My take on Paul Ryan's suggestions for dealing with Medicare and Medicaid are a bit different from most of the comments I have seen so far. I of course agree with most of these comments that his ideas are stupid and will be counterproductive. I look at things from a different perspective, however.
Ryan is suggesting a major policy change in our treatment of health care for the elderly and the poor, in the name of dealing with the size of our debt, which he maintains is the overriding issue. Whether this is truly the major issue can be debated, but we have to assume that he is sincere in his priorities, and that he reflects the priorities of most of the members of the Republican party. It is good that he and the Republican party he represents, as the majority party in the House, have initiated this proposed change. Such initiatives should come from the House, where the primary democratic decision making should take place. Those who make democratic decisions, should have the responsibility of proposing the legislation to be decided, not the President. The President"s only job, after all, is to faithfully execute the laws of the land. Any assertion of the power of the House should be rewarded.
There are several caveats to what Ryan is proposing. Ryan is only proposing a budget: the actual authorization of programs and appropriation of money for the programs are separate, and may or may not conform to the budget. When the crunch comes, when it comes to actually paying for programs, the budget is often ignored. It has happened over and over again in the past. Further, it is not even clear that the specific programs and appropriations will even get done: as happened last year, and for several years, the government has survived on continuing resolutions. This is appalling to me, but it is the way our government works (not).
Nevertheless, Ryan's proposals will set the tone of the coming debate over our policies. This is as it should be. After all, the Republicans have the majority in the House, the body that represents the people, and so it should, and it does, control the terms of debate. For me this is democracy in action. Legislation is proposed, it is debated, adjustments are made as the result of the debate, the final bill is voted on, and the decision is made on the basis of majority rule. The Republicans have the majority, and they should be able to achieve their goals.
The only question one can ask at this point is whether the Republicans will have enough discipline among their members to achieve the majority they should have. The Republicans have more discipline than the Democrats, but given such a regressive, cockeyed proposal, it is not clear that a majority of Republicans will go along. The other half of this aspect is that the Democrats will have to have a similar discipline to prevent the Republicans from getting help from some of the Democrats. A decision on changing health care should be entirely up to the Republicans.
If the Republicans are able to pass their legislation on Medicare and Medicaid, then it will have to be accepted as the expression of the majority will. In a true democracy, this would be the end of the discussion, and we would be able to move on to other issues. Democrats might not like what the Republicans did, but their only recourse is to wait until next time, when the Democrats might be able to regain the majority and repair the damage the Republicans have done.
But no, that is not the way the process works in the US. Once a democratic decision has been made in the House, the process in effect starts over again in the Senate, an unrepresentative, undisciplined body that is able to hold the expression of the will of the people hostage to its whims. Democrats might be tempted to say thank God that the Senate is able to reject or at least delay and force compromises with the recklessness and stupidity of the House, but they should consider that it works both ways: only last year the Democrats were complaining about the Republicans in the Senate who were holding up the health care initiative, and were ultimately able to compromise and corrupt it to such an extent that no one was happy with it.
The Democrats cannot have it both ways. The Senate is essentially an undemocratic part of the legislative process, that should be eliminated or deprived of its ability to affect legislation. It does not contribute to the democratic process: on the contrary, it subverts that process, and enables special interests to have more power.
But that is the way our government works, and the members of the House know it. In the context of the restraints the Senate (and the President) place on the democratic process, the House is encouraged to be irresponsible, to take actions that are more for show and posturing than serious legislation. Paul Ryan knows this, and to that extent he is not really serious about his proposals. He knows they will not get through the Senate as it is presently constituted. Thus his proposals are really only posturing for the 2012 election, where he hopes to overcome the resistance of the Senate.
It is tiresome to have to go through these games. Health care and the debt are both serious issues that should be dealt with by the people's representatives without the obstacles presented by the Senate.
But then, what do I know?