Is that plan to repeal ObamneyCare, and replace it with what, Wyden-Bennett? Mittens loved it last go around, but TEA folks tossed Sen. Bennet (R-Utah) out on his ass for such stupidity. So, is the solution for getting entitlement spending under control selecting a guy that creates additional problems? Mr. Midwestern Values would be Mitt's guy. Rep. Ryan's retort for Medicare Part D:
"You don't get to take the vote you want in Congress," Ryan laments. "Sometimes you have to take votes that you don't want to take, but they're the best of the two choices."
In the case of the Medicare expansion, which by some measures added $15.6 trillion to the long-term entitlement deficit, Ryan recalled that "President (Bush) was really clear to me at the time, and I talked to his chief of staff and others as well, that he was either going to sign the House-passed bill, which had my health savings accounts amendment and real free market choice and competition like Medicare Advantage in it, or the Senate bill, which was just a big government-run program." In the end, he voted for the bill with some free market elements. "That was the choice he gave us," he says. "It was not a choice I liked."
That Big Government Republican flapdoodle is precisely what kicked Santorum to the waste bin. It is important to note that Team Romney is already ginning up the spin mill to deflect his choice:
· Romney's administration will go through the budget line by line and ask two questions: Can we afford it? And, if not, should we borrow money from China to pay for it?
Can we afford it? Well, figure don't lie, but liars do figure. It's those kind of things that build a bridge involving "zero Michigan tax dollars," isn't it? China already thanks us.
As before, I am not interested in a Debater-in-Chief, or Gingrich who can flamboyantly argue both sides of any issue would be the rational choice. And to take all this a step further at this juncture, it would prolly be a wise move for Speaker Bolger to stop obstructing the wishes of JenniRick Snydholm, and let the Exchange happen. It's going to happen in one form or another. Romney's transition pick, former Utah governor Michael 'Cap-and-Trade' Leavitt, is in business to establish Exchanges throughout the nation. I have never seen anyone advocate for the destruction of their own business. I'm reasonably confident that former Utah numbers guru John Nixon, is onboard with what Washington has in store the States.
Three Cheers For RomneyCare! Of course, that is unless Ann has issues with Romney's folks saying RomneyCare is good. OABTW, it isn't just Democrats who Ann asserts as destroying RomneyCare, as seen in Michigan, we have Calley Mandates driving insurance costs up too.
And, as before, I would sincerely appreciate it if the "courageous" young Representative from Wisconsin could demonstrate where in his "plan" based upon 5% GDP growth, has ever had 5% happen at any point over the last 30 years.
For the 60 second attention span, forward to 8:26
Specifically, the older estimate for all Michigan state government pension systems - not just the one for school employees - showed unfunded liabilities of $11.5 billion using the optimistic "official" investment return assumptions. However, when the alternative methods were applied to the systems, the unfunded liabilities skyrocketed to $63.6 billion and $72.2 billion.
In other words, in automobile terms, the current defined-benefit pension system is a lemon - its actual lifetime costs are likely to be more than advertised.
The underfunding problem has only increased since 2008. The unfunded liabilities in just the school pension system are now projected at $22.4 billion, using the same optimistic assumptions as that "official" 2008 estimate. The other methods suggest that the problem can be much worse than even the state acknowledges.
To contain the underfunding problem, the state should place new employees into a system that no longer puts taxpayers on the hook for benefits payable many decades into the future. That is, the state should close these defined-benefit systems to new employees.
In contrast, giving employees defined-contribution 401(k)-type benefits creates no new long-term taxpayer liabilities or uncertainties. The Michigan Senate has already passed a bill that does this. The state House, however, has passed a bill that keeps racking up promises of an uncertain cost. Voters and taxpayers can decide for themselves which is the better approach.
Romney/Ryan, meet Snyder/Calley. One Tough Nerd. Republic-rats ...again.
The journey to fixing all that is one of replacement. In my stage of life, I will never see a restoration.