Posted on 05/25/2011 11:40:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
First he goes after ethanol in Iowa, now this. What’s next? Telling Texans it’s time to wean themselves off of barbecue? Good lord. This isn’t a campaign, it’s an intervention.
Alternate headline: “Tim Pawlenty now unelectable in not one but two early primary states.”
A day after telling Iowans their beloved ethanol subsidies will have to go, Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty used a stop in senior-heavy Florida to call for reining in Social Security and Medicare benefits for future retirees…
It’s part of a tough-medicine tour, designed to highlight Pawlenty’s willingness to tell “hard truths.” He’s also planning to visit Washington to call for less-generous pay and benefits for public sector employees and to New York to call for an end to Wall Street bailouts…
Pawlenty said Social Security’s retirement age must “gradually” increase for people who are not yet in the system. He also called for ending cost-of-living increases for wealthy retirees. He said he’ll release details soon and said the changes would not affect current retirees.
That’s from today’s Facebook town hall, where he also took a question that seemed geared towards winning a certain fiscal-con icon’s constituency:
“In the state of Indiana, our governor has been really hard on teachers,” asked one girl. “What is your view of education?”
Pawlenty voiced a position on education similar to the reforms passed by Daniels in the last Indiana legislative session: school choice and vouchers, support for charter schools, and saying that education policy should be geared to help children and should “put their needs first, rather than the interests of adults in public employee union movement.”
The choice of the question seemed deliberate, as a way to position Pawlenty as the natural alternative for Daniels’ supporters.
The straight talk on entitlements, I think, is mainly geared towards giving him cover with the base for when he starts inching away from Ryan’s Medicare plan. He praised Ryan’s budget when speaking to reporters after the Facebook town hall today but reminded them that he’ll be introducing his own plan in the coming months. With good reason: The more Senate Republicans bail on Ryan — Olympia Snowe is the latest — the closer we get to the sort of tipping point imagined by Nate Silver. It’s easier for the GOP to deflect concerns about Ryan’s Medicare reforms if they’re voting party-line, less easy when the RINO contingent of Snowe, Collins, and Brown defects and thereby implicitly signals to centrists that Ryan’s budget is “extreme.” T-Paw’s trying to massage both sides here (much as he did in Iowa), hinting without saying that he thinks Ryan’s plan is extreme too but not so much that entitlement reform should be avoided. Exit quotation: “What I know is this: There just can’t be any more sacred cows.”
Do a study of Reagan’s tenure as California governor sometime and the “liberal” bills he signed, and see if you would still have supported him for President. The FACT IS, none of the people are perfect, but all of them are better than Hussein.
Waiting for a Prince or Princess Charming is a foolish game.
RE: The message will never get out due to the fact most are cowards or they cannot get the message out as the media does the message and we’re not calling them out
______________________________________________________________________
Let’s say for the sake of argument, all of what you say is true (which is questionable as the message IS getting out ).
Is the solution to simply KEEP QUIET ON THE MESSAGE?
Or is the solution to articulate the message ?
Your solution seems to be the former.
That won’t work. Why? BECAUSE THE ISSUE WILL BE ASKED OF YOU AS A CANDIDATE ANYWAY. And when the question is asked as it inevitable will, what are you going to do?
RE: no you’ve been enjoying medicare though for many years.
Where did you get that idea? Do you even know how old I am?
Yes I’ve seen you and looking at you then you never have had a physical job I;d guess.
You’ve been living on SS and medicare for years and this won’t affect you but you’re asking people who do physical jobs to retire at 72 but you have been reaping the benefits of SS.
You want to start talking then cut the fraud, medicaid, money to countries etc
the only message getting out is what the media put out and that is we want to cut medicare, is it true no but that is the message getting out and to gloss over our defeats as “well we have to say it right” is not cutting it.
the only message getting out is what the media put out and that is we want to cut medicare, is it true no but that is the message getting out and to gloss over our defeats as “well we have to say it right” is not cutting it.
Tell the average voter about getting rid of debt and they will agree, tell them that they have to work till 72 of which doe snot affect you then they will tell you to piss off.
RE: Yes I’ve seen you and looking at you then you never have had a physical job I;d guess.
AGAIN HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT ? YOU SAID YOU’VE SEEN ME, DESCRIBE HOW I LOOK, WHAT KIND OF JOB I DO, AND WHERE I WORK.
RE: Tell the average voter about getting rid of debt and they will agree, tell them that they have to work till 72 of which doe snot affect you then they will tell you to piss off.
Does Paul Ryan tell people that they will be working till 72? Where in his plan did he say that?
RE: the only message getting out is what the media put out and that is we want to cut medicare
And the GOP should be afraid of the Media? Why?
If they’re getting that message out, then in BEHOOVES the GOP to get the message out that they’re not cutting Medicare, OBAMACARE IS. Paul Ryan’s plan WILL SAVE MEDICARE.
ah you are correct I have not seen you, I was thinking you were down in my state FL and someone else.
