Romney picks Paul Ryan as his running mate **official thread**

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Always has to ruin a good thing, doesn't he?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

For aficionados of the "2012 is 1996" theory, isn't Paul Ryan kind of the Jack Kemp of his generation?

Indeed he is.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

America's Comeback Team: Romney/Ryan
86 Days!

Back to the 1880's, of course.

Well, the economy did grow at a fast clip then, probably its fastest ever. It was also the decade in which the US surged past Britain to become the largest economy in the world.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Was looking up Committee assignments for Ryan when I found this on wikipedia:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The GOP WILL NOT GET MY VOTE. YOU MUST HAVE AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN ON THE TICKET!!!!!!!Thanks for flipping us evangelicals off GOP

When are you guys going to realize you are part of a whole, and not the whole affair yourself?


Plus, identity politics is so passe'.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is a choice that allows Mitt to double down on the fiscal state of the nation. Much of his difficulty the last six weeks is that he's been losing the tug of war between personal popularity where Obama beats him to economic competence where Romney wins. My guess is that he's heard his advisers tell him to get back on message, and this is his pick to do so.

I had a chance to listen to one of those advisers this week and it's interesting to see how this pick figures into the electoral map. That adviser (who's also a major pollster) said that Romney's best path is to first take the McCain states, and this pick doesn't put any of those into jeopardy. The next step is to retake IN, NC and VA the historically GOP states that flipped in 2008. IN is a lock by most polls, and Ryan won't hurt in VA/NC and may help if he can reinforce a message of economic competence. There was a talk by a top Dem pollster as well and he didn't disagree with any of the main points of the GOP analysis.

The second pair of take backs on the map identified by GOP advisers are OH and FL. Ryan's Midwestern roots and college career at Miami of OH only add to the fix the economy message that OH voters put at the top of their list. Polling for FL shows Romney doing best with seniors in that state while losing the younger part of the electorate. FL is already getting hit by negative ads from both sides and adding those against Ryan may be lost in the noise. If Mitt keeps himself as the main face in FL, Ryan may not cut into his senior base.

If Romney gets the above states, he needs one more to top 270 EV. Ryan clearly helps in WI and IA, and may also help in NH and MI (which has a similar issue profile as OH). The other close western states could be substituted in this list, but the pick of Ryan seems to indicate that Romney is making his stand in the Midwest, so if states like NV or CO are wins that's just gravy. How he campaigns in FL becomes a critical piece now, since losing that state would require multiple other states to replace its EVs.

So basically it is the 3-2-1 (or raher 2-3-1 according to recent polling) strategy that we have been operating with for some time.

Trying to hide Paul Ryan from Florida isn't going to work. Sure it may get lost in the noise, but that is staking a lot on a weak hunch about negative advertising. I think the "safer" option in an already bold scenario is to stay bold and put Paul in with the old folks in Florida.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think it will be a no-effect or slight net-drag on the ticket. Just ask Congresswoman Kathy Hochul what the Ryan plan did for her!

If her opponent had been Paul Ryan himself, I highly doubt that should have much to celebrate these days. NY-26 is more Republican then his own district and he is not a dud of a campaigner like the GOP candidate was in that special. In fact, it just reinforces what Torie said about getting the man who wrote the plan to sell it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The GOP WILL NOT GET MY VOTE. YOU MUST HAVE AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN ON THE TICKET!!!!!!!Thanks for flipping us evangelicals off GOP

No sane person will cry over losing the fundie vote.

Are you saying fundies aren't sane? I happen to be quite sane.

To those put off by my engaging in identity politics, many of you have no room to talk. I hate to say it but to some degree we all do it.

Not really, my desired positions are so nuanced and intricate that to pick someone based on some trivial issue of image would be to sacrifice the greater game for the most part. To put it simply, I couldn't afford to engage in identity politics, even if I found it acceptable to engage in it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

\

You're going to be sad when Romney loses.

Oh really? And upon what exactly do you base that analysis? I don't get emotionally attached to politics either, which is  the other detriment to our politics other then indentity politics.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Marston, let me be more blunt. Under Obamacare regulations medical services are going to be rationed to death as it were. The basket will shrink. There is no escape.

Having said the above, it would be interesting to see what folks think the cost ramp up for Obamacare will be over time, both per its official numbers (which have lost most if not all of their credibility), and what outside analysts say. Is it more than 3%? 

The problem is that current system is a gurranteed benefit backed up the by the solvency of the US Treasury (a dubious claim going forward which each passing decade as the current status quo is continued), which eats the entirety of the rising cost of healthcare every year. Most people don't understant the numbers belying where he are heading, which means that the situation is such that you essentially have to beat it into people's heads what almost every knowledgeable person knows about this. IT CAN'T CONTINUE LIKE THIS!!!

