Road Map for America’s Future
Paul Ryan has released a package of proposals to help tackle America’s big problems.
Ryan’s bill would, among other things:
• Offer tax credits - $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families - to buy health insurance.
• Establish Medicare payments of up to $9,500 to pay for private insurance and create medical savings accounts for out-of-pocket costs.
• Allow workers younger than 55 to invest a third of their Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts.
• Give taxpayers the choice between using the current income tax code or using a simplified tax system with two rates, 10% on taxable income of up to $100,000 for joint tax filers, 25% for income above that amount.
You have to love how hard the reporter worked to label Ryan’s plan as “conservative” and “Republican” as if that should make people immediately dismiss it. She started with the headline.
Conservatives cheer Ryan’s ‘road map’ bill
wow..this is the new era leader of the GOP??
we’ve seen most of these ideas before!
tax credits for health care…yup that seemed to work real well.
i thought the poor don’t pay taxes anyway?so how will they get get health care?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 22, 2008 at 0821 hrs
You know you’re in trouble when common-sense ideas are re-labeled “conservative.”
Posted by dad29 on May 22, 2008 at 0828 hrs
Well, let’s see
*Tax credits to be paid directly into the current insurance scheme. No explanation of how he’ll pay for this.
*Sounds good. Where are the extra premiums coming from?
*That doesn’t really make sense if we have to pay out to current beneficiaries does it? How will he raise that cash?
*Does Ryan, anywhere, explain how he will make this a viable choice for a workforce that can’t even decide how to diversify their current 401k?
This is a headline-grabber for Ryan as he sees attention drifting away to more viable Veep candidates. There are only a few hundred people who think this has any value at all and it looks like most of them are bloggers. Ryan won’t even be able to sell this heap to his own party.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 22, 2008 at 0834 hrs
Ryan is not ready to be veep - it would be Dan Quayle all over again. I’m sure he’s smart enough to know this.
You can knock this plan if you like - but I don’t see the Dems coming up with anything except ‘tax and spend’
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 22, 2008 at 0855 hrs
I agree with Owen’s initial comment. If Feingold came out with an economic plan of his own, the article would never say “Liberals cheer Feingold’s plan”.
By the way, does Feingold even have a plan…for anything? That campaign finance reform thing, that worked out pretty well, right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 22, 2008 at 0901 hrs
I wish these solutions were viable but unfortunately there is this pesky thing called reality.
How does a health care tax credit help an uninsured family that is already not paying any taxes?
How can you give a worker 1/3 of their Social Security contribution when all of their contribution is currently being allocated to go to beneficiaries already on the take?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 22, 2008 at 0919 hrs
This plan is the typical Republican response to American health care—anything but solving it the way everyone else has solved it. Most Americans favor a completely different kind of health care reform. The only people who favor this kind of plan are self-described conservatives. Why is it so hard, therefore, to see the sensibility of the headline?
Posted by scott on May 22, 2008 at 0949 hrs
The tax credits are refundable tax credits. That’s how someone who doesn’t pay taxes will still get the credit.
Posted by Benjamin on May 22, 2008 at 1010 hrs
Your statement doesn’t make sense Benjamin. If you don’t pay taxes you can’t get a refund for a tax that you never paid.
So, he is essentially proposing to give the non-tax paying poor a $5,000 handout? Conservatives are happy with this?
I am all sorts of confused. I could have sworn I heard conservatives claim handouts to the poor were the root of all evil.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 22, 2008 at 1024 hrs
3rd Way,
Think of it as welfare, a concept you seem to like, except it is “health welfare” for everyone. The tax credit is not a tax deduction, but $5,000 that would be credited against the amount you owe the Feds. So, if you were going to get a refund of $500, or in the case of “the working poor” an earned income tax CREDIT of several thousand dollars, the $5,000 would be added to the amount you were already receiving. I would assume that in order to receive it, you would need to show proof that you in fact had purchased the insurance that you were receiving the credit for, but I haven’t read the text of the bill.
If you are going to do a payment back to taxpayers, it makes sense to utilize the income tax system because it provides a low-cost and efficient mechanism to deliver the money. I realize low-cost and efficient mechanisms are not always in favor in government circles, but it does make sense.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 22, 2008 at 1032 hrs
3rd Way, if you work you pay taxes, if you don’t make that much and have enough tax credits and deductions you get it all back in your refund. Now a refundable tax credit means that you could get more back in your refund than you paid in in the first place, it makes your tax liability go into the negative. Even people who don’t pay in could file and claim a refundable credit if it applies to them. A large portion of Americans don’t pay any taxes, but most file a tax return.
