"As a Catholic generally conservative (but not a crusader) on social issues..."

TVD is wrong on this. Ryan is extreme on social issues.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/11/paul-ryan-s-extreme-abortion-views.html
He believes ending a pregnancy should be illegal even when it results from rape or incest, or endangers a woman’s health. He was a cosponsor of the Sanctity of Human Life Act, a federal bill defining fertilized eggs as human beings, which, if passed, would criminalize some forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization. The National Right to Life Committee has scored his voting record 100 percent every year since he entered the House in 1999. “I’m as pro-life as a person gets,” he told The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack in 2010. “You’re not going to have a truce.”

-------
During that campaign, Ryan also expressed his willingness to let states criminally prosecute women who have abortions. According to another Journal Sentinel article, he “would let states decide what criminal penalties would be attached to abortions. Ryan said he has never specifically advocated jailing women who have abortions or doctors who perform them, but added, ‘If it’s illegal, it’s illegal.’”

TVD is also wrong-headed in calling the Obama campaign's response to the Ryan VP announcement, which said Ryan wants to end Medicare as we know it and privatize Social Security, "highly partisan." Ryan's Medicare voucher plan, according to many independent health care experts, would wipe out Medicare as we know it. And Ryan's 2011 House budget plan would have privatized Social Security. Those are the facts, Ted.
http://managedhealthcareexecutive.modernmedicine.com/mhe/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=757580&pageID;=1&sk;=&date;=
In terms of the allegations about Romney and his taxes, all Romney has to do is release his returns, like all previous presidential candidates including his father, and we can see whether the allegations are true or not. Independent tax experts like former Bush I Treasury official Michael Graetz, as well as financial journalist James Stewart, say it's entirely possible Romney paid little or not taxes in past years, particularly in 2009.
Message flagged Tuesday, July 31, 2012 2:30 PM http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/the-mysteries-of-mitt-romneys-financial-records.html?_r=1&hp;
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/business/in-the-superrich-clues-to-romneys-tax-returns-common-sense.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp;

The most obvious reason Romney hasn't been able to respond "quickly or effectively" to these attacks on his tax situation is that they are true or at least partly true.

And BTW, TVD, Ryan does come from a relatively privileged background. The family is very well off from the construction business, building roads for the government.

That was an overtly partisan article that lost all credibility through its clear bias.

In other words, standard for Crosscut.

The beauty of this is it pulls the debate out of the gutter and puts it in the intellectual arena. Ryan is a serious person with real ideas. Support him or no, he is not a critic, but an architecture of a complete changeover in how the welfare state is built.

I am proposing that the third debate, rather than be VP versus VP -- be VP versus Presidential candidate. This would lay out the cards for all to see. Obama versus Ryan. Let each defend the Why of his future vision for America. This is a real debate and the country is polarized...but the arguments are mired in name calling and trivial aspersions.

Let's move the fight from 3rd grade, to well, at least 10th grade.

Paul Ryan is getting a showcase for a 2016 run by party insiders that see the writing on the wall, Romney is doomed.

Romney will never be able to explain how his money in offshore bank accounts is creating jobs, and how giving him even more money will create any jobs.
As an abstract idea the Republicans get some milage out of the capitalizing game, but having Willard Mitt Romney actually run for office puts a face and a name on a failed policy.

The party isn't going to "Palin" this opportunity to showcase somebody.

Thanks for the early comments.

For those interested in comparing the Obama and Ryan budget plans, refer to my March 24 Crosscut article which summarized the principal points in each. I regard the Ryan proposals as unrealistic on Medicare and Social Security reform. There are well known and available ways to do it within the present framework of those programs. I regard the Obama program as lacking in
necessary long-term debt reduction. Serious debate about the two alternatives would provide welcome seriousness to the campaign.
We also badly need debate about short-term measures to be taken so as to avoid the "fiscal cliff" looming Dec. 31 unless White House and Congress take steps to avert arbitrary, automatic spending cuts and tax increases now scheduled to take place then. They threaten to cut at least 2 percentage points off GDP in the coming year if they kick in.