Obama and his team have proven that winning a second term is more important then anything else and thus rather than also speak to the problem and offer an alternative reform package, he would rather try to reap the benefits of "Ryan pushing grandma off a cliff". I will also bet anything that a meeting was held in January of 2011 between Reid and Pelosi in which the same "politics first, country second approach" was adopted in order to make themselves the "great knight rushing to protect the seniors from the anti-gov't tea party" as a a way to avenge what Republicans did with Seniors in 2010. From the playground to the congress, "tit for tat" reigns supreme. I hope Obama realizes that if in the process he makes it politcally impossible to reform entitlements he will go down in history as the President who literally ruined America. I wouldn't count on it and therefore I won't be.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, NYC, the amount of the "guaranteed benefit" is now a function of government fiat. The insurers will be/are told what to insure, and that can either expand - or contract over time. Everybody knew that health care needed to be rationed, and this will be the mechanism - far after the election is over of course, with granny being shoved off the cliff probably not happening until after 2016.  Team Obama is not stupid. Don't underestimate them.

Who do you define as everybody?

Indeed and politcally Obama will benefit, but if it is his campaign that renders reforms difficult/impossible, he will take the blame in the history books reflecting back on when a chance to change course was missed, and why it was.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Marston, let me be more blunt. Under Obamacare regulations medical services are going to be rationed to death as it were. The basket will shrink. There is no escape.

Having said the above, it would be interesting to see what folks think the cost ramp up for Obamacare will be over time, both per its official numbers (which have lost most if not all of their credibility), and what outside analysts say. Is it more than 3%? 

Torie, medical services are already rationed via the ability to pay for those services. The Ryan-Wyden monstrosity simply exacerbates this for Medicare beneficiaries by gradually pricing them out of any semblance of a comprehensive care plan. In sum, they're taking out the 'guarantee' out of the Medicare guarantee.

Under the current status quo, the guarrantee itself as presently constituted no longer exists as a going concern in the future. That is why Wyden and Rivlin and other Democrats have embraced some form of premium support system.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, NYC, the amount of the "guaranteed benefit" is now a function of government fiat. The insurers will be/are told what to insure, and that can either expand - or contract over time. Everybody knew that health care needed to be rationed, and this will be the mechanism - far after the election is over of course, with granny being shoved off the cliff probably not happening until after 2016.  Team Obama is not stupid. Don't underestimate them.

Who do you define as everybody?

Indeed and politcally Obama will benefit, but if it is his campaign that renders reforms difficult/impossible, he will take the blame in the history books reflecting back on when a chance to change course was missed, and why it was.

Those with a shred of intellectual honesty and knowledge = "everybody." Hope that helps.

So that doesn't include the average voter in say Florida who is say 70 years of age and goes bonkers at the slightest mention of Social Security and Medicare by politicians?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, NYC, the amount of the "guaranteed benefit" is now a function of government fiat. The insurers will be/are told what to insure, and that can either expand - or contract over time. Everybody knew that health care needed to be rationed, and this will be the mechanism - far after the election is over of course, with granny being shoved off the cliff probably not happening until after 2016.  Team Obama is not stupid. Don't underestimate them.

Who do you define as everybody?

Indeed and politcally Obama will benefit, but if it is his campaign that renders reforms difficult/impossible, he will take the blame in the history books reflecting back on when a chance to change course was missed, and why it was.

Those with a shred of intellectual honesty and knowledge = "everybody." Hope that helps.

So that doesn't include the average voter in say Florida who is say 70 years of age and goes bonkers at the slightest mention of Social Security and Medicare by politicians?

You do know I hate Florida right? Everything about the place sucks - everything - except South Beach.   

Well, since your state doesn't seem to be to inclined to vote Republican these days, those pesky 29 electoral votes are damn near necessity for a Republican to stand even a chance.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Did I ever say life was perfect? You know, I pump iron for more than one reason.  

If this was an election between the two of you, that statement would have just elected anvi, most likely.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The letter the CBO sent to Ryan analyzing his budget proposal predicts (page 4) that the contributions of Medicare voucher recipients make toward private premiums featuring the "basket" of Medicare-covered procedures and meds would increase rather precipitously under Ryan's parameters between 2022 and 2030.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdf

Tying medical reimbursements, not Social Security CoLA adjustments, mind you, but medical reimbursements, to the CPI makes the "basket" of covered services shrink fast once it does come into effect, owing to the fact that recent estimates by the Health Care Cost Institute have health care cost inflation rising at twice the rate of general inflation...
http://www.healthcostinstitute.org/2010report
...and because the MLR's associated with private insurers are fairly low compared to those of government plans.

