The Self-Righteous Paul Ryan

U.S. Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), chairman of the House Budget Committee, started the Republican effort to "reform" (i.e., end) Medicare anew.  The proposed Republican budget for 2013, which Ryan introduced yesterday, would effectively replace Medicare and replace it vouchers for senior citizens, leaving them to pick up any additional health care costs the voucher does not cover.  Meanwhile, it would sharply lower taxes for the wealthy effectively staving the government of badly needed revenue and necessitating such cuts.  The plan would also repeal the heath care law to make health care even more expensive.

Ryan calls his budget morally responsible because it would restore fiscal discipline to the government and avoid a European-style financial crisis (Republicans are good at avoiding anything European, like respect for intelligence), but I don't see how moral it is to make the elderly pay more for health care - which they obviously need more than younger people - while enriching the already enriched.  Ryan's plan is going nowhere, though, because the Democratic Senate is not going to touch it with a ten-foot pole.

It's hard to imagine the GOP getting away with this, especially with the presidential and congressional elections coming up, but inconceivably (unless you've heard of the word gerrymandering), the Republicans could keep the House after November and just as inconceivably (until you've seen the staggered numbers favoring the Republicans) win back the Senate.  And while the Democrats are pretty good at being against domestic budget cuts, they don't offer much to be in favor of . . . and we have a Democratic President, at according to one source, is still open to cuts in both Medicare and Social Security.

Speaking of being for something, I'm increasingly in favor of staying home on November 6.

A Matter of Priorities

The earthquake in Japan and the tsunami that it spawned, which threatened both Hawaii and the mainland Pacific states and caused some formidable waves in both areas, show how important it is that we prepare for the worst and how we should always make sure that we have the resources to make our warning systems work . . . and work well.

So why did the Republicans propose a spending cut of about $126 million for the National Weather Service, which runs the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii, before the tsunami was generated?

Why do the Republicans want to cut $454 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, of which the National Weather Service is part, which could cause intermittent closures of weather service offices? Why would they make it more difficult, if not impossible, to get people to safety in the event of a tidal wave - like if, say, Rush Limbaugh goes back to Hawaii for a vacation and decides to go cannonball diving off a pier?

Well, let me let House Appropriations Committee spokeswoman Jennifer Hing answer that:

"The nation is in an historic fiscal crisis, and it is imperative that the Congress roll back spending in virtually every area of government — including NOAA — so that we can help our economy back on track."

Hing added that the House Republicans recognize the need to keep critical lifesaving and safety programs, which is why their proposed budget would not cut spending for a network of tsunami-detecting buoys in the Pacific Ocean.

Gee, I feel so much better.

It should be clear that the Republicans have no regard for the general welfare in any circumstances - even when the lives and safety of millions of people are involved.

Next, you'll be telling me that they want to cut spending for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, even though the accident at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant shows how badly things can go wrong with nuclear energy even in countries where it is strongly regulated.

On second thought, don't. . . .