Ludicrous and Cruel

By PAUL KRUGMAN


Many commentators swooned earlier this week after House Republicans, led by the Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, unveiled their budget proposals. They lavished praise on Mr. Ryan, asserting that his plan set a new standard of fiscal seriousness.

Well, they should have waited until people who know how to read budget numbers had a chance to study the proposal. For the G.O.P. plan turns out not to be serious at all. Instead, it’s simultaneously ridiculous and heartless.

How ridiculous is it? Let me count the ways — or rather a few of the ways, because there are more howlers in the plan than I can cover in one column.

First, Republicans have once again gone all in for voodoo economics — the claim, refuted by experience, that tax cuts pay for themselves.

Specifically, the Ryan proposal trumpets the results of an economic projection from the Heritage Foundation, which claims that the plan’s tax cuts would set off a gigantic boom. Indeed, the foundation initially predicted that the G.O.P. plan would bring the unemployment rate down to 2.8 percent — a number we haven’t achieved since the Korean War. After widespread jeering, the unemployment projection vanished from the Heritage Foundation’s Web site, but voodoo still permeates the rest of the analysis.

In particular, the original voodoo proposition — the claim that lower taxes mean higher revenue — is still very much there. The Heritage Foundation projection has large tax cuts actually increasing revenue by almost $600 billion over the next 10 years.

A more sober assessment from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office tells a different story. It finds that a large part of the supposed savings from spending cuts would go, not to reduce the deficit, but to pay for tax cuts. In fact, the budget office finds that over the next decade the plan would lead to bigger deficits and more debt than current law.

And about those spending cuts: leave health care on one side for a moment and focus on the rest of the proposal. It turns out that Mr. Ryan and his colleagues are assuming drastic cuts in nonhealth spending without explaining how that is supposed to happen.

How drastic? According to the budget office, which analyzed the plan using assumptions dictated by House Republicans, the proposal calls for spending on items other than Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — but including defense — to fall from 12 percent of G.D.P. last year to 6 percent of G.D.P. in 2022, and just 3.5 percent of G.D.P. in the long run.

That last number is less than we currently spend on defense alone; it’s not much bigger than federal spending when Calvin Coolidge was president, and the United States, among other things, had only a tiny military establishment. How could such a drastic shrinking of government take place without crippling essential public functions? The plan doesn’t say.

And then there’s the much-ballyhooed proposal to abolish Medicare and replace it with vouchers that can be used to buy private health insurance.

The point here is that privatizing Medicare does nothing, in itself, to limit health-care costs. In fact, it almost surely raises them by adding a layer of middlemen. Yet the House plan assumes that we can cut health-care spending as a percentage of G.D.P. despite an aging population and rising health care costs.

The only way that can happen is if those vouchers are worth much less than the cost of health insurance. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2030 the value of a voucher would cover only a third of the cost of a private insurance policy equivalent to Medicare as we know it. So the plan would deprive many and probably most seniors of adequate health care.

And that neither should nor will happen. Mr. Ryan and his colleagues can write down whatever numbers they like, but seniors vote. And when they find that their health-care vouchers are grossly inadequate, they’ll demand and get bigger vouchers — wiping out the plan’s supposed savings.

In short, this plan isn’t remotely serious; on the contrary, it’s ludicrous.

And it’s also cruel.

In the past, Mr. Ryan has talked a good game about taking care of those in need. But as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out, of the $4 trillion in spending cuts he proposes over the next decade, two-thirds involve cutting programs that mainly serve low-income Americans. And by repealing last year’s health reform, without any replacement, the plan would also deprive an estimated 34 million nonelderly Americans of health insurance.

So the pundits who praised this proposal when it was released were punked. The G.O.P. budget plan isn’t a good-faith effort to put America’s fiscal house in order; it’s voodoo economics, with an extra dose of fantasy, and a large helping of mean-spiritedness. 