There's a difference between medical rationing, which under every realistic scenario of budget planning going forward is absolutely necessary, and exponential rationing which is necessitated by the Ryan plan not distributing cost cutting measures across the the entirety of the federal budget

The last point leads me to other important issues I myself have with the Ryan plan, among which the unfoundedly optimistic projections for increased revenue levels on the basis of downward adjusted tax rates, the lack of specificity on which tax deductions will be subject to elimination, the plan's refusal to cut defense spending and the associated quite stark reductions in discretionary and Medicaid spending, as both of the latter two will leave states remarkably cash-strapped. 

Looks like an economy-busting brand of austerity that Mitt just went in for a pound of, it seems to me.

I thought the Ryan plan did specify some of the changes to deductions? Indeed it isn't enough and he did state that the details would be up to Camp's Ways and Means Committee to sort out, a committee which he is a member of I beleive.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Marston, let me be more blunt. Under Obamacare regulations medical services are going to be rationed to death as it were. The basket will shrink. There is no escape.

Having said the above, it would be interesting to see what folks think the cost ramp up for Obamacare will be over time, both per its official numbers (which have lost most if not all of their credibility), and what outside analysts say. Is it more than 3%? 

Torie, medical services are already rationed via the ability to pay for those services. The Ryan-Wyden monstrosity simply exacerbates this for Medicare beneficiaries by gradually pricing them out of any semblance of a comprehensive care plan. In sum, they're taking out the 'guarantee' out of the Medicare guarantee.

Under the current status quo, the guarrantee itself as presently constituted no longer exists as a going concern in the future. That is why Wyden and Rivlin and other Democrats have embraced some form of premium support system.

I don't think anybody is advocating the status quo. The simple fact of the matter is that Medicare reform cannot be done without comprehensive systematic reform. Something must be done to address the over-utilization of health services in this country. Yes, some form of rationing will have to exist, regardless of the system in place - as it should. Also, the abhorrently high administrative costs associated with health insurance (which ironically range from 5-20% in the private health plans Ryan advocates throwing everyone in.) needs to be addressed. Medicare's administrative costs are only roughly about 2%, btw. The lack of focus on preventive medicine/care, the large uninsured population that waits to obtain care until their condition becomes acute and the fact that the U.S. Congress is PHrMa's whipping boy require a cure, as well. The list goes on and on, sadly.

Ryan is just attempting to reduce federal liability, not solve the actual problem. I thought it was obvious but perhaps not.   

That is because Ryan's plan is designed as a budget and not an all encompassing overhaul of healthcare. He doesn't chair the health, education and welfare committee.

Just like you don't think anyone is arguring for the status quo, well neither do I think that any one is seriously desiring to not address an overhaul of the Healthcare system, primarily focused on addressing those very rising costs you mention. In terms of real details this one is even more difficult to propose in an election year then a budget plan. The good thing is that with two "numbers guys" the chances are likely that both realize what the numbers are telling them have to be done and both Romney and Ryan have experience on the healthcare issue (one from expanding coverage, the other on the federal liability) to be able to tackle that problem. Romney does realize the problem to be sure, in his book he lemented that Romneycare didn't address the overal cost issue (expanding coverage is only a very small piece of solution pie here) and that most of which had to be addressed at the federal level.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Anvi, what is the projected cost increase under Obamacare, so we can put some percentages next to what is "Draconian" and what is necessary fiscal prudence even for those who are not social Darwinians? 

I didn't make comments about "Draconian" cuts and "social Darwinism," and I'm not handing out political endorsements to the people who did either.  As to your question, you mean the health care cost inflation increases under Obamacare?  I don't know, but I suspect they will continue apace.  Nobody wants to touch health care cost inflation in the U.S. very deeply as far as I can tell at the moment.  If someone comes who will, I will personally pound in lawn signs in every state on behalf of their campaign. 

But I'm fairly unelectable, so no one needs to worry about me either.

NYC, if I remember correctly, Ryan has made verbal pledges to end all deductions and loopholes--even though, predictably, that sort of pledge ticks off both sides.  He did leave those decisions, as you rightly note, to committee in the end.

Who the hell is NYC?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Marston, let me be more blunt. Under Obamacare regulations medical services are going to be rationed to death as it were. The basket will shrink. There is no escape.