I've been somewhat mystified by the stress on Romney's wealth. FDR, JFK, John Kerry, and other Democratic presidents and presidential candidates have had great wealth. Clinton has made a fortune since leaving the White House. Obama has made millions in book-related revenues. Nelson Rockefeller was a GOP presidential candidate and vice president far wealthier than Romney. John McCain, through his wife, had great wealth. Yes, Ryan came from an upper-middleclass family in his Wisconsin hometown but is by no means wealthy. He sleeps in his House Office Building office and showers in the gym. Romney came out of a family which began modestly and made his money on his own. Voters in the past have not been concerned with candidates' comparative wealth. For one thing, they've figured that wealthy candidates don't need to steal or act corruptly
in office. A majority of Americans---unless the pattern has changed in these past three years---have long since gotten past class warfare. Families of modest income still dream of their kids' becoming wealthy. It's a big risk to run a campaign based on resentment of the rich. Punishing the crooked, of course, is another thing. Millions of Americans, including myself, are mad as hell about Wall Street and
related abuses which hurt ordinary citizens and have gone largely unpunished. Bain Capital was not one of the offenders, though.

I have been active in Democratic politics over a lifetime but do believe that Obama and Co. have crossed the line with some of their
recent campaign attacks and advertising. If continued, they also could be counterproductive, diminishing both the president and presidency in the public eye. I favor tough, aggressive but fact-based campaign critiques of an opponent's proposals and policies. Some believe that campaigning can never be tough or aggressive enough and that the subject matter should never be limited. "Close to the truth" or "could be true" also come to be substituted for truth as a basis for campaign attacks. I don't accept that.

There are big diffences between Democrats' and Republicans' current propoals and their approaches to governance. Voters need to hear them debated and decide what they prefer.

TVD seems to totally misunderstand the issues concerning Romney's wealth. Those have to do with the nature of the leveraged buyout business he ran (as opposed to the creation of products that his father engaged in), the big profits his firm made while some of the companies were forced into bankruptcy by debt and many employees were laid off, the offshoring of jobs Bain facilitated, Romney's offshoring of his assets, his lack of transparency on what he's done with his assets, and the question of whether he's paid his fair share of taxes (we already know that in 2010 he paid a lower federal tax rate than many Americans who make far far less money).

The article linked here gets at the big difference between Romney and the previous wealthy candidates TVD mentions, FDR, JFK, John Kerry, Nelson Rockefeller (and Mitt's father George):
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/11/romney-ryan-the-rich-voter-s-dream-ticket.html
"Really rich people can win elections in the U.S. But they generally do so when they run as traitors to their class, not as those who stand for the proposition that the main problem in the country is that members of their class are taxed too heavily. That explains why Franklin Delano Roosevelt won four presidential elections and Steve Forbes couldn’t make much headway in the Republican primary."

BTW, unlike most of Mitt Romney's income, most of President's Obama's income is taxable as wages. He's paying about 35% on most of his income, while Romney, an immensely richer man, paid about 15% on most of his income in 2010 (and perhaps less in other years). TVD, doesn't that tell you something about why people are concerned?

Romney came from a rich, powerful family. His father gave him $400,000 in stock in the late 1960s. He certainly could have given him more, but that was a huge sum in those days. As they say, Romney was born on third and thought he hit a triple. Give me a break.

I expect we'll read more about Ryan's wealth. I suspect with his family's big construction business, we'll find out that he actually is quite wealthy, and he's certainly quite privileged compared to the masses of Americans.

I also like this comment by Mr. Baker. This explains a lot of why Romney is struggling as a candidate. He personifies many Americans' concerns about the injustice of the current U.S. capitalist system.
..."having Willard Mitt Romney actually run for office puts a face and a name on a failed policy."

"Class warfare," Ted? You sound like a mouthpiece for Karl Rove.

