OPINION: The Ryan Choice

NJTODAY.NET's online business directory

By Robert Reich

(This article originally appeared in Robert Reich’s blog on Aug. 11, 2012)

Paul Ryan is the reverse of Sarah Palin. She was all right-wing flash without much substance. He’s all right-wing substance without much flash.

Ryan is not a firebrand. He’s not smarmy. He doesn’t ooze contempt for opponents or ridicule those who disagree with him. In style and tone, he doesn’t even sound like an ideologue – until you listen to what he has to say.

It’s here — in Ryan’s views and policy judgments — we find the true ideologue. More than any other politician today, Paul Ryan exemplifies the social Darwinism at the core of today’s Republican Party: Reward the rich, penalize the poor, let everyone else fend for themselves. Dog eat dog.

Ryan’s views are crystallized in the budget he produced for House Republicans last March as chairman of the House Budget committee. That budget would cut $3.3 trillion from low-income programs over the next decade. The biggest cuts would be in Medicaid, which provides healthcare for the nation’s poor – forcing states to drop coverage for an estimated 14 million to 28 million low-income people, according to the non-partisanCenter for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Ryan’s budget would also reduce food stamps for poor families by 17 percent ($135 billion) over the decade, leading to a significant increase in hunger – particularly among children. It would also reduce housing assistance, job training, and Pell grants for college tuition.

In all, 62 percent of the budget cuts proposed by Ryan would come from low-income programs.

The Ryan plan would also turn Medicare into vouchers whose value won’t possibly keep up with rising health-care costs – thereby shifting those costs on to seniors.

At the same time, Ryan would provide a substantial tax cut to the very rich – who are already taking home an almost unprecedented share of the nation’s total income. Today’s 400 richest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million of us put together.

Ryan’s views are pure social Darwinism. As William Graham Sumner, the progenitor of social Darwinism in America, put it in the 1880s: “Civilization has a simple choice.” It’s either “liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest” or “not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.”

Is this Mitt Romney’s view as well?

Some believe Romney chose Ryan solely in order to drum up enthusiasm on the right. Since most Americans have already made up their minds about whom they’ll vote for, and the polls show Americans highly polarized – with an almost equal number supporting Romney as Obama — the winner will be determined by how many on either side take the trouble to vote. So in picking Ryan, Romney is motivating his rightwing base to get to the polls, and pull everyone else they can along with them.

But there’s reason to believe Romney also agrees with Ryan’s social Darwinism. Romney accuses President Obama of creating an “entitlement society” and thinks government shouldn’t help distressed homeowners but instead let the market “hit the bottom.” And although Romney has carefully avoided specifics in his own economic plan, he has said he’s “very supportive” of Ryan’s budget plan. “It’s a bold and exciting effort, an excellent piece of work, very much needed … very consistent with what I put out earlier.”

Romney hasn’t put out much but the budget he’s proposed would, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, throw ten million low-income people off the benefits rolls for food stamps or cut benefits by thousands of dollars a year, or both.

At the same time, Romney wants to permanently extend the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, reduce corporate income taxes, and eliminate the estate tax. These tax reductions would increase the incomes of people earning more than $1 million a year by an average of $295,874 annually, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.

Oh, did I say that Romney and Ryan also want to repeal President Obama’s healthcare law, thereby leaving fifty million Americans without health insurance?

Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late nineteenth century. It allowed John D. Rockefeller, for example, to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was “merely a survival of the fittest… the working out of a law of nature and of God.”

The social Darwinism of that era also undermined all efforts to build a more broadly based prosperity and rescue our democracy from the tight grip of a very few at the top. It was used by the privileged and powerful to convince everyone else that government shouldn’t do much of anything.

Not until the twentieth century did America reject social Darwinism. We created a large middle class that became the engine of our economy and our democracy. We built safety nets to catch Americans who fell downward, often through no fault of their own.

We designed regulations to protect against the inevitable excesses of free-market greed. We taxed the rich and invested in public goods – public schools, public universities, public transportation, public parks, public health – that made us all better off.

In short, we rejected the notion that each of us is on our own in a competitive contest for survival.

But choosing Ryan, Romney has raised for the nation the starkest of choices: Do we want to return to that earlier time, or are we willing and able to move forward — toward a democracy and an economy that works for us all?

Robert B. Reich, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” His latest is an e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

Connect with NJTODAY.NET

Join NJTODAY.NET's free Email List to receive occasional updates delivered right to your email address!
Email ads@njtoday.net for advertising information Send stuff to NJTODAY.NET Like Us On Facebook Follow Us On Twitter Download this week's issue of NJTODAY.NET

2 comments for “OPINION: The Ryan Choice

  1. SMMcMahon
    August 21, 2012 at 2:59 pm

    This guy said it all:

    “Mitt Romney does not need to release any more income tax returns. The 2010 return that he did release clearly shows what he has in mind, if he and Paul Ryan have their way.

    Romney and Ryan both want to drop the tax rate on interest, dividends and capital gains to zero. They have said this repeatedly. I am not an expert on taxes, far from it, but let’s look at just a few items from Mitt’s 2010 tax return: $3.3 million in interest, $5 million in dividends and $12.5 million in capital gains. Gee, how about that? All taxed at 15 percent. $.5 million ordinary income from speaking fees, probably taxed at the 35 percent level. His charitable giving was $1.5 million in cash and $1.5 million in non-cash. His taxable rate is said to be 13.9 percent for this year. IF MR. ROMNEY and Mr. RYAN THEIR WISH, MR. ROMNEY WOULD HAVE A TAX RATE OF LESS THAN 1%.

    Would you trust someone to run this country, a person that uses every means possible to avoid paying taxes to the Federal and state governments, has numerous off-shore accounts and will not release even 5 years of his tax returns? Who has said many times, in so many words, that he wanted to drop the tax rates to zero on 95 percent of his income, should he become president and has lied about his tax returns before, while running for governor? And took a $77 thousand business deduction for his wife’s dancing horse?

    Or would you want a person that has released 12 years of tax returns, wants to raise very slightly the top marginal tax rate for the very wealthiest people and leave the tax rate the same for 95 percent of the taxpayers? Is that really a tough question?

    Not for me. I am voting for Barack Obama, a man of the people, by the people and for the people.”


  2. SMMcMahon
    August 21, 2012 at 2:58 pm

    Romney/Ryan “mean it” when it comes to eviscerating government as a tool to help the middle class and improve society:

    They would end Medicare and replace it with inadequate vouchers, thereby causing recipients to pay $6,000 – $13,000 more per year. They would raise taxes on the middle class by up to $2,000 per year — and destroy the government’s ability to invest in infrastructure, education, and other necessary things.

    But when it comes to reducing the deficit, they are as much if not more of a fraud as virtually every other conservative for the past thirty years. The “savings” from all of Romney/Ryan’s proposed cuts and tax increases wouldn’t go to reducing the deficit. Instead, they would go to increasing military spending, and to $4.3 trillion in tax giveaways to millionaires and billionaires. Under Ryan’s plan, Romney would have paid less than 1% in taxes in 2010.

    As for the national debt, Ryan’s proposal would lead to an increase in the national debt from its 2010 level of 60% of GDP to a peak of nearly 175% by 2050 and remain at 100% or more of GDP through 2080.

    In short, Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney aren’t offering a serious conversation about deficits. Instead, they are offering the GOP agenda of taking from the middle class to give to the wealthy on steroids.

Leave a Reply