Having said the above, it would be interesting to see what folks think the cost ramp up for Obamacare will be over time, both per its official numbers (which have lost most if not all of their credibility), and what outside analysts say. Is it more than 3%? 

Torie, medical services are already rationed via the ability to pay for those services. The Ryan-Wyden monstrosity simply exacerbates this for Medicare beneficiaries by gradually pricing them out of any semblance of a comprehensive care plan. In sum, they're taking out the 'guarantee' out of the Medicare guarantee.

Under the current status quo, the guarrantee itself as presently constituted no longer exists as a going concern in the future. That is why Wyden and Rivlin and other Democrats have embraced some form of premium support system.

I don't think anybody is advocating the status quo. The simple fact of the matter is that Medicare reform cannot be done without comprehensive systematic reform. Something must be done to address the over-utilization of health services in this country. Yes, some form of rationing will have to exist, regardless of the system in place - as it should. Also, the abhorrently high administrative costs associated with health insurance (which ironically range from 5-20% in the private health plans Ryan advocates throwing everyone in.) needs to be addressed. Medicare's administrative costs are only roughly about 2%, btw. The lack of focus on preventive medicine/care, the large uninsured population that waits to obtain care until their condition becomes acute and the fact that the U.S. Congress is PHrMa's whipping boy require a cure, as well. The list goes on and on, sadly.

Ryan is just attempting to reduce federal liability, not solve the actual problem. I thought it was obvious but perhaps not.   

That is because Ryan's plan is designed as a budget and not an all encompassing overhaul of healthcare. He doesn't chair the health, education and welfare committee.

Just like you don't think anyone is arguring for the status quo, well neither do I think that any one is seriously desiring to not address an overhaul of the Healthcare system, primarily focused on addressing those very rising costs you mention. In terms of real details this one is even more difficult to propose in an election year then a budget plan. The good thing is that with two "numbers guys" the chances are likely that both realize what the numbers are telling them have to be done and both Romney and Ryan have experience on the healthcare issue (one from expanding coverage, the other on the federal liability) to be able to tackle that problem. Romney does realize the problem to be sure, in his book he lemented that Romneycare didn't address the overal cost issue (expanding coverage is only a very small piece of solution pie here) and that most of which had to be addressed at the federal level.

Fair enough. I just doubt, given the Romney track-record of running away from anything healthcare related, except for promising to "...kill Obamacare dead on day one", that he'll seriously risk his political capital on healthcare reform given the disastrous effects it had on Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Co. during the 2010 midterms.  

I am a person who beleives that success is the road to recovery for the GOP, even if not immediate, but instead long term recognisable successes on important issues will lead people to embrace it long term even if they reject it in the intermediate period. The ideological battles serve a purpose in that they can help effect the process by putting the necessary people in place. At the same time they can be a detriment. In that sense Romney is indeed playing the right and that is going to send shockwaves through most conservatives on here who are more caught up in the platitudes and a dial position regarding government then actually fixing problems with conservative solutions. Most of the correct solutions have their origins on the right and that is why I adhere to them more then not, but I actually want to achieve those things rather than being a loud minority who never gets taken seriously. I would assume from what I know of Mittens that he views these things the same way.

Technocracy has to live within the Democracy and since no system is better the technocrats have work within it to get in a place to fix the problems. Romney probably will be a one term President, if elected. I am fairly certain that Obama's defeat in 2012 would be followed by a President Clinton or Cuomo in 2016. Because in the fine American tradition of say President George H.W. Bush who honed decades of experience in Washington and statemen like qualities to ensure a dramatic transition in the geopolitical world occured as quietly and peacefully as possible, only to be rewarded with the boot in 1992, Romney will probably face the same fate if and indeed he is elected.

What else is a President Romney going to do? He won't be FDR or Reagan, so he either does these things in his likely one term or he doesn't. His fate will likely be the same. This is a man who has sought the Presidency for quite some time, I would think he wants it to do something postive other than to revel in holding the title of President for four years.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Neither are or were designed to deal with the issue of health care costs, so that is not surprising. Indeed Obama made a unholy alliance with some of the biggest culprits responsible for the cost problem (namely pharma as well as others), in order to get the ACA past. Why deal with coverage and not costs at the same time? Well because it is much easier to give something to someone then it is to take it away and the gains from doing the former without the latter are emense. 2010 was, at least in the minds of Obama's people, a failure of the benefits to reach actualization to the extent that the people would recognize it and applaud him for it. Its one of the big reasons why I don't see any promise at all from Obama going forward, he is less than useless because as far as I can tell, it has been all about him and not about what needs to get done. The same can be said of Pelosi and Reid.