" Medicaid by destroying it - cutting the federal contribution by some $800 billion and then continuing the cuts after the first ten years until federal spending is a small fraction of what it is today, and handing it over to the states, which can't possibly keep the program going.
Ryan "reforms" food stamps by slashing them - reducing the federal contribution by around $125 billion and then, beyond the first decade, essentially ending the program altogether.
He "reforms" Medicare by substituting vouchers that can't possibly keep up with the rising costs of health care.
Originally he wanted to "reform" Social Security by turning it into private savings accounts whose value would rise or fall at the whim of the Wall Street casino. (Now he doesn't suggest any reform of Social Security. )
You want real entitlement reform? President Obama has begun it. Rational people would make sure he gets a second term to:
Use the government's huge bargaining clout in Medicare and Medicaid to push down drug costs and the costs of medical providers, and to shift from a fee-for-services system to a payments-for-healthy-outcomes system.
Then allow anyone of any age to join Medicare so all Americans can get affordable health care.
Fold food stamps and other programs for the poor into a single enlarged Earned Income Tax Credit - a monthly cash grant that's inversely related to income.
Save Social Security by eliminating the ceiling on income subject to it. (Now, income over $110,100 isn't touched.)
These are real reforms. Ryan isn't an entitlement reformer. He's an entitlement destroyer. And in an era of rampant economic insecurity, Ryan's destruction would cause American families even greater hardship.
Robert B. Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.
 |
|
FOCUS | The Republican National Convention: What Could Possibly Go Wrong? |
|
|
Saturday, 25 August 2012 11:27 |
|
Burkeman writes: "The following list of worst-case scenarios - and I'd like to be absolutely clear about this - is provided solely in a spirit of generosity, to help the GOP forestall them. No anticipatory Schadenfreude is intended. None whatsoever."
Hey, we're the monkeys: at least one macaque is on the loose in Tampa, Florida, where Republicans hold their convention next week. (photo: Chaiwat Subprasom/Reuters)
The Republican National Convention: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
By Oliver Burkeman, Guardian UK
25 August 12
Hurricanes, alligators, Donald Trump and some of the worst-case scenarios GOP operatives will be hoping to avoid.
 ext week's Republican convention in Tampa has, of course, been choreographed down to the tiniest detail. The stage set, we're told, has been meticulously engineered to convey "warmth, approachability and openness". Much thought has been given to avoiding last-minute disruptions by supporters of Ron Paul, or by anarchists wielding acid-filled eggs. Nor are we likely to see the high drama of the 2008 party conventions, marked as they were by historical firsts, most notably the first nomination of a vice-presidential candidate based on under three minutes' vetting by her party.
But things might still go wrong. The following list of worst-case scenarios - and I'd like to be absolutely clear about this - is provided solely in a spirit of generosity, to help the GOP forestall them. No anticipatory Schadenfreude is intended. None whatsoever.
1. The hurricane scenario: will Hurricane Isaac, most recently reported as a tropical storm gathering strength in the Caribbean, wreak havoc in Tampa? (As you may recall, Hurricane Gustav - though it came nowhere near the convention HQ in St Paul - gave John McCain another chance to engage in his favourite campaign tactic of "suspending the campaign".) Hurricanes, Michele Bachmann and Pat Robertson agree, are generally signs of heavenly anger at profligate government spending, or feminists. So what will it mean if God smites Tampa? Perhaps it will mean that He is sick of being used as an explanation for naturally occurring meteorological phenomena.
2. The sex scandal scenario: Tampa's strip clubs are expecting an income boost from the convention, though at least one establishment is now offering the opportunity to participate online, regrettably reducing the chances of big names being photographed emerging from darkened doorways. Still, after a tiring evening on the convention floor, and a few drinks at the hotel bar, inhibitions crumble. Will this be the moment at which Paul Ryan is finally exposed as harbouring a super-secret sexual fetish that involves dressing up in correctly fitting clothes?
3. The fugitive wildlife scenario: to hold your convention in Florida is effectively to guarantee that it'll intersect with some kind of animals-on-the-loose story: it's a fact, although not a statistically accurate one, that 50% of all Florida news stories involve alligators, and - as detailed in this week's New York Times magazine - a wily macaque has been on the run from Tampa cops since 2009, achieving heroic outlaw status among locals. The worst-case scenario here involves a monkey or alligator on the loose in the convention centre itself, which among other things might startle the stable of dressage horses with which Mitt Romney travels at all times (strapped to the roof of his car).
