One of the smartest things that Paul Ryan does on the
campaign trail these days is point out how dysfunctional governance has become
in America , especially at
the federal level where the nerve center of politics is located – the District of Columbia , to
be precise. And this is the place where Ryan has lived and worked for twelve
years; the place inside of which exists the most important institution of all,
the Congress of the United
States of America . And this is the
institution that has rendered itself infamous by becoming the most
dysfunctional of all; the one that enjoys no more than ten percent of the
public's confidence and respect.
And yet, you see and hear Paul Ryan repeatedly attack the
provision in the Affordable Healthcare for America Act which shields the system
from the kind of dysfunction that is plaguing the Congress of infamy. It is a
provision that is not unique to the Act but one that exists at all levels of
democratic institutions by virtue of which professional technocrats are
employed to write the regulations and oversee their implementation in practice.
This is the work that these people do without passing judgment on anything or
anyone; they do it in good faith and do it in accordance with the intent of the
legislators.
What is odd about the Ryan stand is that while attacking the
dysfunction of the Congress as if the institution were made of clowns, he
praises the work force of America
for making the country what he calls the best in the world in all of history.
Well, this labor force is made of 150 million non-elected technocrats whereas
the Congress is made of 535 elected clowns. If he believes that a work force of
technocrats made America
the greatest thing while a Congress of clowns made it one of the worst, why on
Earth does he attack the technocrats for not being elected? Does he want all of
America
to become as dysfunctional as the Congress of useless clowns?
What he is complaining about are 15 professional technocrats
who will have no axe to grind, no one to pander to, and nothing to guide them
but their conscience and the sense of pride in doing what they do while
maintaining the highest level of professionalism. This is what will get lost if
Ryan has it his way in asking these people to run for office. Sooner or later,
they will be compelled to prostitute themselves sucking up to this one group
and then that one, trying to win some votes in here and then win some more in
there. And like it happens all the time, they will learn to say absolutely
anything that will help them raise as much money as they can.
Does Ryan want to see these individuals run to the gun lobby
and proclaim that it is acceptable to shoot people if this will safeguard their
right to shoot rabbits? Does he want to see these individuals run to the Jewish
lobby and proclaim that it is acceptable to kill unarmed Palestinians if this
will safeguard the Jewishness of the stolen Palestinian lands? Does he want to
see American citizens placed on a blacklist and barred from receiving any kind
of healthcare because they said something that did not sound kosher enough to
the despots of AIPAC or the Anti Defamation League? Would Paul Ryan commit the
care of his mom – whom he dearly loves as he made abundantly clear – into the hands
of a Sheldon Adelson rather than the hands of 15 medical professionals? Does he
want to see the administration of the Affordable Healthcare for America Act
become as paralyzed and as useless as the Congress of the United States?
Ryan is campaigning and saying those things, having been chosen to run
as vice president alongside the presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney
who represents the Republican ticket. Romney has had a plan for nearly a year
now which he prepared in case he gets elected. It is contained in a publication
he put out, in which he claims that he can fix all of America
Inside the publication, there is a subtitle that reads as follows:
“Enact Entitlement Reform.” In it, Romney promises that: “with respect to
Medicare, the plan put forward by Congressman Paul Ryan makes important strides
in the right direction ... As president, Romney’s own plan will differ, but it
will share [Ryan's] objectives.” And talking about Medicaid, as he does later
in the letter, he says this: “As president, Romney will push for the conversion
of Medicaid to a block grant … This approach could save … over $200 billion
each year.”
This brings to the fore a few points. For one thing, it shows that the
Romney plan for healthcare will end up being substantially that of Paul Ryan,
especially in the areas where Ryan conforms to the philosophy of Romney. Also,
like Romney has stated on numerous occasions, he prides himself on achieving
efficiency by cutting cost where he sees fit. In fact, he promises to do so in
healthcare where he wants to cut $200 billion from Medicaid alone. Now imagine
how much he would cut from the entire Healthcare Act. And this, in case he does
not scrap the whole Act altogether as he promised he would do on a few
occasions -- and so did Paul Ryan on many occasions.
But there is more to the Romney-Ryan approach than meets the eye. What
is obvious is that even the Republican hopefuls see there is much fat in the
healthcare system that can be cut without reducing its quality. They see the
waste, the fraud and the abuse that everyone else sees. Yes, this was to be
expected in a project of that size, especially when considering the amounts of
money which are involved. But what came as a surprise was the fact that Ryan --
and now Romney -- lambaste President Obama for trying to save $716 billion from
Medicare by ending all that waste, all that fraud and all that abuse.
What Obamacare (as it has come to be called) will do is save money in
Medicare, and use it to make the Affordable Healthcare for America Act run
better. Yet, Romney and Ryan say that this move would be like robbing Peter to
pay Paul. If this is their view, it is one that conveys the notion they intend
to rob the States of their Medicaid money -- to the tune of at least $200
billion -- to pay the federal government.
Is this what they wish to communicate? Or was it a Freudian slip?
Please explain or retract.