Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security - part one

This past week has provided more than sufficient evidence that there is a fundamental disconnect between the two political parties and specifically their presumptive nominees on the issue of funding Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

For reasons that escape the majority of the electorate, there is being presented two absolutely diametrically opposed realities of the financial health of these programs, both short term and for the future, despite the universally bipartisan accepted  truth that all of the programs are facing imminent financial distress.

President Obama claims that he has secured the future for the foreseeable future without changing the benefits provided for anyone.

Mr. Romney and Representative Ryan are presenting that their vision includes not changing it for today’s’ recipients, but if enacted, their policies will provide secure benefit options for all future recipients.

To clarify – both candidates claim that their respective solutions leave the present unaffected but the future secure and that their opponents are intent on throwing the elderly off of cliffs, under buses and generally leaving them destitute in the street.

This is not possible; both versions cannot be true.

One party is obfuscating the facts to a much greater degree than the other.

In short, someone is lying to the American electorate.

The principle charge against the President is that he has taken some seven hundred billion dollars from Medicare to fund the needs of the Affordable care Act, principally we are told by employing the granddaddy of all canards – “cutting waste fraud and abuse”.

The fact is that many a federal budget has been created by promising revenue from that particular source: this nation currently has a fourteen billion dollar debt with expectations of adding to that debt by one trillion dollars a year for the foreseeable future.

There cannot have been sufficient amounts of ‘waste, fraud and abuse’ in the history of man to provide sufficient revenue to address that level of fiduciary malfeasance.

Mr. Romney and congressman Ryan are presenting a scenario wherein those currently in the Social Security and Medicare programs will remain unencumbered by any changes, for they and those over the age of 55 are exempt from their plan. Those Americans aged 54 and under will have the option to remain in the programs as they exist or choose from a new slate of options, currently proposed to include the health care options afforded to all government employees. Their plan also calls for the repeal of the Affordable care Act and to return the seven hundred plus billions of dollars to Medicare that the President has accounted for in his plan.

As these two opposing concepts cannot coexist as a solution to the pressing issues, the Madison Conservative will attempt to provide factual context for both plans in upcoming blog posts.

As a matter of stated principle, the Madison Conservative is a proponent of smaller government, in the model envisioned for America by the framers and the founders, so it can be anticipated that there will be an objection based upon the supposition that ours will be a biased presentation of the two plans.

It is our intent to provide as much factual information as possible before providing an assessment of which plans adheres to the American sensibility of  freedom.

Paul Ryan

(ed. note – as a matter of policy, the Madison Conservative does not endorse any political party or specific candidate. The following discussion is intended to frame the 2012 presidential campaign now that Mr. Romney has selected his running mate)

The selection of Paul Ryan as the vice-presidential candidate for the Republican Party has been heralded by some as a ‘courageous’ choice, and lambasted as the selection of ‘an extreme right-wing ideologue’ by those who hold a contrarian political perspective.

Both attempted delineations are ridiculous – ‘courageous’ is more aptly reserved for those in the military, firefighters and by the folks working two jobs to support their families. ‘Extreme ideologue’ is more apropos for one in power who is looking to attain unilateral control of a nation – its use for a seven term member of Congress from Wisconsin would be comical if not so wildly imbecilic.

What the selection of Mr. Ryan does foreshadow however is the potential for a serious discussion on the economic future of this nation. That deliberation by the American people will resonate for generations in a way that previously promoted ‘elections of our lifetime’, as the political zealots trumpet every four years, have never actually attained as a status.

Mr. Ryan has done what the Obama administration and the Democratic Senate have failed to do for the past four years; he has presented a thorough budget plan. To be fair, the Presidents’ budget did garner a full floor vote in the Senate once – it failed 97-0. Congressman Ryan’s’ budget proposals have passed the House of Representatives twice, only to arrive at the Senates’ doorstep “DOA” – dead on arrival - unilaterally decided so by Majority leader Senator Harry Reid .

Mr. Romney’s’ theory on the basis for his candidacy is his acknowledged business acumen. There is little debate that he does indeed “know how to make a buck”. He is a true capitalist and understands the basic premises behind a free market economy. His choice of Mr. Ryan demonstrates that he believes that the financial health of the country is the paramount campaign issue. Mr. Ryan has demonstrated a unique ability to master the almost indecipherable national budget process and to clearly describe same.

There are many who may disagree with the choices made in what is now labeled as the “Ryan Budget”. What has been previously lacking is a serious discussion on what those choices are and the hard choices they will mandate as the nation struggles to regain its firm financial footing.

The selection of Mr. Ryan will now necessitate that all parties face the real challenges to America and understand the almost farcical nature of making the campaign about tax returns.

We applaud any substantive act that brings serious discussion to the forefront of the body politic. The sycophantic mass media will now need to understand the bigger issues and that such issues will never translate into ridiculous and trite sound bites.

The American electorate has been presented with the opportunity to engage all serious participants with a voice in the direction of the greatest nation the world has ever known in a true national debate on the meaning and purpose of America.

It must be grabbed on with both hands and not allowed to be distracted by the political cowardice and intellectual dishonesty that the process has previously been subjected to – for ourselves and our posterity.