I don’t agree with Paul Krugman’s take on Republicans and Medicare here:
One of the truly amazing things about the health care debate is the way
Republicans have managed to pose as defenders of Medicare…It’s all hypocrisy, of course. Remember what the 1995 government
shutdown was about: it was Newt Gingrich trying to force Bill Clinton
to accept, yes, deep cuts in Medicare. And it’s not just history:
Republican plans to balance the budget rely crucially on … deep cuts
in Medicare.Consider the “Roadmap for America’s future”
released by Paul Ryan … it would involve substantially less
Medicare spending than under the Obama administration’s budgetYou almost have to admire the audacity: Republicans are denouncing
Obama for proposing Medicare cuts, while themselves proposing much deeper Medicare cuts. And they’re getting away with it.
No, Paul Ryan’s budget is not hypocrisy. Let’s review some facts:
1. Gingrich shut down the federal government in 1995 to force Medicare cuts.
2. GOP Minority Leader John Boehner opposes any cuts to Medicare (and Gingrich now agrees).
3. Rep. Paul Ryan’s alternative fiscal plan would drastically cut Medicare — and Boehner distanced himself from the plan.
Pace Krugman, “they” are not proposing deep cuts. Ryan is. The hypocrisy here is not between facts (1) and (3). The hypocrisy here is between facts (1) and (2). Some
Republicans, not named Paul Ryan, who participated in a government
shutdown to force Medicare cuts in 1995 are now railing against the
idea that the Democrats’ health care plan would force Medicare cuts. That’s the problem.
Democrats often bemoan (or marvel at) Republicans’ ability to maintain a monolith of substance-free opposition. Heck, I’ve said as much.
But it sounds like Krugman is essentially accusing Ryan of hypocrisy
for nothing more than defying a nonsense GOP position on Medicare. But the position is nonsense! It should be defied! If we’re going to take apart Ryan’s budget, let’s have at it. We can
start with the fact that it’s probably too crazy to work.
But Ryan’s attempt to solve a serious problem in an unserious party
deserves something more than a complaint that he’s being inconsistent
with his brand.