Posted by Benjamin on May 22, 2008 at 1035 hrs
Fondy guy,
I don’t know where you got the idea that I like welfare. I don’t. In a perfect society we would not give people things they have not earned that are not given to other people, that is not fair. An unfair society is an unjust society. I could have sworn that used to be a princial conservative belief.
You stated it correctly in the first part of your comment. This is “health welfare”, but then towards the end you claimed this was a “payment back to taxpayers”. It is a handout. It is funny how when a republican proposes a welfare solution it has to be disguised as a tax “rebate” or “credit”. If a Democrat proposed this it would be called a subsidy and the conservatives would be ripping him apart for it.
I guess we are making progress when someone like Ryan realizes there are no free lunch solutions to our health care problem. I just wish he wouldn’t try and disguise his hand-outs as “rebates” and “credits”. If he wants to be the future leadership of the GOP he should stop obfuscating his positions… then again such obfuscation has worked pretty well for the Republicans up to this point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 22, 2008 at 1051 hrs
What about the SS? If I was able to put my SS in an untouchable, independent fund averaging 6% interest, I could have retired at 50. As long as the government wants to manage YOUR money, you are always going to lose.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 22, 2008 at 1218 hrs
Social Security isn’t a savings account, bajaskier. It’s insurance. It’s insurance against an event that we all hope to encounter: old age.
If it’s so important for you guys that everyone get a higher return on this money, then why doesn’t the government invest it collectively in such a way that we all share the risks and benefits of the stock market? This kind of idea never finds much traction among conservatives because it fails to dismantle the program.
Posted by scott on May 22, 2008 at 1402 hrs
The government can’t invest the money, Scott because it does not exist. There is no trust fund and hence no money to invest.
Why should I be obliged to share risk and benefit with you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 22, 2008 at 1447 hrs
Exactly BVBigBro…borrow & steal, borrow & steal…never pay back. I sound like Diamond Jim!
Even when the government had the money, they didn’t invest it. But that’s beside the point….it’s our money to invest, not theirs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 22, 2008 at 1453 hrs
What’s the concern with the word conservative?? Isn’t Paul Ryan a conservative? Go ahead call Russ Feingold liberal. He is, isn’t he? Won’t there be conservatives cheering the bill? Didn’t you, Owen, a conservative, cheer the bill? What gives? You say
You have to love how hard the reporter worked to label Ryan’s plan as “conservative” and “Republican” as if that should make people immediately dismiss it.
Why should that make people immediately dismiss it? Just because the American brand of conservatism is falling a little out of favor, shouldn’t mean you all have to hang your heads about it.
Posted by Mike on May 22, 2008 at 1800 hrs
I think Owen is reflecting the frustration many conservatives have with the majority in the media who feel a need to label only conservatives, not liberals. By not labeling liberals, it leaves the impression that labels for those politicians who think like them aren’t necessary, since they’re (allegedly) in the mainstream of political thought. It’s quite simply a double standard that’s been going on for a very long time.
Posted by Tony Turner on May 22, 2008 at 1810 hrs
This plan is being praised by conservatives because it is a step in the only feasible, long-term direction - it dares to ask something of Americans that used to be taken for granted…personal responsibility. It would be nice if we didn’t have to “bribe” people to do responsible things like buying health insurance and planning for retirement, but that is the legacy left by the New Deal and the Great Society.
anything but solving it the way everyone else has solved it Just like daring to create a form of government different than “everyone else” had in 1789? That was a terrible idea, too.
why doesn’t the government invest it collectively in such a way that we all share the risks and benefits of the stock market Yeah, that wouldn’t create any avenues for massive corruption or conflicts of interest!! Or, maybe the government could just buy out some of the big corporations and run them “nationally” for the profits. The whole point of letting individuals do it is the non-collective effect of the free market…without failure there can be no success.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 22, 2008 at 2225 hrs
Tony, I think it was fair for the headline writer to say that Conservatives were praising Ryan press release. You’d certainly be in an uproar if they’d written the equally correct, “Moderates and Liberals think Ryan’s proposal is a flimsy joke.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 23, 2008 at 0550 hrs
You’re presenting a false choice, grumps. Labels aren’t necessary. Why not “Ryan’s ‘road map’ bill draws praise”? Or, if you prefer, “Ryan’s ‘road map’ bill receives mixed reviews”.
Posted by Tony Turner on May 23, 2008 at 0655 hrs
Who cares about the headline if you are proud to be conservative?
This is what blogs should be about: Talking about the issues from different perspectives. Ryan has given us something positive to evaluate.