"I regard the Obama program as lacking in
necessary long-term debt reduction. Serious debate about the two alternatives would provide welcome seriousness to the campaign." - TVD

Alternative number 1- slowdown in rate of government spending, and reduction in the rate the debt is growing...
http://www.economistviews.com/government-spending-falls-under-obama/

Alternative number 2- increases spending, increase debt..
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/05/ryans-budget-spin/

The fact is that Ryan's budget plans INCREASE debt and deficit.
And the fact is that current Obama budgets have been decreasing the growth of debt and deficit, and, if continued, will effect more long term debt reduction than anything Ryan has proposed.

Romney, of course, refuses to release ANY plan, telling us that he will figure something out once we elect him.

Incidentally, as Mr. Van Dyk has pointed out if my memory serves me, President Obama deserves much credit for enhancing the Wisconsinite's national stature. Ordinarily the president is expected to take the lead in budget politics, but in 2011 he effectively abdicated in presenting an effective, long-term budget plan, perhaps counting on the House Republican majority to introduce a plan that would embarrass themselves.

I found many aspects of the Ryan budget troubling. Since his Catholicism was mentioned, it would appear that certain elements of the Ryan budget, notably the block grant proposals and cuts to important welfare programs during a recession, contradict the Church's basic instructions to care for the poor. I interpreted the Ryan selection as indicating an intention to run a more ideological campaign, when more ideology is scarcely the prescription for the ailing economy. There are a number of leaders in the Republican party who would have made a better selection: Rick Synder of Michigan, John Kasish of Michigan, Bill Haslam of Tennessee, Robert Bentley of Alabama, to name a few, all men of integrity who could have gone a long way in turning back the growing perception of the Republican party as one of dogmatism and hostility.

I am not sure whether Ryan help or hinders Romney but it does open up an even larger void in the center - basically we have a choice between a disappointing incumbent who has veered to the left and a challenger who in any other democratic country would be regarded as part of party on the lunatic fringe - more the pity that American Elect 2012 could not get its act together.

Mr. Van Dyk's neocon tendencies are on display.

Characterizing the VERY conservative, and VERY [retro-]socially activist Mr. Ryan as "...a Catholic generally conservative (but not a crusader) on social issues," is a willful distortion of the facts, the historic agenda, and the record of this supremely right-wing candidate.

To paint such a sympathetic picture of the slippery Mr. Ryan, who clearly represents Mr. Romney's cave-in to the right wing elements of his party, is mystifying.

The one thing that is true in all this is that the "debate" about the economic future will indeed be sharpened a bit. R & R will shill for their own (Romney's) and their financial masters' (Ryan's) betterment, through elitist apologetics--while at the same time ignoring the roots of our common ills in policies that failed the great majority of Americans, while advancing those in the highest financial strata.

Other debates will also be sharpened:

What effect will continued feeding of the wealthy and corporate (as the queen bee is fed the digested offerings of drones) have on American social structure?

What will continued abandonment of the Common Schools and closure of our human resource (immigration) channels have on the vitality of American culture?

How tightly can American women's freedom be restricted with regard to reproductive rights?

And how long will the American electorate continue to accept the channeling and limitation of their freedom and opportunity by small, self-annointed elites?

Open, sharp debate of all these matters is to be hoped for, no matter who Romney chose as running mate.

If Mr. Van Dyke finds "help for an off-balance Romney campaign" and (as is evident) takes heart in the possibility that some independents and some few Democrats will vote against their real self-interest, so be it.

I see a desperate cave-in to a demanding right by Mr. Romney, and a sign of further erosion in his already-weakening candidacy.

Okay, so a billionaire who doesn't pay his taxes needs to fix his image as a heartless rich guy. Who does he pick as his running mate? Someone who wants to kill Medicare. I don't see the logic, but maybe I don't eat the right mushrooms.

