When I first began this blog and resolved to write pretty much every day if I possibly could, my initial worry was that I’d lack for topics. And although I suppose that could still end up happening, so far it’s been the very least of my worries. Far more often the problem has been too many topics, too little time.
Or so many angles and approaches to one topic that writing all of them, or even most of them, would be a full-time job and then some.
For example, with the Ryan budget proposal alone we’ve got quite a variety of opinions, and that’s only the ones cited at memeorandum on one thread; there are more here on the very same page. There’s everything from the predictable Krugman/Yglesias scoffing and ridicule to the also predictable defense from National Review, and so on and so forth with the usual suspects saying the usual things and the usual arguments and counterarguments.
Budget proposals such as Ryan’s, as well as the previous HCR statute that set up Obamacare, are inherently complex things that require not only a fairly good grasp of economics but also make a great many assumptions and projections about the way things will go afterward. This makes them a fertile field for each side to say whatever it wants, sometimes through distortion and even outright lies, sometimes through wishful thinking, and sometimes simply through the different economic theories that underlie the true philosophical differences between left and right.
What’s an ordinary person such as myself, one who is not especially well-versed in economic matters, to do? Read, read, read, and think, think, think, weigh the different points made, as well as trying to go to some of the arguably less-biased sources to try to find what might be the closest thing to an objective opinion out there.
For the latter I sometimes read Megan McCardle, since she’s especially into economic issues and has been mostly somewhat middle of the road. So far she hasn’t done any in-depth analysis of the Ryan proposal; I’m waiting patiently. But here are her first impressions, containing this gem: “As of this evening, the Democratic policy plan consists of yelling ‘You suck!'”
As with McArdle, most commentators are giving general impressions right now rather than delving into the minutiae. This take by James Capretta is pretty good, although I disagree somewhat with his statement that “with a Republican plan on the table, the media will surely start to ask Democrats, ‘Hey, where’s your plan?'” Only the fairer ones will, I predict.
And this piece by Riehan Salam seems to make some interesting and balanced points (he quotes Capretta, as well). Here’s an excerpt from Salam:
We’re seeing a strange political reversal. Republicans haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory in recent years when it comes to questions of fiscal sustainability. The classic Republican position has been to call for tax cuts without calling for commensurate cuts to mandatory spending, i.e., the party has advocated shifting the tax burden from today’s workers to future workers, without saying so explicitly. Republicans have had the luxury of taking potshots at Democrats without offering a plausible path to fiscal sustainability of their own. This allowed Democrats to claim to be the more fiscally responsible party, despite the fact that they too were offering a pie-in-the-sky approach, in which hikes in marginal tax rates on high earners were offered as a cure-all.
Now, in contrast, we have prominent Republican legislators getting behind deep cuts in entitlement spending as a strategy for forestalling future tax increases. One could counter by arguing that higher taxes on the non-poor ”” that is, on middle-income as well as high-income households ”” are preferable for reasons X, Y, and Z, and that a centralized approach to cost control is better than a decentralized approach to cost control. We definitely hear the latter argument here and there, at least from left-of-center wonks. But it’s only a doughty handful few critics who explicitly make the case for higher middle-class taxes to fund a progressive welfare state. As Matt Yglesias recently, er, tweeted,
“I think Obama taking all middle class taxes off the table makes something approximating Ryanism inevitable: http://ygl.as/hg0Kdb”
That sounds about right.
So yes, let’s continue the debate about whether Rep. Ryan’s cuts are too deep. But it’s time for the other shoe to drop. If the cuts really are too deep, which taxes should we increase? There is, after all, only so much revenue we can squeeze high-earners.
One thing I’ve noticed already is that many writers call Ryan’s Medicare proposal a voucher program. It is not; it is a premium support program, although how much of a distinction that represents is also up for grabs.
It always especially interests me when either praise or criticism—however slight—comes from unexpected sources. In this case we have liberal Jacob Weisberg in Slate calling the Ryan plan “brave, radical, and smart.” Hmmm (he also says it involves vouchers, but he’s hardly alone in that). Here’s a sample from Weisberg (and note that it includes the very call for an alternative plan from Democrats that Capretta aluded to ):
If the GOP gets behind his proposals in a serious way, it will become for the first time in modern memory an intellectually serious party””one with a coherent vision to match its rhetoric of limited government. Democrats are within their rights to point out the negative effects of Ryan’s proposed cuts on future retirees, working families, and the poor. He was not specific about many of his cuts, and Democrats have a political opportunity in filling in the blanks. But the ball is now in their court, and it will be hard to take them seriously if they don’t respond with their own alternative path to debt reduction and long-term solvency.
And before they reject everything in Ryan’s plan, liberals might want to consider whether some of what he proposes doesn’t in fact serve their own ultimate goals. Ryan’s proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher provides an easy political target. But it’s hard to make a principled liberal case for the program in its current form.
One could spend days just reading the opinions on the plan. But now it’s your turn to add to them—fire away!
[NOTE: By the way, Weisberg writes, “Democrats have been more fiscally responsible, producing an actual budget surplus during Bill Clinton’s second term.”
But Congress was Republican during Clinton’s second term. ]