I appreciate that. My two choices now are Pawlenty and Cain. But I’m not committed. I will wait before sending money to any candidate.
I supported Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney last go ‘round.
I know MR is hated by many here. His luster has definitely worn off for me, but I STILL think he’d do a better job than the clown we currently endure.
He is RIGHT! The Ethanol subsidy must be eliminated, and the sooner the better.
The irony of it is that corn farmers do not get the subsidy — the gasoline distributors (those who mix the ethanol with Real Gas) get it.
And, ending the subsidy will not reduce the ethanol corn crop because the Feds have decreed that ethanol must be added to gasoline, and have even decreed how much ethanol must be produced each year.
IOW, farmers will still grow corn, and ethanol will be produced and mixed with Real Gasoline. It is a dumbass program, but it will not end until and unless We the People demand that it end — and there are a lot of valid reasons to eliminate ethanol FRom gasoline that are off topic here.
BTW, this federal ethanol program represents pure Stalinist tactics at work, TYVM US Congress!
In respect of SS, I believe that the program eventually must be privatized and placed on an actuarially sound basis.
Governor Pawlenty is a brave man, and I commend him for telling it like it is. More power to him, and I hope the high mark he is setting encourages others who would be President.
RE: Are you not old? Are you retired?
NO to BOTH QUESTIONS.
RE: Does this law affect you Now to answer your question on what you look like, you’re old, very thin, actually really thin, about 5ft 3 to 5 inches tall.
Now I know you’re BSing. I am a long way from retirement, still working, and taller than 5’3”. Wrong on all three counts.
RE:SO basing form what I have seen of you
Really? what you’ve shown so far is you don’t even know who I am. You and Harold Camping share something in common though.
RE: The Ryan plan involves raising the retirement age does it not?
Read up on the plan. Seniors would receive government support to purchase health insurance coverage on a tightly regulated government exchange system. That does not involve raising the retirement age. You are CONFUSING Medicare with Social Security.
A “voucher” is usually a certificate of specified cash value that is redeemable for the purchase of goods or services. Under Ryan’s House budget plan, seniors would instead choose health plans and the government would make direct and adequate contributions to the premium cost of the plans of their choice. This “premium support” would go to Medicare-certified and -regulated plans that would compete in a Medicare “exchange,” which Ryan himself has described as “tightly regulated.”
RE: We have lost 2 election in 2 weeks
Uh huh, what follows? That we will lose elections in the future? Scott Brown defeated a Democrat in Ted Kennedy’s district, what does that prove about the future? Can you project anything from the present to the future?
Take NY-26 for instance.... which the GOP lost yesterday.
Political pundits will say that the Republican candidate for Congress in NY-26 lost because of Medicare. They’re wrong. This election was more of a referendum on a candidate’s ability to defend freedom than anything else.
In NY-26, the Republican party nominated a fairly conservative establishment Republican in Jane Corwin, but an ex-Democrat named Jack Davis, running as a “Tea-Party” candidate, siphoned votes from the Republican. The reason was not that Davis is obviously more conservative or because Corwin is not sufficiently conservative: It’s because Corwin did a terrible job articulating the free-market message, and Davis consistently demagogued the important issue of trade.
A simple cursory view of the Davis campaign’s paid media revealed a common theme: that free trade is bad. “Both parties in Washington support trade agreements that ship our jobs overseas,” intoned the narrator of one. He’s critical of “trade deals like NAFTA” and he’s dedicated to making sure Washington “puts American jobs first.”
One of Jane Corwin’s many problems was that she did not articulate a strong free-market message to voters that might have blunted the false scare tactics of Jack Davis. Corwin failed to convey a clear response to Davis’s position that protectionism and tariffs on China would protect American jobs. In fact, tariffs on Chinese goods are nothing more than a sales tax for upstate New York. Tariffs of any kind kill American jobs, and hurt our economy. Support for free trade is the principled position that’s supported by the facts, and yet the Corwin campaign didn’t seem to be in any hurry to stand on principle. In fact, in a TV ad released by the Corwin campaign at the end of March, Corwin said she would “oppose trade agreements that just aren’t fair.”
Maybe Jane Corwin really did believe in protectionism, and that’s her right. Either way, when Republicans nominate candidates who can’t articulate and won’t stand on free-market principles, they will continue to end up with the problems they are faced with in NY-26. Corwin was probably the best choice of the three candidates running — but her failure to stand on principle is what caused a safe Republican seat to fall into the hands of a liberal Democrat tonight.
AT ANY RATE, MEDICARE WAS NOT A MAJOR ISSUE IN NY-26.
RE: a,m trying to say this in a good way to you is that people are ALL FOR CUTTING THE DEBT FACT Now when you tell voters they have to work longer etc then they do not vote for you.
Let’s look at the opposite Dem positions first.
Obamacare imposes record-breaking payment cuts for Medicare providers—plus an unprecedented hard cap on Medicare spending to be enforced by the newly created Independent Payments Advisory Board, an unelected board of bureaucrats empowered to lower provider payments to preordained levels indexed to inflation and economic growth. This will ensure rationing of care through provider payment cuts.