Ryan’s plan may have some, or even many flaws, but the current system is a ticking time bomb and everyone knows it. At least Ryan is trying to defuse it.
We are fortunate to have two actual leaders in the Republican party. Jim Sensenbrenner and Ryan. These guys are what the GOP is missing, principled leadershp.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 23, 2008 at 0713 hrs
John, I’m not delving into the merits of Ryan’s plan with these comments. Just exploring the media angle.
You’re conflating the very valid practice of the blogosphere to debate points of view with the media’s consistently one-sided labeling of conservatives. I applaud the former and reject the latter, and am a proud conservative who can do both simultaneously.
Posted by Tony Turner on May 23, 2008 at 0745 hrs
So, did any Democrats or self-described liberals praise the bill? How about self-described moderates? Did any Republicans or self-described conservatives do so?
Frankly, I think a lot of folks on the right are simply too touchy and too quick to cry media bias, even when there isn’t anything much there.
Posted by scott on May 23, 2008 at 0750 hrs
We have to stop boo-hooing about the media, start bringing pragmatic ideas forward and roll up our sleves to support our leaders.
Complaining about the media is as worthless as liberals wimpering “why do they hate us?” while watching the towers disappear in the dust.
Scott makes two good points. Where are the bi-partisians?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 23, 2008 at 0853 hrs
If there is a tendency to label conservatives as opposed to liberals, it’s likely due to the fact that you label yourselves conservatives, while—because you’ve succeeded in demonizing the term so—liberals do not self-describe that way any longer.
Posted by scott on May 23, 2008 at 0948 hrs
Scott: While it is a liberal tendency to blame others for real or perceived social ills, I can hardly take the credit for “demonizing” the word liberal. But thanks anyways.
If liberals seek to go back into the closet it is because of a lack of effective ideas that they are ashamed of and a lack of courage to be associated with their beliefs.
Maybe liberal needs another name change. Socialist has already been used and is passe.
If conservatives are to be demonized, it is because we let it happen, and it is our own damn fault. My worry is that convervatives will demonize the name by not putting forth new and pragmatic ideas to move the county/world forward and too lazy to try.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 23, 2008 at 1729 hrs
Look, John. If we are going to quibble about whether American conservatives have or have not participated in demonizing the word liberal, then I don’t think I can really continue this conversation. The gap between the real world and planet Galt is just too wide.
I think we’ve seen where electing Republicans gets us. You’ve had your chance. Eight years later it’s pretty clear that while you guys knew something about winning elections, you didn’t know the first thing about actually governing.
I’m going to be so frickin’ thrilled when the GOP is ousted from the white house as well as both houses of congress in November.
Posted by scott on May 23, 2008 at 1854 hrs
Scott, I certainly would not want to quibble with you about anything. Besides I think I hear your mom calling you in before the street lights go on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 23, 2008 at 1952 hrs
Because it is not hijacking the original post (Owen broughtit up) I’d like to reiterate the appropriateness of the identification of the plan as one conservatives, and even Republicans are getting behind, or likely to get behind.
And, to be sure, I would be just as content if a Fiengold plan were labeled as liberal and described as having a lot of Democratic support. Both would be accurate and the media ought to be concerned with accuracy.
Tony, I’m not so sure about the predominance of conservative labels in the face of a relative paucity of liberal labels in the media. And I don’t even think any given media outlet should be concerned with such a thing. If your assertion is true, it could be because in the past eight years, we’ve heard a lot more about conservative plans because that has been the party doing the governing. If that’s where all the action is, that’s where the media should be.
If a hundred white guys commit crimes, and two black guys commit crimes, the media should cover cover white guy committed crimes fifty times as much as black guy committed crime (assuming the crimes were of equal news value).
I think the perceived bias against American conservatives in the media is a myth. I think that perception might smart a little more when your party is in decline. Follow John Gault’s advice and pump up conservatism as opposed to complaining when liberalism begins to gain a foothold.
Posted by Mike on May 24, 2008 at 1414 hrs
Tony, I’m not so sure about the predominance of conservative labels in the face of a relative paucity of liberal labels in the media. And I don’t even think any given media outlet should be concerned with such a thing. If your assertion is true, it could be because in the past eight years, we’ve heard a lot more about conservative plans because that has been the party doing the governing. If that’s where all the action is, that’s where the media should be.
...
I think the perceived bias against American conservatives in the media is a myth.
I’m not making this up. This study covered five years (2nd Clinton term + year 1 of GWB). The conservative labeling took place four times as frequently as the liberal. Like I said, this has been going on for some time.
Posted by Tony Turner on May 24, 2008 at 1607 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 84
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 04:02 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).