More on Paul Ryan as a right-wing, Catholic social issues crusader. TVD really needs to do better research before putting his fingers on his keyboard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/us/politics/paul-ryans-views-on-abortion-guns-and-same-sex-marriage-come-to-forefront.html?hpw

What's this? Obama dares to define "Romney for voters before Romney can fully define himself."? How unsporting of him!! How ungentlemanly!! C'mon, this is a competition for the most important job in the world, not prom king. Besides, the right has burned Obama countless times in attempting to define him, as unAmerican, Socialist, Kenyan by birth, palling around with terrorists, etc; so Obama is just doing to Romney what the Republicans have done to him long before he had a chance to "fully define himself."

More on Paul Ryan as a confused and flip-flopping arch-conservative who for years (as did Alan Greenspan) embraced the extreme laissez-faire capitalist views of the novelist-"philosopher" Ayn Rand. Mr. Ryan evidently found it easy to disregard Ms. Rand's atheism:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rand.html

Geez, Ted. You do a dispassionate analysis, one of your better pieces, and the uberlibs come out to trash you.

Nice thoughtful and clear analysis.

The Geezer

Thanks Geezer, you took the words...etc.

TVD certainly drew some spirited defenses of Mr. Obama.... oh wait, I guess I was saw one, sort of. When Mr. Obama ran against John McCain I don't remember that his campaign spent a lot of time criticizing McCain. What Mr. Obama did was list the things he was going to do as President. It's been four years; did he do those things? has he accomplished any of the things he promised? did he even try? well he got us out of Iraq but that probably would have happened even if McCain had won. The difference this time is that Mr. O has a record to run on but neither he nor his allies seem to think that's a good thing to concentrate on. Thus the demonization of his opponent.

I thought we weren't we weren't supposed to use those under the breath comments (enclosed in parens) anymore.

Whoops! (that is a hard habit to break).

This is a pusillanimous, namby-pamby post. Romney is a dolt and a dissembler. Ryan is articulate and presentable, but a prisoner of his ideology. But he would be the more effective presidential candidate. Romney in his heart knows it. Hence the Freudian slip of the tongue: "..the next president" when introducing Ryan.

If Ryan is so "serious" why won't he specify which "loopholes" he would cut?

Romney's selection of Ryan was the first definite sign I've seen that he's thrown in the towel...the rest of the campaign will be a constant refrain of "Release those tax returns" along with chorus after chorus of "Don't let Ryan-Romney destroy Social Security and Medicare." And Mr. Van Dyk's suggestion that Ryan and his extreme views about pretty much everything could possibly appeal to "moderate Democrats" just boggles the mind.

TaylorB1's comment reflects the tone of several others above. It might be news to him that the county's long-term future is threatened by the overwhelming public and private debt with which it increasingly is burdened. Reducing that debt burden---while at the same generating needed near-term economic growth---is important to most voters of all persuasions. Yes, to moderate and liberal Democrats as well as to Republicans and independents.

Of course Romney's tax returns and warnings that Romney-Ryan would destroy Social Security and Medicare (pure scare-tactic nonsense) will continue to be in the campaign air. But, the closer we get to election day, the more a majority of voters will want the answer to the question: How do we get our financial system and economy back into shape? Voters properly are worried about that subject. It is always Topic #1 in presidential elections when the economy is shaky---and it is decidedly shaky now. Don't think otherwise.

In this election year, unlike in some others, the candidates and parties are offering contrasting prescriptions which deserve our attention.

Ted, it's certainly no news to me that the debt is a serious matter, but...the selection of Ryan still seems to be a desperate move by a campaign which has boxed itself it with a very unattractive and unlikable candidate...Ryan and Romney will be forced into long and convoluted explanations about their radical ideas, and frankly I don't think they can pull it off. Romney himself is so sadly tone-deaf when it comes to politics...his wife doesn't help. It should be no news to you that many people make their choice on the basis of who seems to me the more genuine and trustworthy candidate...and which one they like more, too. Romney has a long, long way to go, and he seems to lack the political and social skills to get there.

