Discussion for article #225511
The Wisconsin Republican and 2012 vice presidential nominee is a respected voice within his party
However, he is a laughable, mendacious buffoon to anyone with an ounce of sense.
7 Likes
As usual the devil is in the details. Where are the details Mr. Ryan?
2 Likes
A single mother who wants to be a teacher, for example, might focus on getting help with transportation and child care to take night classes rather than on getting other forms of aid like food assistance.
That makes a lot of sense. If you can stay focused enough on the goal of bettering yourself, you don’t need any food.
6 Likes
If you give the money to the states, here is what happens. Georgia would take the money to provide tax breaks to “job creators” ie corporations in the form of tax breaks because they will create jobs to “lift” the poor. You think I’m wrong? Thats exactly what they did with the mortgage relief money that was supposed to help home owners…all 200 million
2 Likes
There is nothing “new” about this Ryan proposal – he has been touting the same block grant BS for some years now, wake up TPM!
3 Likes
While there are a few valid observations, it all boils down to the same old GOPer solution: A management style that boils down to “Here’s some money, now spend it wisely. And don’t forget to pay those third party monitors well.”
4 Likes
My first inclination is to distrust anything with the Zombie Eyed Granny Starver’s name on it but this idea sounds like it might have merit.
Merge the programs, and give them a coupon.
Substitute the word “merge” with the word “slash” in this article and you will get what is actually going on here.
Anyone can see it from a mile away. Paul Ryan is really lame at trying to hide what he is really up to.
4 Likes
The idea, in isolation, could have merit, and could be the starting point for a good conversation. Unfortunately, the context is history. The magic of block grants for Republicans is that you can slowly cut their effective value while not getting blamed for gutting a particular program.
4 Likes
I was going to say that but you beat me to it. That’s what has happened in some of the crimson red states like Kansas.
Starting a conversation that’s not about budget cutting is a step forward. I haven’t read it but the table of contents is intriguing. He’s proposing a pilot program. We shouldn’t dismiss it out of hand. Republicans are the party of status quo, Democrats shouldn’t be afraid to experiment with new ideas.
I support the idea of merging the alphabet soup of programs into one comprehensive program. But why dump them all into the hands of states? There really is precious little evidence that state bureaucrats run anything more effectively than federal bureaucrats. Why not merge them into one lump payment for PEOPLE? Why not a simple Guaranteed Annual Income for EVERYONE, with no application form-a check equivalent to a basic subsistence income that comes to all monthly, via the IRS? This is an idea that was proposed by Milton Friedman and supported by Nixon, so it should have credibility with conservatives. It has also been supported by many on the liberal side.
I will agree that of the many bad ideas proposed by Ryan, this speech represents some of the least bad.
PS-When it comes to paying for this, it has been estimated that approximately $50,000 is spent on every recipient, the large majority of which goes to those who administer the programs and decide who is eligible. No need for that if everyone is eligible.
1 Like
Precisely. I don’t think the broad conception would be unworkable if it were planned fairly (not that I’m smitten with the idea either). However, all of the bad faith we’ve seen from state legislatures (in the past 6 years especially) makes me very skeptical these federal block grants would be dispersed magnanimously (or even non-retributively - Rick Scott, Pat McCrory, Scott Walker, I’m looking in your direction).
1 Like
Here’s an idea:
Universal Healthcare.
Universal Daycare.
Universal Education.
That would solve a lot of problems.
2 Likes
OK, I don’t agree with most anything Paul Ryan says, but this has some merit. Not as a viable policy in itself, but definitely as a starting point for reaching a viable bi-partisan policy. If there is accountability built into the system, such that states can only spend the money on the specified programs, and have to demonstrate results, then yes it is possible to achieve better outcomes this way. This could be a way to a small crack in the gridlock, call the TPers bluff, and drive a big wedge between them and more mainstream Republicans, giving moderates a chance to start to slowly take the party back.
Much as I love to watch the GOP self destruct, the reality is that a healthy Republican Party that actually helps govern rather than obstruct is much more in the best interests of the country. Any little green shoot that promises that needs to be watered.
So swine like Scott Walker can repurpose it to “balance” his budget.
3 Likes
Then why not merge the defense budget with Transportation and let states choose how much they want to work on bridges, roads and the like. This idea has no merit, no a scrap.
3 Likes
Paul Ryan’s NEW Anti-Poverty Plan can be distilled down to one idea: “Be smart enough to be born rich. If not please die quickly and silently. Your complaints are disturbing our golf games.”
In the past, this was known as the “Let them eat cake” concept of poverty reduction.
1 Like