4. The "major party figure goes off-message" scenario: for days, Republican talking heads have been insisting that Joe Biden's use of the word "chains" was a racially divisive reference to slavery. Imagine, then, if a high-profile Republican, say Sarah Palin, were to accuse President Obama of putting people in "chains", or "shackl[ing]" them! That would be extraordinarily embarrassing. The party would never let that happen! Oh, wait.
5. The "rock musician objects to the use of his or her music" scenario: another Republican classic, borne of the truth that most rock musicians are left-leaning, while many rightwing politicians are convinced that the way to appeal to a wider audience is to be seen to Rock Out. We've already heard Rage Against the Machine's rage at Ryan (a little ungrateful, since he has presumably bought several of their t-shirts in XXL). Rumours that Chris Christie plans to arrive on stage to the music of Billy Bragg remain unconfirmed.
6. The "Democratic counter-programming actually works" scenario: each party always holds a few half-hearted press conferences near their rival's convention, in an effort to grab a bit of the TV coverage. (Rudy Giuliani spent much of the 2008 Democratic convention loitering in Denver, muttering about 9/11.) It rarely works. But this time, the Democrats are sending Joe Biden, the Gaffemeister-general - who just this week implied he'd had sex with three presidents - so anything could happen. Ironically, a big reason Biden's gaffiness is back in the news is the GOP's own strategy of trying to turn it into a liability for Obama. A big enough Biden gaffe - on the scale of asking a man in a wheelchair to "stand up … let 'em see you!", say - could steal precious television time.
7. The "Donald Trump does anything at all" scenario: according to several reports, the billionaire self-promoter and hair comedian has been given a "surprise role" on the convention's opening day, though Trump himself shyly insists it will be "rather minor". (Only kidding! He says it'll be "very, very major".) Perhaps, in the spirit of the times, he will share his unsolicited musings about sexual assault or reproductive biology? Perhaps he will launch a new toupee. Perhaps he will reveal a previously unknown talent as a human beatbox. Or perhaps he'll deliver a genuine surprise by watching quietly from the audience. One can dream.
8. The "GOP ideology undermined by some basic fact about the convention itself" scenario: the theme of the convention's second night will be "We Built It!" - the latest effort to capitalise on Obama's "you didn't build that" line. Unfortunately, it will be held in a convention centre built with 62% government funding. Cue sad trombone.
And consider bookmarking that sad trombone link. In the coming days, we may be needing it frequently.
|
|
|
What Ayn Rand Taught Paul Ryan |
|
|
Friday, 24 August 2012 15:30 |
|
Kinsley writes: "Paul Ryan laughed. He stood naked on top of the vice president's desk in the Senate chamber, scanning the crowd of sniveling politicians below him."
Paul Ryan with images of Ayn Rand and the Pope in the background. (image: Salon)
What Ayn Rand Taught Paul Ryan
By Michael Kinsley, Bloomberg News
24 August 12
  grew up reading Ayn Rand, and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are and what my beliefs are. It's inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff."
U.S. Representative Paul Ryan, Republican vice presidential candidate, in a 2005 speech.
Paul Ryan laughed. He stood naked on top of the vice president's desk in the Senate chamber, scanning the crowd of sniveling politicians below him.
He flexed his muscles, the result of hours spent in the House gymnasium. Look at these pathetic specimens, he thought. Not one of them could do a one-armed pushup if his life depended on it. Not one was worthy of so much as co-sponsoring one of Ryan's bills. Every single one of them had been elected by appealing to the average citizen in his (or her - Ryan snorted at the thought) district. It occurred to him, and not for the first time, that of all the men and women in this room, only he, Paul Ryan, had been selected for his current office by the president himself.
The president. Ryan's mind wandered as he thought about the only man who stood between him and absolute power. Mitt Romney was a weakling, he thought - and not for the first time. He's a man whose views can change. The thought filled Ryan with disgust. His own views were as solid as granite. They were the views of the only clear-thinking woman he had ever met: Ayn Rand.
Pathetic Losers
Ryan thought back on the humiliating "job interview" he had allowed himself to be subjected to before being chosen as Romney's vice president. Did he have any pregnant, unmarried daughters? Could he see Russia from his living room window?
Worst of all was the probing of his attitude about federal programs such as Medicare and Social Security. His attitude? His attitude was that all of these programs were for pathetic losers. Romney had agreed with him, but said they should keep this opinion under their hats. Ryan had obliged, only long enough to make it through the election. And he despised himself for this. But he did it, and it worked, and the Romney-Ryan team was elected. And now he kept nothing under his hat.
In fact, he didn't have a hat, or any other article of clothing. Clothing was for weaklings.