Furthermore, under Section 3021 Congress tasks the new Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation with transitioning from the current fee-for-service reimbursement system toward capitated or salary-based reimbursements. This would literally be the end of traditional Medicare fee for service “as we know it.”
Both the Ryan and Obama proposals impose external spending caps on Medicare. But Ryan’s proposal aims to control costs primarily through intense market competition—not just deeper payment cuts for Medicare providers—while preserving and enhancing the right of seniors to choose health care options.
Also, for those who are far from retirement, Ryan’s tax plan proposes reducing the top individual and corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent—and this is fully paid for by eliminating extraneous tax deductions, exemptions, and loopholes that currently allow some wealthy individuals and businesses to escape their fair share of taxes. Because this plan raises the same amount of revenue year by year as does current policy, it is not a net tax cut. The President’s fiscal commission endorsed similar tax reforms because these reforms would make the tax code more efficient, fair, and pro-growth.
THERE IS NO PROPOSAL AT ALL UNDER RYAN’s PLAN TO INCREASE THE RETIREE’s AGE TO 72 ( THE NUMBER YOU SIMPLY AND MAGICALLY PLUCKED FROM THIN AIR ).
Some myths that ought to be dispelled are as follows:
Firstly, The myth, propagated by writers like Jonathan Chait of The New Republic is that Ryan’s plan not only cuts Medicare, but it does so in order to provide tax cuts for the rich.
FACT: There is no tax cut in Paul Ryan’s plan. He maintains the current rates, which have been law for more than a decade. When you dig past this patent ridiculousness, it’s easy to see that Ryan’s plan seeks to RESTRAIN Medicare spending growth in order to AVERT a tax increase on everyone.
The next myth that I’ll dispel here is one that makes me sad. Sad that time must be spent, words must be typed, and gigabytes must be forever wasted to rebut such a ridiculous notion. The idea, a growing one among liberal wonks, is that there is a very simple plan that will solve our budget problems – do nothing ( one that you seem to ask the GOP to do ).
A normal person would stare at $14.3 trillion in red ink and $1 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see and say that’s preposterous, but not this vanguard of American liberalism.
Here’s another myth -— The Paul Ryan budget plan would shift Medicaid costs to the states and hurt the poor.
Fact: Ryan’s Medicaid block grants would help states lower Medicaid costs and provide them with the flexibility to better serve the poor.
The Ryan budget plan would remove the perverse incentives resulting from the open-ended federal reimbursement of state Medicaid spending. The block grant proposal would provide greater budget certainty at the federal and state levels. In addition, states would have greater flexibility and greater incentives to reduce costs. The proposal would also encourage states to spend their Medicaid dollars wisely and to consider innovative ways to deliver better care at lower costs.
THAT is the truth.
AND HERE’s ANOTHER FACT : DOING NOTHING WILL LEAD AMERICA TO A CERTAIN DESTINATION -— NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY. IF THE DEMOCRATS WILL DEMAGOGUE THE RYAN PLAN WITH FALSEHOODS ( like the one you like to believe ( e.g. a retirement in your 70’s, which Ryan NEVER PROPOSES ), THE GOP CAN COUNTER WITH THE TRUTH WHICH IS SCARIER-— OBAMACARE OR KEEPING MEDICARE AS IT IS WILL BANKRUPT NOT ONLY MEDICARE, IT WILL ALSO BANKRUPT THIS COUNTRY.
RE: ah you are correct I have not seen you, I was thinking you were down in my state FL and someone else.
Read my profile page, I can’t drive to Florida in one day from where I am without falling asleep at the wheel.
Who cares? Bill Clinton supposedly felt our pain. Utterly vapid notion.
Good Lord. I forgot all about that. You must be a fan of his.
really
So am I. Truthfulness is certainly an admirable trait and we should, but don't, elect only truthful candidates. But the problem with truth in politics is that a politician's concept of "truth" on an issue is often at odds with the voter's concept. Self interest usually has a powerful affect on a person's concepts of truth and error, and it often plays the leading role in the voter's decision.
For example, I'm not a betting man but if I were I would bet a shekel or two that if Ryan's Medicare proposal were to be modified today to move what I call the "kick-in" date back to next week rather than 10-15 years in the future as it now stands, 95% of the retirees who said they support the proposal yesterday would undergo a miraculous overnight conversion from support to opposition. I'm not just cynical about seniors alone, people of all ages usually favor proposals that benefit themselves. I'm a senior myself and I usually support political proposals that would benefit me or my family as long as no biblical, moral, or constitutional boundaries would be violated by enactment of the proposal into law. I'm only saying that self interest is a common human trait that exists to a greater or lesser extent in every human being with little or no regard to age, gender, or position in society, and it almost always plays a decisive role in every voter's choices whether he or she is a senior citizen or a first time voter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.