Yesterday, Sullivan was praising the very serious Ryan plan which drastically cuts taxes and bends the poor, the middle class, the elderly, and the disabled over the edge of the couch and rogers them in perpetuity. Today, a glowing appraisal of a Stiglitz piece from a week or so ago that points out the radical inequality in the United States and how the rich have been having their way with America for quite some time and it is destroying us. Cognitive dissonance, what is it and how does it work?
In other news, Sullivan gets very upset at anyone who points out that what Ryan is proposing is abolishing Medicare and Medicaid. When someone points that out, he labels them “the hard left” and huffs:
I’m not sure if you consider this a “hard left” question or not, but why don’t you plainly state what Paul Ryan is trying to do: abolish Medicare. I’m not saying we can’t have a policy debate about it, but let’s speak honestly and admit that the policy calls for the end of federally-subsidized and guaranteed medical care for the elderly. (Josh Marshall lays this out pretty clearly.) Do you think calling the policy an “abolition” or “elimination” of Medicare is somehow unfair?
And regarding Ryan, it’s pretty amazing that you think he is acting like an honest broker here. The plan simply ignores the CBO budget estimates (which the Republicans insisted were the “gold standard” until they didn’t agree with the estimates) and assert that repeal of Obamacare will reduce the deficit despite all math to the contrary. Also – how is it an act of seriousness that grapples with Bush-era deficit creation to continue cutting taxes for the rich and cutting services for the poor? He doesn”t even recommend getting rid of the Bush era tax cuts.
Since Medicare will abolish itself in its current trajectory, I think the onus is on those who want to do little to rein in its cost. Yes, the pilot programs in Obama’s universal health reform could bear dividends in the future. But I doubt they will be enough. As for the tax cuts, I agree and said so. The Ryan plan could lower tax rates and increase tax revenues, if Ryan wanted to. It’s the semi-religious, a priori refusal to raise revenues that gets in the way/
Frank Luntz, eat your heart out. That was a spectacular display of village sophistry if there ever was one- because Medicare may one day end, you can’t point out that Ryan is trying to end it. Ted Bundy wasn’t killing people, because they were going to die on their own one way or another anyway! He was just offering serious proposals! It’s up to you who wanted his victims to live to come up with a way to save them, or you are the real killer.
I’m sure it is only a matter of time before he links to a very serious analysis from McMegan. Speaking of, remember the last time he was doing his “fuck the poor” Tory end zone dance about SS, Medicare, and Medicaid:
The current math simply demands either massive tax hikes or massive benefit cuts in the future. Adjusting now will make the future, relative suffering less rather than more painful. And like Megan, I’d like to see the cuts focus on those who are most able to afford it. To use the obvious example: why should we be sending Warren Buffet a social security check?
Paul Ryan just proposed sending Warren Buffett a sloppy wet kiss and millions in tax cuts while screwing a hundred million people and starting a generational and class war between the rich and the current elderly Republican voters and everyone else.
And Sullivan thinks it is “serious” and a good starting point and that anyone who points out what it really is should be dismissed as the hard left. Of course, I am sure this is all based on Hayekian conservative principles I just can’t understand.