It was the opening session of the Senate, Vice President Paul Ryan presiding. The House leadership also was present. Below him he could see and hear so-called leaders of his own party pleading with him to get off the desk and sit in a chair like a normal human being - or at least put on some clothes, for God's sake. He cringed inwardly at having to listen to such advice from the likes of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.
Although, he had to admit, he couldn't despise these two men, much as he might wish to. They both seemed terribly bitter. He liked that. Actually, he had a real soft spot for Senator McConnell, who, when the occasion called for it, could be impressively nasty.
As for House Speaker Boehner, he could be nasty, too, but always with a slight cynical smirk, which said, "I know this is all just a game." This ruined it for Ryan. For Ryan, this was not a game.
Furthermore, Boehner smoked cigarettes. That marked him as a pathetic, weak character. But it also marked him as a man willing to stand up to the sickening pressures of social conformity. You could argue it both ways. There are merits on both sides of the argument. Reasonable men may differ. …
Pathetic Thinking
"Stop!" Ryan thought to himself. Was even he not immune from the poison of relativism? Had not his mistress taught him that there are not two sides to every question? There is only one side to every question. He could hear her voice in his head, saying: "No. No. No. Paul, you disappoint me. Hearing you say that something can be argued both ways makes me physically ill. Yes, yes, I want to vomit. There is one objective answer to any question, and that is the answer that derives from reason. And if you are in any doubt about what reason dictates, just come to me and I will tell you. You can take it on faith."
Ryan thought about the challenges that lay ahead. Privatizing the interstate highway system. Replacing the Pentagon with national defense vouchers. Turning the Smithsonian and the National Gallery of Art into block grants for the states. Ryan was especially excited by the defense vouchers idea. Why should national defense have to be "one-size-fits- all"?
Again, he scanned the room. It occurred to him that, if anything, the opposing party was even more pathetic than his own. What a collection of mediocrities. A perfect reflection of the people who elect them. Over there was that weasel Harry Reid. During the campaign - with no evidence at all - Senator Reid said that Romney had paid no taxes for 10 years. So what if he hadn't? Good for him. Taxation is slavery. It is the inferior majority expecting the superior minority to pay them for their very inferiority.
Paul Ryan banged the gavel and brought the Senate to order. It quieted down quickly - much faster than the House used to under the so-called leadership of that woman from California. The politicians recognized that they had entered the force field of a true, natural leader.
Yes, things were going to be very different from here on out, Ryan chuckled to himself.
|
|
FOCUS: Romney's Lying Machine |
|
|
Friday, 24 August 2012 14:00 |
|
Reich writes: "I've been struck by the baldness of Romney's repetitive lies about Obama ... The mainstream media along with a half-dozen independent fact-checking organizations and sites have called Romney on these whoppers, but to no avail."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Romney's Lying Machine
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
24 August 12
've been struck by the baldness of Romney's repetitive lies about Obama - that Obama ended the work requirement under welfare, for example, or that Obama's Affordable Care Act cuts $716 billion from Medicare benefits.
The mainstream media along with a half-dozen independent fact-checking organizations and sites have called Romney on these whoppers, but to no avail. He keeps making these assertions.
Every campaign is guilty of exaggerations, embellishments, distortions, and half-truths. But this is another thing altogether. I've been directly involved in seven presidential campaigns, and I don't recall a presidential candidate lying with such audacity, over and over again. Why does he do it, and how can he get away with it?
The obvious answer is such lies are effective. Polls show voters are starting to believe them, especially in swing states where they're being repeated constantly in media spots financed by Romney's super PAC or ancillary PACs and so-called "social welfare" organizations (political fronts disguised as charities, such as Karl Rove and the Koch brothers have set up).
Romney's lying machine is extraordinarily well financed. By August, according to Jane Mayer in her recent New Yorker article, at least 33 billionaires had each donated a quarter of a million dollars or more to groups aiming to defeat Obama – with most of it flooding into attack ads in swing states.
In early August, "Americans for Prosperity," one of the nonprofit front groups masquerading as a charity, and founded in part by billionaire right-wingers Charles and David Koch, bought some $27 million in ad time on spots now airing in eleven swing states.
So Romney's lying machine is working.
But what does all this tell us about the man who is running this lying machine? (Or if Romney's not running it, what does it tell us about a man who would select the people who are?)
We knew he was a cypher - that he'll say and do whatever is expedient, change positions like a chameleon, eschew any core principles.
Yet resorting to outright lies - and organizing a presidential campaign around a series of lies - reveals a whole new level of cynicism, a profound disdain for what remains of civility in public life, and a disrespect of the democratic process.
The question is whether someone who is willing to resort to such calculated lies, and build a campaign machine around them, can be worthy of the public's trust with the most powerful office in the world.
|
|
