(Imaginary) Conversations Between Paul Ryan and the President
June 2nd, 2011 . by economistmom
Len Burman and Ruth Marcus have both dreamed up their own fantasized versions of “adult conversations” between House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and President Obama–or as they both refer to them “Paul and Barack.” Check them out. If only our policymakers could be so openly and honestly communicative with each other.
(I maintain this is one important way in which policymaking probably would go differently–and I believe better–if we had more women in charge. Note that Len’s version, while more truthful than the real conversations, is still more “tit-for-tat” compared with Ruth’s “heart-to-heart” version.)
Len Burman makes the key point well in the following parts:
Barack: I have some serious problems with your budget plan.
Paul: I’d say the same about yours, if it existed.
….[skip]…
Barack: Wow. Your plan is incredibly cold-hearted.
Paul: And your “framework” is a bunch of empty rhetoric.
Yes, at this point in public discussion/debate on this issue, the most important point by far is simply “Hey Obama/Democrats, where’s your plan??”
I would say this about ANY actual, sufficiently detailed plan that substantially dealt with the problem of our long-term fiscal imbalance, whether right, left, or centrist: Great, now others (if they choose to be responsible rather than taking advantage for short-term political gain) can propose their respective plan(s) with different types of sacrifices, and we can all discuss and debate which sacrifices and trade-offs are best (or the least bad), with all plans on the level playing field of at least a roughly equal level of fiscal responsibility.
Instead we have Obama and the Democrats doing the worst possible thing: responding to the one plan someone had the guts/responsibility/leadership to offer by scoring cheap political points rather than offering a real alternative, thereby reinforcing the lesson that real fiscal responsibility is a big political loser.
Again, I’d say the same thing if the Democrats (or an individual Democratic member of Congress or president) offered a real plan and the Republicans reacted in a similarly irresponsible, self-serving manner at the nation’s expense. This isn’t about politics or ideology or even economics; it’s about responsibility and leadership and integrity and decency. At least up to this point, Obama and the Democrats fail across the board in their response to the Ryan/Republican budget. They are obligated to put up an alternative plan that is apples-to-apples in terms of degree of problem-mitigation (reducing projected debt-to-GDP over the medium and long-term). Anything less is just shameless.
And as I’ve said previously, if I were a political adviser to the Republicans, my strategy would come down to publicly repeating three words as a response to Obama and Congressional Democrats: “Where’s YOUR plan?”
After all, anyone can sit back and criticize a set of sacrifices without offering one’s own proposed sacrifices to solve a problem everyone agrees must be solved and which must involve major sacrifices.
Brooks, I had the very same reaction to the State of the Union speech. The one with the no-pain, no-changes budget proposal. What a horrible waste that was of a superb opportunity to start the discussion about fiscal sustainability.
It didn’t even work politically for Obama. He blew his best chance to set the terms of the debate and then he STILL had to come back with a do-over budget. Being dragged along reluctantly is the antithesis of leadership.
I agree with both you guys on the policy but not on the politics. The Dems are going to run on the “we are saving you from the Republicans” platform and the public is going to buy it (unless the economy is so bad that it swings the election on its own)
Steve,
I do think the Democrats will probably run that way (and have so far) and I do think it will probably work for them. That’s why the lesson that will be reinforced is that Major League fiscal responsibility is a net political loser (Stick your neck out, and the other side will chop it off rather than “jumping together”, if I may mix metaphors).
Sadly Brooks, I think you are correct.
My hopes for divided government producing a grand compromise have dwindled to dust.
Steve,
I don’t feel completely hopeless about it. It’s possible some significant progress will emerge from all this in the near future (say, within 2 years). But I’m very far from confident that it will happen, and the Democratic response (so far) to the Ryan/Republican budget seems to be a major setback, unless it’s part of some clever negotiation strategy.
Guys,
Economistmom is just as evasive and not on point as Obama and the Democrats. I’ve been hounding her for a good 2 years to offer specific cuts in expenditures, and the best she can ever offer is Defense and Tax Expenditures (which of course, aren’t expenditure cuts but tax increases).
The Democrats don’t want to be pinned down because their mathematically implied solution (a la Krugman) is to eventually have 28% of GDP go to the Federal Government to support their welfare state wishlist. And they’re too scared to admit it.
If we cannot get Economistmom to give us the Full Budget Monty, then you can imagine why elected Democrats would balk.
“28% of GDP go to the Federal Government to support their welfare state wishlist”
That’s probably a bit low. Single payer may ultimately save several percent of GDP, but right now even a 10 percent reduction from the current 17 percent spent on health care is going to add 9 or 10 percent of GDP to the government.
Obama does not seem to be in favor of single payer, but many Democrats are.