Well the beauty of this VP is that it clarifies the choices for liberals, progressives, the elderly and minorities. They may all be mad about how Obama hasn't done jack to enforce the SEC regulations which would stop HFT. They may be mad about letting banks run amuck with our economy. They may be mad that Gitmo is still open for business. They may wonder if we will ever leave Afghanistan. But vote the Republican ticket for president? No way. Better to stew in our current troubles than take these two on. Besides events are going to control things in 2013-17 and Obama at least has the potential to do the right thing when it happens.

Electing Romeny would be like voting for Hover again...

"Of course Romney's tax returns and warnings that Romney-Ryan would destroy Social Security and Medicare (pure scare-tactic nonsense) will continue to be in the campaign air."

This is why Ted Van Dyk has no credibility. He has no interest in exploring actual policy proposals and their implications. Many of us with long experience in analyzing Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security issues know that Romney's and Ryan's proposals for those programs would have huge ramifications and very well could lead to the end of those vital social insurance programs as we know them. Ryan has long proposed privatizing Social Security, which in the opinion of many experts would destroy it. Romney and Ryan favor turning Medicare into a voucher program, which very likely would lead to the destruction of the traditional Medicare program due to private plans picking off healthier and less costly beneficiaries. And nonpartisan analyses have shown that the Romney-Ryan plan to block grant Medicaid would lead to millions of low-income and disabled Americans losing coverage. The public shouldn't let superficial pundits like TVD sow confusion about this. The future of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security really is at stake in this election.

It is worthwhile discussing these issues because they are so vital to our future. Believe it or not, there was a time when leaders of goodwill, from both political parties, tried to address them constructively together.

The facts are these and bear repeating: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are not sustainable as they now exist. We can either
reform them, so they can be sustained, or we can wait for their crash.
Demographics---not enough working Americans now and in coming years to
finance the retired---are driving the SS and Medicare crises. Medicaid, which serves the poor, is proving unsustainable at state level because of the growing numbers of persons and costs associated with it. I was in the LBJ White House when these programs were enacted;
no one then foresaw the degree to which they would be expanded in ensuing years or the demographic crunch coming in this century.

Numerous bipartisan commissions have offered sensible formulae to put SS and Medicare on a sustainable basis. The most recent was President Obama's 2010 deficit-reduction commission (the Simpson-Bowles commission). Congressional leaders of both parties were prepared to move on its proposals because they provided a vehicle for all to accept changes together which might be politically difficult piecemeal. But Obama lost his nerve and walked away from the commission recommendations. Someone had advised him the Simpson-Bowles SS/Medicare-reform provisions posed political risk.

I and others have written often about the steps necessary to sustain SS within its present framework: Lifting the lid on Fed/FICA earnings taxed to finance it; adjusting the eligibility age slightly upward; adjusting the annual COLA adjustments slightly downward. Some of this would apply to Medicare as well, with increases as well there in deductibles both for regular as well as for prescription-drug coverage. What is not possible is to sustain the present levels of benefits within the current financing schemes.

Ryan, and Romney, have proposed that citizens have an option to receive regular Medicare or to receive vouchers to buy their own coverage. Up to the citizens. Their proposal would not affect anyone presently over 55. I don't like the proposal and prefer, instead,
keeping the present universal, programmatic framework---but with a combination of the reforms (listed above) which numerous independent advisory groups have recommended. Republicans since the early 1990s
have floated notions for partial privatization of Social Security, allowing senior citizens to invest some of their own money rather than being limited to the modest returns they've gotten to date. I don't like this proposal either. Social Security was always seen as a dependable safety net, not a program for speculative investment. The air has pretty much gone out of the privatization notion, in any case, since the 2008 financial crisis, which demonstrated what could have happened to seniors' SS partially-privatized accounts during a crash.

Romney and Ryan would not destroy SS or Medicare. Their aim, juat as that of many others, is to make them financially sustainable. But
I disagree with the means by which they would do it. What is lacking is a responsible, credible proposal by the President of the United States, who is supposed to lead on such issues. Instead there are continuing warnings about GOP intentions to "destroy" these programs, predictably parroted by people who follow the talking line.

