Running from Ryan (but not far)
by David Atkins
I’ve mentioned before that one of the biggest and most overlooked consequences of the Paul Ryan pick is the ease with which Democrats will now be able to nationalize Congressional races. Republicans across the country are being forced to run from the Ryan plan, but not far enough to annoy their conservative base.
One example of this phenomenon is right in my backyard in Ventura County, where progressive Assemblymember Julia Brownley is doing battle with ardent anti-tax tea partier Tony Strickland for a newly redistricted open Congressional seat. This seat would be a pickup for Democrats if Julia were to win it.
Tony Strickland knows that the Ryan pick is bad for him. Indeed, Ms. Brownley was able to make significant hay of potential votes on the Ryan budget during the primary against “independent.” Timm Herdt of the Ventura County Star says it right out loud:
With Parks having been eliminated in the primary, Democrats will now turn their attacks on the Ryan budget and seek to use them against GOP candidate Tony Strickland. Unlike incumbent Republican House members, Strickland does not have a record of voting for the Ryan budget, but in an interview with me this spring he expressed strong support for what the Ryan plan seeks to accomplish.
“I give a lot of credit to Paul Ryan for coming up with ways to reform Medicare,” Strickland told me. “There’s no question that actuarially it’s not sound. If we do nothing right now. Medicare and Social Security will be 100 percent of the budget.”
Democrat Julia Brownley lost little time in seeking to tie Ryan and his budget plans to Strickland. Within hours of the announcement of the Ryan pick Saturday morning, the campaign issued this statement from Brownley: “The Ryan budget puts millionaires and billionaires ahead of seniors, women and the middle class by turning Medicare into a voucher system, raising the age of eligibility to 67, and making devastating cuts for women’s health and education. This would be a disastrous plan for Ventura County and the nation, and it’s clear that Tony Strickland would be another rubber-stamp vote in Congress for the Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan agenda.”
The end result may be that voters in Ventura County this fall will get a chance to hear a full debate about the future of Medicare — both the question of whether cutting costs and/or raising revenues is a national imperative and whether the cuts proposed by Ryan and House Republicans go too far. That will mean that the 26th CD campaign will be nationalized to a level that it probably wouldn’t have been had Romney chosen some other VP nominee.
Precisely. And that will be happening in every single competitive district in the country, if the campaigns have an ounce of competence to them.
So what is Tony Strickland’s response? To “reject” the Ryan plan to voucherize Medicare for everyone under 55 by…voucherizing it for everyone under 50 instead. No, that’s not a joke. Timm Herdt follows up:
As I noted in that post, in a pre-primary, April 5 interview, Strickland told me that he gave “a lot credit” to Ryan for attempting to address the longterm solvency of Medicare. He said at the time that he did not believe Medicare rules should be changed for those approaching retirement, but that changes need to be made for “people my age” — folks in their 20s, 30s and 40s (Strickland is 42).
We did not discuss a specific age where a potential cutoff for any future changes would be. And that, Strickland told me this morning, is where he has a serious disagreement with the Ryan plan. It envisions making an insurance-voucher system (rather than automatic enrollment in the government-run plan) optional for those under 55. Strickland says no changes should be considered for anyone 50 or older.
“Those folks paid into the system for years and planned their future,” he said. “You cannot take the rug out from underneath them. I personally oppose any effort to take anything from people 50 and older.”
Karoli at Crooks and Liars was actually on the scene at a Strickland event a few days ago and has the details:
The purpose of this particular event, beyond the obvious fundraising and opportunity for some good old fashioned Republican lies, was for Strickland to sign his “Social Security & Medicare Protection Pledge” with great aplomb and faux sincerity. Here it is, signed by the man himself before the grannies and grampies off to the side in their wheelchairs and the young bucks sitting in front of him.
RL Miller was also there, putting it succinctly enough.
Sure enough, here’s Strickland claiming that he would have voted no on the Ryan budget because – and this is a true profile in courage, or something – the Ryan plan would give vouchers in lieu of Medicare for those 55 and younger, while Strickland’s cutoff is age 50. In other words, while Ryan’s plan is a huge, neon-orange, screaming
if you’re under 55, FUCK OFF, YOU DON’T MATTER
Strickland’s version is
if you’re under 50, FUCK OFF, YOU DON’T MATTER
Voters aren’t going to buy this little dance. Even if seniors were to be persuaded that ending Medicare for people under 55 (or 50) wouldn’t hurt them, these people also have adult children in their 30s and 40s. They surely want Medicare to be around for them, also.
All of which leads back to the same question: why did Romney pick this guy, again?