Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
There is something that has been bugging me about this Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) for some time now. There is something vaguely familiar about him, like I know him from somewhere. You know what I mean. You meet someone and their face looks familiar, and you have to ask "haven't we met?" or "don't I know you from somewhere?" Every time I see this guy on TV I am thinking "where do I know this guy from?" Well, it finally came to me -- this guy looks like Eddie Munster all grown up! It is the widow's peak that is the dead giveaway. Am I right?!
Anyway, the thin-skinned self-proclaimed boy genius of the GOP spoke earlier this week at the 2011 Fiscal Summit held by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation -- an organization dedicated to the elimination of social security and Medicare. Swell guys. Rep. Ryan's counterpart was Gene B. Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy.
The Wall Street Journal reported Rep. Ryan, Gene Sperling Trade Broadsides on Budget:
Anyone who thought the White House and House Republicans were close to a deficit-reduction deal only needed to sit through five minutes of the 2011 Fiscal Summit held by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation in Washington.
Those would be the five minutes when House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) wrapped up his wide-ranging remarks and when White House National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling began his talk.
Mr. Ryan concluded by saying, ”The White House is not producing a plan that comes anywhere close to fixing this problem” and “You can’t have a neogitation with just yourself.”
* * *
Mr. Ryan exited the stage, and Mr. Sperling, a top White House budget negotiator, took the seat. In the first breath, he fired back, taking aim at Mr. Ryan’s refusal to raise revenue through new taxes.
“I want to point out how isolated the House Republicans are,” he said. “Serious people doing serious discussions do not take an absolutists position that you cannot have a penny of revenue.”
He said Mr. Ryan has “put himself in a box” with his unwillingness to raise tax revenue. He said this forced Republicans to call for “very severe cuts” that if “explored” by Americans “they would not be proud of.”
Mr. Sperling attacked the House Republican proposals to overhaul Medicare and Medicaid, saying that the $770 billion in savings Republicans wanted from changing Medicaid would be unneccessary if Republicans would agree to roll back certain tax cuts.
“You can’t say to anybody who would be affected by that, that we have to do that, that we have no choice,” he said. “The fact is that all of those savings would be unnecessary if you were not funding the high income tax cuts.”
He also said that Mr. Ryan was wrong when he said that raising taxes as part of a broader package would hurt economic growth.
“Everything he said I heard nine million times in 1993,” said Mr. Sperling, who was NEC deputy director in the Clinton administration and later became Mr. Clinton’s national economic adviser.
That would be during the longest sustained period of economic expansion in U.S. history, followed by the "Lost Decade" of the Bush years.
Daniel Dayen (D-day) at Firedog Lake has more on the speech that the WSJ did not report, NEC Director Sperling Savages Ryan Medicaid Cuts:
Sperling apparently also said “From a values perspective, we should be very deeply troubled by the Medicaid cuts in the House Republican plan.”
This is excellent. If the White House fights for Medicaid rather than wanting to gain “credibility” through a deal, it cuts off that avenue of escape for Republicans. Safety-net programs could then get untouched and deferred until after the 2012 elections. This would be the best-case scenario at this point.
D-day posted the full transcript of Sperling's remarks, which is reproduced below the fold.
Transcript of remarks by Gene B. Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council:
And I say this to everybody in this room, there is enormous discussion about the revenue side and the Medicare side. But from a policy perspective, from a values perspective, we should be very deeply troubled by the Medicaid cuts in the House Republican plan. I want to make clear what they are. This is not my numbers, this is theirs.
After they completely repeal the Affordable Care act, which would take away coverage for 34 million Americans, according to the Congressional Budget Office. After they’ve completely repealed that, they do a block grant that would cut Medicaid by $770 billion. In 2021, that would cut the program by 35 percent. Under their own numbers, by 2030, it would cut projected spending in Medicaid by half. By 49 percent. So, of course– I don’t think– or imply any negative intentions or– lack of compassion. But there is a tyranny of the numbers that we have to face.
And here’s the tyranny of the numbers. Sixty-four percent of Medicaid spending goes to older people in nursing homes or families who have someone with serious disabilities. Another 22 percent goes to 35 million very poor children. Now I ask you, how could you possibly cut 35 percent of that budget and not hurt hundreds of thousands, if not millions of families who are dealing with a parent or a grandparent in a nursing home, or a child with serious disabilities. How is the math possible.
If you tried to protect them mathematically, you would have to eliminate coverage for all 34 million children. Now I know some people didn’t like when– the President mentioned that this was going to be very negative for families, for those amazingly brave parents. And he may be one of them in our country, who have a child with autism or Down’s and who just are enormously committed and dedicated to doing everything they can to give their child the same chance– every other child has.
But here’s the reality. Medicaid does help so many families in those situations. Over the years, we’ve allowed more middle class families who have a child with autism to get help in Medicaid. There’s a medical needy program that says when you spend down– we’ll– we’ll count the income after you’ve spent down medical costs.
There’s a Katie Beckett (PH) program that was passed by President Reagan that says if you have a child that’s in need of institutional care– you can get help from Medicaid. This is– this is a life support for many of these families. But these are the optional programs in Medicaid. These are the ones that go to more middle class families. If you’re going to cut 49 percent of projected Medicaid spending by 2030, do you really think these programs will not be seriously hurt.
So when we say that there– that the tyranny of the math is that these– these– this Medicaid– program, this Medicaid cut will lead to millions of poor children, children with serious disabilities, children with autism– elderly Americans in nursing homes losing their coverage or being– or– or having it significantly cut, we are not criticizing their plan. We are just simply explaining their plan.
Recent Comments