The present argument about Medicaid flows from the administration's
directive to the states that they must expand coverage, already
too expensive for them to manage, or risk losing the federal contribution to the program. Some states, unwisely in my judgment,
have told the feds to keep their money; they'll run their own programs their own way. There's a way out of this but it will take good-faith negotiations both by the feds and the affected states.

Now, how in a democracy should we resolve such matters? By hurling bumper-sticker-level warnings that the other party (whichever it is)
and its candidates mean to kill the programs and hurt senior citizens?
Or do the major players, representing both political parties, sit down together to arrive at formulae which make the programs sustainable? They could form a bipartisan commission to come up with the formulae: It could be called the Bowles-Simpson commission, for instance.

There are other ways to effect savings. Obama, coincident with his
national health legislation, cut an arbitrary several-hundred-million in Medicare spending. Did he do this because he wanted to hurt senior citizens? Of course not. He was looking for a way to make his health proposal "revenue neutral."

I favor neither the Republican proposals, which rely on a voluntary choice by seniors to choose parallel, private programs, nor arbitrary
cuts in the global budget numbers which, in turn, result in arbitrary cuts in benefits and services.

Demographics have us in a corner. We can curse the looming darkness or
light a candle by embracing bipartisan entitlement-program solutions that have been proposed by knowledgeable people over a 25-year period. There is no secret about them. The longer we delay, the less sustainable the programs become.

Ted

The Simpson-Bowles commission made some very sensible recommendations. According to this commission, Medicare and Social Security need to be reformed but getting the USA's finances in order also requires cutting military spending, cutting discretionary spending and particularly entitlements, and raising taxes.

Ryan was on the commission and was one of 7 people who voted against the report because he was ideologically opposed to a sensible bipartisan compromise. As you note above, his plans to reform Medicare and Social Security are somewhat more radical than the Simpson-Bowles felt was needed and he also propagates the myth that we can increase military spending, lower taxes and somehow reduce the deficit.

Last summer, John Boehner had a golden opportunity to make a great start on the deficit with compromise that was much closer to the what the right wanted than the left. He couldn't deliver because his own party will not compromise. Obama is weak and his only goal now is to get reelected (very much like George W. 8 years ago).

While I do not think the chances are very good, I think the most likely path to a sensible compromise in the next 4 years is reelecting Obama and hoping that he will ignore the extremes in his own party and will find enough bipartisan support in a Republican controlled congress to move forward with a comprehensive plan. The alternative of hoping that Romney will revert to his pragmatic self based on his moderate record as governor or Massachusetts seems less likely unless you believe that the Republicans will do so badly in control that after 2 years in office a President Romney will have to deal with a Democratic Congress.

TVD, there was a time when the two parties could discuss these issues, but that was before Grover Norquist captured the Republican Party on the tax issue and before the Tea Party drove it into the extreme right ditch. You refuse to face this reality that the much better informed congressional observers Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein have pointed out.

There is no Social Security crisis. There is a long-term shortfall that almost entirely can be fixed by raising the cap on income subject to the payroll tax. Raising the eligibility age further, beyond 67, for full benefits (and for Medicare) is BAD policy because it’s difficult or impossible for many Americans to continue working in decent-paying jobs with benefits. You and other advocates of raising the SS and Medicare eligibility age never explain how people are supposed to survive economically while waiting longer for these benefits.

Any discussion of the rising costs of Medicare and Medicaid must be placed within a broader discussion of the insanely expensive U.S. health care system, which Mitt Romney recently noted in praising the success of the nationalized Israeli system in holding costs to under 10% of GDP. Simply capping federal spending for these programs does not solve the cost problem. All it does is offload the problem onto seniors and poor and disabled people who can’t afford additional costs and badly need the coverage.
The Affordable Care Act does start to address systemwide cost problems, using Medicare as a policy lever. You consistently fail to acknowledge that.

