ADVERTISEMENT

As has been stated several times since Ryan’s selection, the Romney campaign is running on “Romney’s budget,” not the Ryan budget passed by the House. However, interviews in the last couple days have pointed out that while Romney and Ryan both criticize President Obama for cutting some $700 billion from Medicare to drop it into ObamaCare, Ryan’s budget does something similar in terms of Medicare cuts.

ADVERTISEMENT

Report from the LA Times:

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Mitt Romney on Wednesday unequivocally disavowed more than $700 billion in Medicare spending cuts proposed by his new running mate, Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin.

In an interview on “CBS This Morning,” Romney was asked how he squared his running mate’s plan to cut spending on the popular healthcare program for the elderly with his criticism of President Obama for making the same reductions.

“First of all, Congressman Ryan has joined my campaign, and his campaign is my campaign now, and we’re on exactly the same page,” Romney said in response to anchor Anthony Mason’s question. “And my campaign has made it very clear: The president’s cuts of $716 billion to Medicare – those cuts are to be restored if I become president and Paul Ryan becomes vice president.”

The exchange underscored the political challenge that Romney faces in explaining his standing on Medicare after putting Ryan on the Republican ticket.

President Obama and other Democrats have accused Ryan of trying to “end Medicare as we know it” by proposing a system of vouchers for future seniors to buy health insurance in the private market as an alternative to the program as it now stands. Democrats say the elderly would wind up paying more for less.

Ryan’s plan to revamp Medicare – which included Obama’s $716 billion in cuts to the projected growth of Medicare – was a central feature of a federal budget proposed by the congressman and passed by the Republican-controlled House in April. Romney has said he would sign it as president. The voucher system would begin in 10 years.

Where it gets sticky is that Romney gave an endorsement of the Ryan plan as passed by the House back during the primaries. That plan included cuts to Medicare. Now, Romney is hammering President Obama over cutting Medicare while he, at one time, voice support for a plan which did the same. Therein lies the political rub.

9 COMMENTS

  1. 1. No one over the age of 55 would be affected in any way.

    2. Traditional Medicare fee-for-service would remain available for all. “Premium support”—that is, government funding of private insurance plans chosen by individuals—is an option for those who choose it. No senior would be forced out of the traditional Medicare program against his will.

    3. Overall funding for Medicare under the Ryan-Wyden plan is scheduled to grow at the same rate as under President Obama’s proposals. Is this “gutting Medicare” and “ending Medicare as we know it”? In reality, it’s the market giving seniors cheaper, higher quality choices they can take if they wish, with the traditional program remaining an option.

  2. Typical Romney.

    He picks a “show horse” to get the “bucket of spit” office, and the first thing he does is tell people that HE, not Ryan would come up with their budget idea (as soon as, you know, he comes up with a budget idea).

    Then, several other statements to undermine Ryan, and now this.

    Romney wants to get the nomination that his dad lost so much that he might accidentally exhibit a genuine human emotion sometime soon.

  3. A real sham here as we spend about $7000 per year per person on healthcare and even with our EPA we are number 50 on the list when it comes to how long we live.

    Take Israel. they spend about $2000 per person per year and are number 18 on the list of long livers.

    Hey even if you spend next to nothing $2.00, you still go to 60. (190 on the list out of 221. At least they are not last.

    Thus the country that spend the most is no where near first and the country that spends the least is no where near last. Sure glad we got all the highly educated people to figure out how to spend out tax money as it is rather complex for sure.

  4. I don’t support Ryan because he is still too much of a big-government guy, but I would point out that the GOP would argue that Ryan’s plan is designed to fix Medicare (they should gradually get rid of it completely, but they won’t do that) and that is a big difference between them and Obama.

    Personally, I think there’s not enough substantive difference between the campaigns to matter. 30 more years of deficit spending is not my idea of good fiscal policy, no matter whose label you slap on it.

    • The way I see it. . .

      Willard only picked PR for the PR value.

      He has already said that he’s not going to use Ryan’s ideas.

      My guess is that if Robme were elected that Ryan would have less relevance than Johnson had under Kennedy. (“Lyndon who??”)

  5. HERE’S A TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION:

    Mitt Romney is basing his run for the White House on calling himself a “businessman.”

    But is it really “business” to simply take wealth OUT of established operations?

    Surfisher brought up this link, and it describes how Romney made most of his money. Of course, you can only do this if you begin with huge amounts of money. As you will see in this video, it is not “magic” to make money if you already HAVE money, the question is, if you use that money to destroy other people’s wealth, is it really, legitimately “business” at all?

    You be the judge:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENd0x4bqqVI&feature=player_embedded

    • Well it was a business but a business that make its money off of someone’s misfortune. Maybe a little worse in that is legally causes a misfortune.

Comments are closed.