Deborah Fallon, Councillor-At-Large

SURVEY RESULTS

1. Malden residents rated the following issues in order of
importance: (1) Public Safety; (2) Pay-As-You-Throw Trash Removal
Program; (3) Water Utility Bill Inconsistencies; and (4) Downtown
Revitalization.

2. 75% of Malden residents said they do not attend City Council
meetings, while 23% said they do occasionally, and 2% said they have
recently become interested in attending meetings.

3. 50% of Malden residents said they do not watch City Council
meetings, while 28% said they do, and 22% said they do not have cable
television access to watch the meetings.

4. 73% of Malden residents surveyed said they are aware that
committee meetings (e.g., Public Safety Committee, etc.) are open to
the public, while 27% said they are not aware. There were several
requests for signage at City Hall to let citizens know where/what
time/when committee meetings are held.

5. On PAYT: 40% of Malden residents surveyed said they "dislike the
way the City implemented the program, but now see the benefit of it";
38% said they want PAYT repealed; 10% said they "like the program" and
now see its benefits; and 12% had no opinion.

6. On the proposed Residency Employment Ordinance for Department
Heads: 40% of Malden residents surveyed said there should be no
residency requirement - that "it should be the best person for the
job"; 25% said that if residents and non-residents are equally
qualified for employment, preference should go to Malden residents;
25% said "all city employees must be Malden residents"; and 10% had no
opinion.

7. 55% of Malden residents surveyed said they did not know what the
City Charter was, while 45% knew what the City Charter was.

8. 93% of Malden residents surveyed said they are "not well-informed
about the proposed Charter reform initiatives" by the Malden City
Council, while 7% said they are well-informed.

9. Of all Wards (12.5% surveyed in each Ward), Ward 4 residents
specifically commented they were "generally pleased with their Ward 4
councillors" (statements by 4% of the 12.5%). Overall, 73% of Malden
residents surveyed reported they are "dissatisfied" with city
government. The top three concerns in order of importance were: (1)
councillors do not demonstrate that they represent the "majority
voice"; (2) citizens want time (e.g., 2 minutes allotted) to speak at
City Council meetings; and (3) councillors do not inform constituents
of "major" matters that "directly affect citizens" prior to voting on
them.

Thanks, again, for participating! As promised, I will share these
results with the City Council and keep you informed. Please call me
at (781) 321-8688 if you have any questions about the survey results,
or if you wish to discuss other matters.

Cordially,

Deb

Deborah Fallon, Councillor-At-Large
City of Malden

Promise of Health care

Health care costs are rising. The price of oil is at an all time high. Americans are struggling to save for the future. But when I turn on the TV or read a newspaper, the story too often seems to be the latest poll, gaffe, or controversy.

We need to hear less about the process, and more about the substance. We deserve serious, in-depth investigative reporting on plans to ensure all Americans have access to quality health care and long-term financial security.

When the next President of the United States takes office in January, what will he do for Americans who can't afford their health care bills? How will he guarantee that Americans who work hard are able to save for retirement, or plan for the unexpected?

More importantly: how will he cut through the partisan gridlock and work across the aisle to actually deliver for American families?

I sincerely hope you will dig into the substance and specifics of the plans of our elected leaders. I'm looking to the media for hard-charging investigative reporting - not sound bites and the horserace. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Medicare

The Assault on Medicare
Editorial

No one who has reviewed the changes in Medicare proposed by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in the Congress has any doubt regarding the motivation behind the legislation. Corporate-tied conservatives made a commitment to begin the process of privatizing Medicare and they are now delivering on that commitment.
Under the guise of creating a prescription drug benefit, the proponents of the legislation , in fact, crafted a scheme designed to enrich pharmaceutical companies while saddling seniors with high co-pays and costs that will continue to make needed medicines unaffordable for millions of citizens. Worse yet, the legislation seeks to use billions of taxpayer dollars to break up the Medicare program and hand the pieces over to the same for-profit concerns that have made the U.S. health care system one of the costliest and most inefficient in the world. So corrupt is the legislation that it actually bans initiatives to lower drug prices.