You also fail to acknowledge that President Obama supported a grand bargain last year to significantly reduce the federal debt but it was John Boehner and the Republicans who walked away because the Republicans would not accept even modest revenue increases. Obama well knew that if even if he fully endorsed the Simpson-Bowles proposal, Republicans would have taken the spending cuts but rejected the revenue increases. So let’s put Simpson-Bowles to rest.

Under the Romney-Ryan Medicare proposal, if you understand anything about insurance risk selection, you would realize that it will not be up to each beneficiary whether to stay in traditional Medicare, because traditional Medicare will get stuck with sicker and costlier beneficiaries in competition with private plans and go into a death spiral. This is a shrewd way to kill traditional Medicare, which leading Republicans including Reagan and Gingrich have wanted to do for decades. You don’t seem to understand that. And it’s grossly unfair and probably politically impossible to create two classes of seniors – one that gets traditional uncapped Medicare and the other that’s shoved into capped, voucherized, and privatized Medicare – based on a one-day difference in their birthday.

Many experts have explained how even a partial privatization of Social Security would ultimately erode it as a social insurance program and lead to its destruction. If you think the air has gone out of that proposal for people like Paul Ryan and for the Wall Street crowd, you don’t understand much about this at all. Powerful economic and ideological forces have been pushing for this for nearly 30 years and they ain’t gonna give up now.

Despite your protestations, I repeat the warning, which has been issued by many people with long expertise in Medicaid, Medicaid, and Social Security, that the fate of these programs very much rides on this election.

BTW, Obama and congressional Democrats did not “arbitrarily” cut Medicare spending under the Affordable Care Act. You don’t seem to realize that independent experts had been saying that payments to private Medicare Advantage plans should be reduced because these plans were being overpaid relative to traditional Medicare. And independent experts had said payments to hospitals for preventable re-admissions should be cut to encourage better quality of care. These were the two biggest areas of cuts and they were hardly arbitrary. At the same time, Medicare benefits and payments were enhanced to encourage better preventive care and better drug coverage.

You once again repeat the myth that there is bipartisan agreement on revamping the social insurance programs to reduce costs. In fact, there are starkly different views. There are some potential areas of agreement in how to reduce Medicare costs without harming beneficiaries. See my linked article on that. But that’s not what GOP leaders are interested in. They want to transform these vital social insurance programs into much smaller, means-tested, welfare programs – which in American politics is the kiss of death.
http://managedhealthcareexecutive.com/savemedicare

Mr. Van Dyk is clearly voting Republican this year--convinced that those noble Rs, R and R, will succeed in RIGHTing the ship that so badly foundered at the helm of that misguided R, W.

I do not suffer from such delusions. Finding the R&R; program devoid of common sense, and antithetical to my "99%" leanings, I will stick with the Ds.

On balance, they present the best case for prudent and sensible adjustment of social programs, retirement of military campaigns, engagement with international environmental initiatives, creative energy development, and deft management of potential SCOTUS appointments.

No, Seneca, I've made no decision to vote for Romney-Ryan. I've cast only one GOP presidential vote in my lifetime. Same at state and local level (although, in a few instances, I've not voted for either party candidate for certain offices). You mention some issues on which I also would find it hard to support the GOP ticket. I particularly worry about foreign policy/national security, where Romney to this point has pretty much appropriated hawkish McCain positions from 2008 until present day.

I had high expections in 2008 for Obama, endorsed him in print, spoke for his candidacy at my precinct cancus, and sent campaign money. But, since that time, he has disappointed on my fronts, including notably on the issues discussed above. Too cute, too small, too partisan and polarizing. There are many weeks left until decision time in November. Let's see what evolves.

I have felt the same frustration with Obama...but found, upon taking my evening soma and reflecting on the totality of these three years, that his intractable opposition is much to blame for our policy inertia.

So, with what is less than a complete mirror image of my '08 enthusiasm (but WAY beyond anything I could gin up for the Romney ticket),kI'm going to vote for sorta-Hope and kinda-Change.

