Rant of the Week

Ayn Ryan

 

"Even as House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget would impose trillions of dollars in spending cuts, at least 62 percent of which would come from low-income programs, it would enact new tax cuts that would provide huge windfalls to households at the top of the income scale. New analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center finds that people earning more than $1 million a year would receive $265,000 apiece in new tax cuts, on average, on top of the $129,000 they would receive from the Ryan budget’s extension of President Bush’s tax cuts. The new tax cuts at the top would dwarf those for middle-income families. After-tax incomes would rise by 12.5 percent among millionaires, but just 1.8 percent for middle-income households. Low-income working families would actually be hit with tax increases."  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

We should always be disturbed when liberals and conservatives rejoice at the same the news.  Or at least wary.

Do conservatives believe that most people would support a far right conservative fiscal policy if it was honestly and openly presented to them?  I think they do.  I think they are very mistaken.  I think it was no accident that George Bush did not campaign on a policy of cutting taxes on the rich and making war on Iraq.  That was his agenda, but he campaigned on tax cuts for everyone, improving education, and drilling for more oil.  The only thing he actually achieved, aside from destroying the entire world economy, was the tax cuts for the rich, which he didn't advertise.  Republicans never announce those tax cuts as tax cuts for the rich.  They announce "tax cuts for all Americans" and then only cut taxes for the rich and then, having created a massive deficit, they announce program cuts for the poor.  Now, with Ryan, the target is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Social Security, by the way, is perfectly solvent.  Social Security is this incredibly rational little plan to have employees and employers each put a certain amount of money into a fund every pay period for a person's entire working life.  When this person gets old, he is able to draw from this fund to live off of.  Can you imagine a more rational social policy?   It's positively ingenius.  Does it work?  Hell yeah!  No government or private policy in the history of the world has reduced poverty more than social security.

And no conservative policy is more sinister than the one to destroy it.  Conservatives say, we can't have it. We can't allow people to benefit from rational policies.  We must destroy them!  Because, you see, we all pay in to Social Security.  Even if you are rich.  Even if, like Mitt Romney, you are so rich, you will never need Social Security.   

The massive current government deficit-- Bush inherited a surplus from Bill Clinton and immediately converted it into a deficit with his tax cuts for the rich and wars on Afghanistan and Iraq-- is seen by the Republicans as the best opportunity in years to try to convince Americans that  we can't afford Social Security or Medicare.

I think about that a lot.  If the Republicans are right, we live in a world in which millions of people must live in poverty without medical care of any kind.  That is the only possible outcome of Republican policy in this area.  

The real "death panel" is Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan planning to gut the only health insurance plan for poor Americans.

 

 
All Contents Copyright © Bill Van Dyk 2012 All Rights Reserved