The commercial would have been hilarious if it hadn’t been so crude, plainly inflammatory, and so obviously misleading.
It was an actor bearing considerable resemblance to new GOP superstar Paul Ryan and he was pushing granny off the cliff.
Fear-mongering at its finest, it was the left’s attempt to undermine Ryan’s plan to overhaul Medicare as a way of saving it.
In 2005, Barack Obama (that name may sound familiar to you) was highly critical of then-President Bush for failing to see the perils of waiting to fix Medicare.
Paul Ryan’s budget has been the center of a lefty storm of criticism, including this Medicare overhaul.
Of course, the facts aren’t particularly important to liberals and at the end of 2011, the claims about Ryan’s plans for Medicare were voted the “Lie of the Year,” by PolitiFact.
What the left doesn’t want you to know about Paul Ryan’s plan is that Barack Obama was right in 2005 when he said the system was broken and needed fixing.
They also don’t want you to know that that Obama guy was wrong when he repeatedly made claims about Ryan’s plan.
In this particularly gruesome hatchet job of Ryan by the New York Times, the author insists that Ryan’s Medicare plan doesn’t address income inequality for a decade.
In practice that is true, but Ryan has stated unequivocally time and again that part of the reason he wants to overhaul entitlements is because they aren’t means tested, which is to say, they don’t care how much or how little you make.
Paul Ryan’s plan would account for income, meaning those who had less money would get more from the government and those who had more money would get less. It’s just that because legislation occurs in real life, not a vacuum, the system wouldn’t change for a decade. In essence, the NYT is arguing that something Ryan IS doing, isn’t as nice because it doesn’t happen right away, while at the same time failing to mention that the plan actually includes this income factor.
(You get the feeling that had Ryan only waited five years, or attempted to implement these changes immediately, that the criticism would have been that he ought to wait.)
Factually, the New York Times op-ed has it right, but practically, it’s false because the intention and basis of the law is to address just this issue.
What Ryan’s plan essentially does is move from a defined benefit system to a defined contribution system, a move millions of people in this country have had to make in the private sector.
The reason? Businesses started to realize that a defined benefit system is utterly unsustainable. Where have I heard that unsustainable word before? Oh right, Medicare.
Realistically, if we want Medicare to exist for our generation, the government is going to have to start paying less of it.
Entitlements like Social Security and Medicare were never meant to replace a person’s retirement plan, but rather augment them for people who couldn’t afford to live after they could no longer work.
But we can’t continue on the path we’ve set. Paul Ryan’s plan would be more expensive for seniors, but there’s no way to create a sustainable solution without such a caveat.
It’s as if your boss says, “Look, we can’t afford to pay you $50,000 a year anymore. We’ll have to cut your salary to $45,000.”
The left is the employee saying, “No,” while the government says, ‘Then you’re fired.”
Either we fix these programs and create a system whereby the safety nets that we truly need in our society remain at a higher cost to the citizens, or we lose those systems all together.
In fact, the government has already borrowed against its own entitlement funds to pay its bills, the same as me spending $20, writing a note saying “I owe you $20”, putting that note in my pocket and saying, “I have $20.”
If the government says, “This is how much we’ll subsidize your insurance,” and mandate that every insurance company must take your insurance (something the Ryan budget plan does), you have at least the beginning of a system that can be sustained. Given the way cost structures work and the impending yolk of ObamaCare on the health care industry, the cost of paying for people’s health care in full is simply out of the question long-term.
Of course, the left and its accomplices in the media won’t let you know the truth about Ryan’s plan because it’s more fun to show him throwing granny off a cliff.
Be clear, the line about Paul Ryan wanting to end Medicare as we know it is true. He does want to end Medicare as we know it because Medicare as we know it is bankrupting our government and needs to be fixed.
Just ask Barack Obama.