Let's hear no more yammering and mewling about how our current President hasn't measured up to our expectations and hopes. Because how can one even consider allowing oneself to vote for the Ryan-Romney ticket? (Not "Romney-Ryan," because it's clear that Ryan will be sucked into doing the ideological and explanatory heavy lifting on the campaign trail.) Here in Crosscut Van Dyk spins off into his own view of the facts and the issues. The Pat Moynihan remark is always relevant as long as van Dyke (TVD and others just spin casustic cobwebs,flubbing over or ignoring the actual conditions and choices we face. Moynihan: "Everyone is entitles to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

I'd like to comment on TVD's remark:

"I've been somewhat mystified by the stress on Romney's wealth. FDR, JFK, John Kerry, and other Democratic presidents and presidential candidates have had great wealth. Clinton has made a fortune since leaving the White House."

Ted, the reason people are focused on Romney's (and now Ryan's) wealth is that these guys are unlike the Kennedys or Clintons. The Kennedys, while be very rich, advocated for the less well off. In short, they were the voice of the common person. Not true with the Ryan/Romney royalty ticket. These guys are interested ONLY in money and greed and that's all they talk about. Money, money, money. If the Wall Street Greed machine was a Transformer, Ryan/Romney is exactly what it would transform into.

In short, they are mouthpieces for the ultra-wealthy and the ultra-ultra wealthy. They are nothing like the Kennedy's or Clinton's who did a fairly decent job at protecting the common person in our money-corrupted system of government.

Ted -

You want to know why "the economy remains shaky?"

It's because people like Ryan and Romney are nothing more than white collar criminals. Except, since they're in office, they can pass laws that make their behavior legal.

Not only is Romney a 1%er, he's a 13%er, at least if you believe what he says (I don't).

I looked up my Income taxes for 2009, 2010 and 2011. My tax bracket for all 3 years was 28%. With deductions, I was in the 22%, 21% and 21% bracket respectively.

I calculated if I paid 13% like millionaire Romney or millionaire Ryan, I'd have $23,124 more money.

Under Romney/Ryan, those guys want to cut tax rates for themselves even more and I get to pay their bills. No thanks. So THAT'S why Romney's and Ryan's millions are an issue.

No surprise here, TVD, Paul Ryan is quite a wealthy man, well into the 1%, with half his income from low-taxed investment earnings. Total assets of $2-8 million, not bad for a 42 year old man who's basically never worked outside of the federal government. And he grew up as part of a wealthy and powerful family in Wisconsin that has made its fortune with government road building contracts. Ryan's and Romney's tax proposals would make both of them even wealthier, shrinking the already low tax rates they are paying to nearly nothing. That's not dirty politics to emphasize that, that's a key policy issue the country faces.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/us/politics/ryan-tax-returns-show-20-percent-rate-in-2011.html?hpw

Thank you Harris. Well stated. It's sickening to read articles like this that try to paint Romney and Ryan as 2 even-handed regular Joes that are just running for President and VP. They are completely corrupt corporate lobbyist millionaires that are laughing to the bank as the suckers who vote for them pay a higher percentage in taxes than they do.

Medicarelessness Ryan is not Danny Devito. He only thinks he’s Danny Devito. He wants to throw our “Mammas from the train”. Ryan’s phase 2 is making Granny choose between food and Meds. Phase 3 is Soylent Green Granny…grind her up…serve her up. Romney’s plan is to attempt maintaining indentured servitude with a clear conscience.

We need to initiate referendums to either: 1. Return to 1960s Marginal Tax Rates of 90-94% http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

Or 2. Establish a "Means Tested" Pricing for everyone. Fingerprint, ID or electronic identification that auto-prices every product and service and calculates it based on "Wealth". i.e. Buffett and Gates would pay approximately $100K for a gallon of gasoline. A burger would cost $2 thousand. Then when the wealthy say to the poor, "I feel your pain", they would be telling the truth.