CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 11, 2012 05:17 PM UTC

Obama vs Ryan

  • 8 Comments
  • by: Konola

Back in March I wrote a column comparing the Obama and Ryan budgets. Because Romney named Ryan as his running mate today, I’m re-posting the opinion piece.

Both President Obama and Representative Paul Ryan have recently submitted budget proposals to congress for consideration in the budget debate for 2013. One can clearly see two separate visions for America by observing the values stressed in the two documents.

The Democratic budget is about solving problems:  reducing government by consolidating departments that have similar missions, staying within the guidelines for program cuts set forth by legislation kicking in with the failure of the debt Super Committee, and investing in a future that includes good roads and bridges, schools with good teachers, and an environment that promotes the health and well being of all citizens.

According to Robert Greenstein, President of the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,

“The new Ryan budget is a remarkable document – one that, for most of the past half-century, would have been outside the bounds of mainstream discussion due to its extreme nature. In essence, this budget is Robin Hood in reverse – on steroids.  It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation’s history).  It also would stand a core principle of the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission’s report on its head – that policymakers should reduce the deficit in a way that does not increase poverty or widen inequality.”

The starkest difference in the two budgets is in what is prioritized. Ryan continues to promote tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, excessive investment in the military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about, and cuts to programs that effectively changed the expected life-span of Americans by taking senior citizens out of poverty and giving them access to quality and affordable health care.

The Obama budget proposes changes to Medicare that would preserve the program, but improve its long-term financial viability. The Ryan budget changes Medicare so dramatically that current users would not recognize the program. Ryan seems to have forgotten the protest signs that said, “Keep Government’s Hands off My Medicare.”

Obama assumes that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), known by its opponents as Obama Care, will be upheld as constitutional. His budget provides financing to implement ACA, including “helping States establish Affordable Insurance Exchanges and developing the infrastructure to provide cost sharing and premium assistance to make coverage affordable. ” Colorado has already begun to design the Affordable Insurance Exchanges required under ACA. Colorado law recognizes that there needs to be a vehicle to help uninsured low-income families shop for and afford health insurance.

Obama’s changes to Medicare include more robust fraud controls. Fraud drains money that could be used to satisfy the health care needs of patients. Fraud lines the pockets of unscrupulous doctors and clinics, while robbing taxpayers.

The stated intent of the Obama budget is to

“extend Medicare’s solvency while encouraging provider efficiencies and improved patient care.”

The proposals to achieve efficiency include changing how providers are compensated, changing co-payments by users, and implementing the best practices of Medicaid into Medicare-presumably that means allowing Medicare to negotiate for prescription drug prices, just as Medicaid already does.

The Ryan budget proposes to make Medicaid a block grant to the states and to slash its funding, which is adamantly opposed by Obama. However, the Obama plan does recommend changing the funding formulas for all federally funded health care programs, streamlining administration of the programs, and the accompanying administrative expenses. All together the Obama proposals to change Medicaid would save $51 billion over the next 10 years.

Greenstein reports

“a new Congressional Budget Office analysis that Chairman Ryan himself requested shows that, after several decades, the Ryan budget would shrink the federal government so dramatically that most of what it does outside of Social Security, health care, and defense would essentially disappear.  …That includes everything from veterans’ programs to medical and scientific research, highways, education, nearly all programs for low-income families and individuals other than Medicaid, national parks, border patrols, protection of food safety and the water supply, law enforcement…”

Both budget proposals are available on line. Before you jump on either the Republican or Democratic bandwagon this election season, take the time to read them.

Comments

8 thoughts on “Obama vs Ryan

  1. can not only benefit Obama, but all Democratic candidates.

    Dean Baker, Co-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research has this to say about the budget plan:

    [Ryan] has advocated ending Medicare as it currently exists and replacing it with a voucher system. He has proposed a tax plan that would give large tax cuts to the richest people in the country which would be offset by eliminating items like the mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for employer provided health insurance. The net effect would be a tax increase of several thousand dollars a year for millions of middle income families.

    … if we take Representative Ryan’s views seriously, he wants to get rid of the State Department, the Justice Department, the national park system, the federal court system, the air traffic control system and most of the other activities that we associate with the federal government. This must be the case, since CBO undertook the analysis at Ryan’s request and surely he would have corrected them if they misrepresented his position.

    Makes “Voodoo Economics” practically respectable in comparison.

    Now similar to what others have begun saying — “Vulture/Voucher Economics” is the GOP vision for our future.

  2. Thank you for handing democrats florida.  Not even Rick Scott’s voter suppression efforts can prevent the state from going for Obama.

    Hell I’d start opening campaign offices in Arizona after this.

    1. Look at CBO projections for which states lose the most- TX has a lot of feral dollars now. Not so many in the Ryan plan.

      Could it be that all the Texas bluster will get a little less blustery when we’re closing federal facilities there?

  3. Ryan’s budget doesn’t even HAVE the word Veteran in it.

    His draconian cuts would affect veteran disability payments, which the Republican’t party calls an “entitlement.” $11 Billion dollars slashed from the VA budget just as the drawdown from AFPAK is starting.

    All to expand the millionare tax cut…I know that the RomneyBots had already written off the veteran vote with their one-page “plan” but now they’re determined to actively piss that demographic off enough to either stay home or vote for the Prez.

  4. I say, then why pick Ryan when Romney knew that it would color any debate on the issue?

    It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation’s history).

    Who says Republicans can’t do class warfare right?

    1. His position on the Ryan Budget will be that he’s for it, but against it, but there are somethings that can be changed, but overall it’s wonderful.

      All thoroughly out of focus and ambiguous, of course.

      Believe in Romney!

  5. “This president stole — he didn’t cut Medicare — he stole $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, on NBC’s Meet The Press. “If any person in this entire debate has blood on their hands in regard to Medicare, it’s Barack Obama. He’s the one that’s destroying Medicare.”

    However, as it turns out:

    In the spring of 2011, the new Republican House majority votes overwhelmingly in favor of the budget proposal advanced by the new House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan. Ryan proposes a controversial restructuring of Medicare to move it in a premium support/voucher direction beginning in 2023, a proposal that gets lots and lots of attention, pro and con. Ryan’s budget proposal also includes complete repeal of the ACA, with one little-noticed exception, the $500 billion in ACA Medicare reductions.

    Oh.

    Nearly every House and Senate Republican votes for the Ryan proposal. In the spring of 2012, Ryan again releases the plan, and includes the same repeal of the ACA, minus the Medicare reductions, now approaching $700B. And, again, nearly every House Republican votes for the plan.

    Incidentally, the cuts were supported by the very organizations that are affected — in return for vastly expanding their market (and revenue).

    None of these reductions were financed by cuts to Medicare enrollees’ eligibility or benefits; benefits were improved in the ACA. Cuts were focused on hospitals, health insurers, home health, and other providers. Except for insurers, all the affected groups publicly supported the reductions to help finance the ACA’s expansion in health insurance to about 32 million uninsured Americans.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

238 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!