Greedy Boy Grabs For It All
When my eldest was a very little boy, he got a story every
night before bedtime. Sometimes we read
a book together. More often it was a little bit of fluff I made up, usually
mixing in real people, like his grandparents or great grandparents, places he
knew, foods he liked, fictional characters, and children.
One of his favorites was Greedy Boy. Greedy Boy loved walnuts. He loved everything about walnuts. He liked stacking them and playing with them
and rolling them on the floor. He even
liked cracking them and eating them. He
liked them so much he wanted all the walnuts for himself.
Greedy Boy’s mother was on to him. She kept all her walnuts in an old cut glass
jar with a narrow neck and a cork stopper.
You could barely fit your hand in to get one. And the jar was way too heavy for a small boy
to take down from the countertop and shake out.
One day, Greedy Boy’s mom came home with a large bag of
fresh walnuts. One by one, she put them
in the jar, while Greedy Boy watched.
Suddenly, the doorbell rang, and Greedy Boy’s mom left the
room. He knew if he asked Mom he could
have a few. A few? All those walnuts seemed to beg Greedy Boy
“take me, take me.”
Greedy Boy pulled out the cork stopper, reached in, and grabbed
for a handful of walnuts. At that very
moment he heard the door shut. Mom was
returning to the kitchen. Frantically, Greedy Boy tried to pull out his hand,
and the walnuts, but his loaded fist was too big. He got stuck, just when Mom walked in the
door.
When Paul Ryan, with that young-seminarian demeanor,
announced his budget plans. I somehow found myself thinking of Greedy Boy and
all those walnuts. Ryan’s plan is a spectacular land grab of conservative
fantasy. It purports to cut spending by
$5 trillion in the next decade, while increasing the Defense budget by nearly $500
Million. Top targets include the repeal
of Obamacare (which he says will save $2 Trillion) slashing spending on
education, on food stamps, and on a variety of domestic programs, including
George Bush’s Medicare Part D. There
would be cuts to the Federal workforce, reductions in benefits, and increased
premiums that would result in a significant decrease in after-tax pay. Medicaid would be replaced by block grants to
states (where, presumably, like-minded Governors would find other uses for the
money.) Medicare, the primary health plan for seniors, would be partially privatized
for those currently under 55. Social
Security “would be discussed at a later date.”
Of course, no bad deed ever has to go unrewarded, and
someone has to get the walnuts here. As
you might have guessed, Ryan does see the objects of his bounty, and they will
not come as much of a surprise. So Ryan also includes a “tax reform” concept
that reduces the top tax rates and collapses all the rates into only two. Being
the good and virtuous fiscal conservative he is, he needs to make it revenue
neutral, meaning some will have to pay more for others to pay less. But being a good and virtuous politician, he
refuses to spell out what deductions he might cut so the public can figure out
who might do all that paying. In case
you were curious about Dave Camp’s plan, which actually did (to the horror of
some major campaign contributors) spell out some things, it’s been officially
kicked to the curb. Representative Camp
is not running for reelection, and he will return to his home state of Michigan
with empty pockets.
Will any of this come to pass? Well, Ryan is in line to become the next
chair of the Ways and Means Committee (replacing the now un-mourned Dave Camp)
so we should expect the House (with perhaps more walnuts thrown in) to pass
it. The chances in the Senate are
probably nil right now, but with the expected GOP takeover in 2015, it could
make its way to Mr. Obama’s desk shortly as a “signature” piece of legislation after
his State of the Union.
Politically? Mr. Obama
will veto it, but it will become a template for negotiation for yet another
government shutdown and debt ceiling increase.
The issues won’t go away. They
will get teed up for the 2016 election, as they should, because they need to be
resolved in the political arena.
Ryan has done us a favor, because the issues he raises demonstrate
some fault lines in each Party’s supporters.
Republicans have, particularly in the Obama era, been dominating the
senior vote. Part of that is senior
opposition to Obamacare, which they fear will cut into their benefits. Part is social issues—seniors are simply more
likely to align themselves with more conservative values, particularly on
things like faith, reproductive issues, and gay rights. Part is that many see themselves as
self-reliant, and others as takers, regardless of the monthly checks they
get. Part is particular to rapidity of
culture change and even Mr. Obama himself.
This does not mean that seniors are racists. Rather, I would suggest, they may have a
different frame of reference. If you
were born in 1940 you almost certainly grew up in segregation, hard or
soft. Your ideas about the proper role
of minorities in this country are likely to be very different than someone in
her twenties.
Will seniors stick with the GOP in the long term? Gays will
be with us always, but Obama will not.
How about those pocketbook issues?
If Ryan’s cuts in some or all senior walnuts come to pass, will they
still be willing to back whomever comes out of the GOP primaries?
What about the young?
They are very much the reverse image of seniors; more socially tolerant,
more accepting of Mr. Obama personally, somewhat more sympathetic and public
spirited towards the needy. Right now,
they lean Democratic. But they are also
cynical about the possibilities of them ever getting Social Security. Will they support higher taxes on them to
support the entitlement spending they don’t expect to either need or get?
You could break down demographic after demographic, region-by-region,
and you would find analogous questions.
Ultimately, most vote their self-interest. If politics is like a marketplace, with all
issues for sale, few want to pay more and get less. They, too, want all the
walnuts they can get. In an ideal world, Mom and
Greedy Boy would discuss things and agree on the number of walnuts. However, in the political area, where
electeds are making a virtue of their inflexibility, we may have to be less
optimistic.
That is a huge problem, because, as we have seen with Obamacare, when one side imposes their vision, the other may never accept it. I believe the GOP would oppose Obama regardless, but ACA provides the rocket fuel. So, take a hard look at Ryan’s budget, beyond the headlines and the packaging. You might find things in there that you support. Won’t you won’t see is any balance. It is a radical re-working of government. He really wants all the walnuts.
That is a huge problem, because, as we have seen with Obamacare, when one side imposes their vision, the other may never accept it. I believe the GOP would oppose Obama regardless, but ACA provides the rocket fuel. So, take a hard look at Ryan’s budget, beyond the headlines and the packaging. You might find things in there that you support. Won’t you won’t see is any balance. It is a radical re-working of government. He really wants all the walnuts.
My son always loved the end of the Greedy Boy story. Greedy Boy tugged and he tugged, but he
couldn’t get his hand out without letting go of the walnuts. And he couldn’t bear to give up his prize.
So, when Greedy Boy’s Mom turned the corner and saw him, hands behind his back, red faced, shielding the jar of walnuts, she asked, “Greedy Boy, what are you doing?”
Wise words from electorate.
Michael Liss (Moderate Moderator)
Please join us on twitter @SyncPol
