NRO:
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the GOP’s high priest of pecuniary politics, has ascended to the chairmanship of the House Budget Committee. Across the land, fiscal conservatives applaud the rise of the 40-year-old wonk. But the cheers in Congress are more sporadic: Unflinching endorsements of Ryan’s fiscal blueprint are rare. Apparently, the new majority is in no mood — yet — for a full-spectrum fight on entitlements.
[…]
[…] as Ryan preps for a spring budget battle, Cantor, House Speaker John Boehner, and others are not showing much eagerness to take up the roadmap’s specifics. Ryan’s project, which proposes we curb the looming debt crisis by moving toward a defined-contribution model for entitlements over the next several decades, languishes.
Nevertheless, with Ryan now holding real power, along with a burgeoning national profile, Republicans will be forced to choose how aggressively to act on his big ideas — even if it makes them uncomfortable. With a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in the Senate, chances for major policy change are slim. But the public will eye how Republicans fight — to see if they’re serious about finding a solution.
[…]
Cantor, the House majority leader, brushes back the idea that House Republicans are wary of Ryan. But he, like the others, is not championing the roadmap as the House GOP budget strategy. Instead, he tells NRO, the leadership is encouraging Ryan to craft a flinty budget for the remainder of the fiscal year. By addressing Washington’s discretionary-spending levels first, Republicans, Cantor argues, can “demonstrate that we are serious about cutting spending and getting our debt under control.”
Beyond that, things get a bit murkier, but Cantor does see an opportunity for aspects of the roadmap to become policy. “I am supportive of the direction that Paul is headed,” he says. Still, he cautions, “as you know, the budget is something that is [scored] within the budget window for the next ten years. I’m hopeful that we can get elements of what Paul is aiming for incorporated.” Regarding entitlements, however, the roadmap really takes hold beyond that point.
In an interview at his committee office, Ryan acknowledges that convincing his colleagues to back the plan in its entirety will be an uphill climb. “Look, I never said this was a take-it-or-leave-it plan,” he points out. But he remains hopeful: “My sense is that Republicans see the world differently than they did a few years ago.”
House Democrats, freshly in the minority, sense an opportunity to needle Republicans. “They are caught between their rhetoric and reality,” Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) notes in an interview with NRO. “Ryan is legit on this, but I don’t think the rest of them are. Maybe that’s partly why they gave him this power — so they can hide behind him.”
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D., N.Y.) echoes that line. “Republicans like to point to Ryan as their thought leader but appear to be deeply ambivalent about his thoughts,” he muses.
For House Republicans, the plan presents a straightforward choice: a detailed party line on bloated entitlements, or a roadmap not taken.
The more things change, the more they stay the same…?
Listen: Cutting entitlements will never make you popular. But that’s not why we backed TEA Party conservatives. We don’t want them making a career as a politician and legislator. We want them to do what has to be done and then go home, comforted by their service to a nation that is in jeopardy of drowning in its own unfunded largess.
If they are already worried about what the media and the Dems will do to them — if, for instance, the are already running away from the TEA Party label because they fear being publicly indicted in the press as co-conspirators in murder sprees — we’ve already lost.
The new “civility” is an exercise in censorship. That many in the GOP have decided to self-censor just shows how sophisticated have become the tyrants in their methods at achieving their ends.
Oh. And before you call me an extremist, do know that I wrote this post while sitting very close to a Democrat. So. I’ve got immunity.
(thanks to dicentra)
I think Ryan and his allies need to start constantly repeating the fact that the plan creates a split at age 55. If you’re older than that and have been planning on the current system, none of these scary, scary things apply.
That’s what all of these pols are worried about embracing because of their 65+ constituents, the pre-55 options.
It’s not politically tough, rather, it’s a moderate communications challenge. So, they should start working it.
In some respects I’m inclined to grant the newcomers a bit of slack or leeway simply on practical grounds: that is, it took Ryan himself years to master the depth of detail he has mastered about Fed budgeting so why not give these people a few months to get up to speed on his proposals, which, having been proposed much of the original work will have already been done for them?
Given that it represents a massive change in policy, and that its effects will be felt in every corner of the nation, I’m not surprised that a lot of these idiots are hesitant to embrace it entirely. Somewhat disappointed, perhaps, but not surprised.
I think a lot of these guys are worried that there’s something hidden in Ryan’s document that they’re going to get crucified for. Knowing how bad these morons are at reading stuff, and seeing how badly people got beat up for the horrible crap hidden in the last couple of thousand-page bills, it could be that they want to make sure there’s nothing in there about puppy-kicking before they state on the record that they love the whole thing. But that may be giving them more benefit than they deserve.