Getting our Mal den City Councilors Accountable

After watching the city council meeting Tuesday April 8th 2008 I was initially thinking I was having a confusing "Senior Moment". After listening with patience I see we have a divided city council with an agenda and that the City Council President should be called to task for putting out a non paying appointment for Trustee to the Cemetery Department out for "bid". The trustee resigned changed his mind applied after" bids" closed,
After a long discussion and a review back and forth and even after asking the City Solicitor and getting an opinion no agreement on the situation was reached and even after the original trustee was confirmed it was left open for re-consideration. It seemed at least one long time councilor was embarrassed by the prolonged discussion. It seems "no rule of law" on city "books"
My take on the situation was that some councilors feel that they should resist the rights of the citizens of Malden to participate in Municipal decision making and object to the Council president reaching out to the general public to invite them to participate in THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
The city planning board (at great expense) ran a "Vision For Malden Workshops throughout the
City with great participation.
Mass Senior Action Metro North Chapter participated and saw one of their concerns addressed.
Maximize and improve citizen participation in municipal decision-making:
The high level of citizen participation is another important and distictive problem to be solved in Malden. Citizens serve of boards and commissions and help fomulate policy and advise the city council.
THANK YOU CITY COUNCILOR CHRISTENSEN FOR TRYING
Malden Senior
Howard McGowan
349 Pleasant Street
Malden, Ma 02148
781 324 8076

Malden Elected Representataves on McFadden Manor

I am disappointed on how this item has lost Steam. I went to a meeting of a senior group and heard an Atty from Lynn decribe how the Lynn Mayor and City Council closed the well run nursng homes (2) by" softsoaping " the advocates with "promises" "buck passing" delays and behind the scenes action with a "controlled" input from citizens. BLUE PRINT FOR WHAT IS HAPPENING IN MALDEN. Only the organized group in Malden keeping up the pressure with the help of the taxpayers will save the situation. WHY THE SHORT ATTENTION SPAN. KEEP MCFADDEN OPEN

Senator Tisei on Malden Funds State Budget

It also level funds Additional Assistance at $5.6 million, and retains full Lottery aid at $10 million.
An attempt by Tisei to amend the resolution and provide Malden with an additional, one-time supplemental payment of $1.6 million fell short on a vote of 6 to 31 in the Senate last week.
A similar proposal was also defeated in the House by a vote of 26 to 124 earlier this month.
“The state budget won’t be finalized until this summer, but it’s important for cities and towns to know right now the minimum amount of funding they can expect to receive from the state,” said Tisei. “I am disappointed we couldn’t get the support we needed to expand the local aid package, but the important thing is that Malden and other communities now have reliable baseline figures they can use to build their budgets for next year.”
Tisei had proposed taking $150 million from the state’s Stabilization (or “Rainy Day”) Fund and redistributing this money to cities and towns through the Lottery formula. He said the money should be returned to communities as partial compensation for the three years that Lottery proceeds were capped by the state during the last economic downturn.
The local aid resolution, which passed unanimously in both branches without the supplemental payment, provides for a $223 million statewide increase in Chapter 70 funding, which will bring total state education aid to Massachusetts’ cities and towns to $3.949 billion.
Unlike Gov. Patrick’s budget proposal, the resolution level-funds Lottery aid without making receipt of these funds contingent on the approval of casinos.
Although state Lottery proceeds are expected to total only $811 million in Fiscal Year 2009 — $124 million short of last year’s allocation — the Legislature will hold communities harmless and provide them with the full $935 million they received last year.
Malden’s Lottery aid will be level-funded at $10 million, with $8.7 million funded through Lottery revenue, and the remaining $1.3 million paid for through the General Fund.