I think the important thing for Ryan, and those allies he has, is to stress that the Roadmap is a vision statement, not an omnibus spending bill. As with so many other policy issues, I’d really like to see the leadership break the problem down into management components, and then start moving those components through Congress starting with the least controversial and working their way up. Use the Roadmap as a picture of where you want to go, and acknowledge that you’re not going to get there all at once, and that there will be some changes along the way.
For our part, we need to make it clear that the punishment for failing to follow through on these hard decisions will be worse than the punishment for doing the job they were sent there to do. If their choices are “Unpopular Senator” and “Unpopular Former Senator,” we may get some quality out of them before the end.
By the way, the “moderate” above refers to how hard or easy the task should be. I’m not using it in the political spectrum sense.
Ryan just recently voted for Obama’s trillion dollar tax cuts for stimulus rape of our brokedick little country’s treasury. He clearly doesn’t have the courage of his convictions, and this is not how leaders act.
It’s not surprising people aren’t lining up to follow him.
bh is correct in that the reforms will have to split the groups. I’m 46, and I and others my age (and certainly younger) never expect to see a dime from Social Security. To me, it’s an onerous tax that I must continue to pay or be jailed, nothing more. One must pick an age to split it at, and 55 is as good as any. Also, means testing will have to enter the picture. Social Security is a fraud, and our contributions are just taxes. The money has gone down the same rathole as the rest of our money.
I also agree that these new guys had better get used to being unpopular. In the previous thread, I remarked that we needed to take a wait and see attitude, but after reading the NRO article I think I’ve changed my mind. I know if it were me in there (impossible, I would never survive a vetting), I would be a one-term representative because I would not care about my popularity one bit. The people who make the cuts we need to make are going to be vilified now but praised in the very distant future. It’s political suicide to take away people’s goodies, but we need it done anyway.
We have a very similar view on Social Security, cranky.
I regret using “correct” in my first sentence. I should have said I agree instead. My natural arrogance showed through. Again.
Some things are so obvious people can’t help but ignore them for the scary things they portend, which seems to be the general American conversational position with regard to the daft position the country has put itself in vis a vis entitlements. Ryan just doesn’t have it in him to look away.
Just remember folks, it’s all discretionary spending, regardless of what they tell us and each other.
Some good comments here.
To the degree that I’ll grant anyone some slack while they get up to speed, it’s temporary. So, I hope these folks are diligently reading their briefing books.
And, I think that would be a smart way to go about implementation, Squid.
I’m hoping my oscillations on this subject will eventually be damped to a reasonable steady-state position.
Would that be the one that prevented O! from having even more money to spend by letting us keep it instead? Your definitions are remarkably similar to whore’s…. Hopefully, Jeff will recognize the tipping point sooner.
actually I was thinking of the one that Sarah Palin opposed Mr. SDN
are her definitions remarkably similar to whore’s as well?
Follow the money.
Morning Joe Scarborough gives his opinion.
Do you think he’s going to miss you?
what are you talking about I mostly support the roadmap I just think it’s silly that it doesn’t mention defense spending
“It doesn’t mention defense spending” isn’t equivalent to Ryan not mentioning defense in any case, since he has, rather pointedly within my earshot. His sense seemed then to be, find money already spent at waste and duplication, or pissed away on one identifiable thing or another at DoD, then bundle those savings to repurpose back into defense, keeping the overall level of spending there as high as possible while we’re involved in an ongoing war with yet other security challenges on the horizon.
I’m also going to agree with you BH, we have to really, really push on that 55 and older split, and then really harp on those 55+ that they are sentencing their grandchildren to serfdom if we don’t start making changes NOW.
Ed Koch defends Palin without agreeing with her on policy.
Palin supports Ryan’s position. That is a credit to Sarah Palin, not a criticism of Ryan. And Rubio would be wise to ignore Jeb Bush’s pragmatism. And the GOP would be wise to stick to principles rather than trying to ensure their own jobs. W and Rove tried that…it did not work out so well.
yes that was my sense too Mr. sdferr the roadmap doesn’t find any savings from defense spending whereas even Secretary Gates was able to
Gates’s particulars may or may not turn out to be prudent, it’s hard to say. I have the sense that he’s none too happy about Obama’s most recent (second unilateral) round of cut promises. But then I never have trusted Gates too far myself.
National defense is a legitimate function of the federal government, happyfeet. Social Security, the EPA, Dept of Education, and countless other things that it currently does–however poorly–are not.
if defense cuts can make the roadmap an easier sell then they’re for sure prudent to that extent
Not prudent. Maybe expedient.
But ill-advised.
if you cut cut cut everything but defense you end up increasing defense spending’s share of the overall budget … I doubt that will fly
Yeah, I think I agree more with Jim on that score. The measure of the prudence of defense cuts won’t be known until we’re throwing explosives back and forth with an enemy, whereupon once again we’ll hear someone saying something to the effect “you go to war with the defense systems you’ve got” while the Democrats raise hell about the deaths of American troopers.
If the defense share increases simply because the overall budget decreases, even Democrats should be smart enough to figure out why. Not that they’d admit it, of course.
But that just exposes them for, and permits additional opportunities to call them, morons.
Cantor does see an opportunity for aspects of the roadmap to become policy
So if you can’t build a whole bridge, building half a bridge is a pretty good compromise?
And there’s your answer to the “half-a-loaf” people: give them a different metaphor.
I wrote this post while sitting very close to a Democrat.
The wife’s a Democrat? Whoa. You got GUTS, dood.
The armadillo might be the Democrat.
No, she’s not.
I just said that so I could appear civil. Lying for a good cause is allowed, I hear.
The Dolphin in the pea coat? Anarchist. That’s what he told me, anyway.
I had assumed it was the tyke.
Lying for a good cause is allowed, I hear
Only for The Cause.
Defense spending as a percentage of the overall federal budget has steadily decreased since the 1990s, notwithstanding the cost of the warriors in the field. I happily agree with Ryan on holding dollar magnitudes level, reallocating those that are currently being wasted.
There’s a reason that the Euro-socialists have been able to spend so much on cradle-to-grave entitlements and subsidies and so little on defense over the years; we’ve essentially been providing their overarching strategic defense at effectively no charge. If we too head in that direction, then who will protect us? The Russians or the Chinese?
Additionally, our larger strategic military vision has been clouded by fighting assymetrical conventional actions where sometimes it seems like we’re more concerned limiting collateral damage and winning hearts and minds than in, well, winning.
I know, I know…That’s a bit hyperbolic. But what I’m saying is that the focus has been on the “right now” more than in future conflicts against opponents of equal capability. When you add to that questionable programs such as the F-35 and the LCS, the amount of funding for expanding/modernizing our first line air defense (F-22) and power projection ability (the Navy), it gives one serious pause to think.
I disagree with Gates’ and the JCS’ priorities over the last few years; including those when Bush was C in C. I think that the procurement process needs to be overhauled, the priorities arranged properly, the boondoggles and porky programs thrown to the side in favor of those that, you know, actually achieve results. And the recipe to do all that doesn’t begin with cutting the defense budget because of the fairness…
Or are we, as a nation, going to go the typical corrupt political route demonstrated most recently by Camden NJ; where the need to reduce the public payroll by 15% turns into the usual kabuki of laying off 1/2 of the police force and 1/3 of the firefighters in a city that can afford neither.
I’m pretty sure it’s one of the hoboes in the basement. I mean, think about it.
Just because you’re arrogant doesn’t mean you’re not correct! … At least that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
I’m 55 and under the current system I’ll be surprised if I get enough out of Social Security to live on. I won’t say “I’ll never see a dime” but I’m not expecting much more than a dime. I pity the folks who are counting on SocSec ’cause they’ll likely be eating some of the finer brands of catfood.
Rather than splitting SocSec into ‘those over 55 get it and those under 55 just keep paying for it’ (because somebody’s got to keep paying for it, there’s no money in that ‘lockbox’, only IOU’s), I’d rather see it turned into a needs-based safety net. We’d all keep paying into it at some level, but only those who really need it ever get anything back, regardless of how old they might now be. That would include cutting off the oldsters who are now using SocSec to pay their greens fees, but it would extend the safety net into the future to protect all the ne’er do wells who ne’er do well.
Yes, rather than being an entitlement it would become welfare for oldsters, and it would reward the grasshoppers who don’t provide for their own retirement — why I’d argue for keeping the payments very low, you won’t starve but you won’t be living high either — but somehow I can’t see grannies living in cardboard boxes in the richest country on earth and if we keep on down the road we’re on the whole house of cards is going to collapse. Then the grannies will have plenty of company in their under-the-bridge communities.
Grannies should have been nicer to their kids and grandkids. I don’t want my mother moving in, but if that’s what it takes, then that’s what it takes. To do otherwise would mark me as a very small man. Almost as small as Obama.