A (Un-) Informed Electorate

The Washington Post published today an opinion piece by Peter Orszag, former director of the Office of Management and Budget from 2009-2010 and current vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup, “Five Myths About Paul Ryan’s Budget.” (If all American adults were reading this, 97% would bail at this point.) In brief, here are the myths:  

1. Paul Ryan’s budget would reduce the deficit. “If you take out everything Ryan is assuming and look at his concrete proposals, his budget is not fiscally conservative. Without the magical reductions in Medicaid, other spending and tax breaks, his plan would expand the deficit in 2040, not reduce it.”

2. The Ryan budget would help the middle class. “Ryan says he would cut tax rates for all families, but that doesn’t mean the middle class would be any better off. Even after the Bush tax cuts, Ryan’s reductions would amount to about $1,000 a year for families with annual incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 — compared with a cut of more than $250,000 a year for those with incomes above $1 million.”

3. Ryan’s proposal would cut health-care spending by reforming Medicare. “[T]he plan is similar to what we already have: Almost 30 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are also enrolled in Medicare Advantage, which offers private plans alongside the federal program. The evidence suggests that these plans cost more than traditional Medicare, once you take into account the ability of plans to skim off the least costly beneficiaries. So much for Ryan’s health-care-competition tooth fairy.”

4. Ryan’s plan would provide certainty to the markets and the economy. “How would tax deductions be rolled back? How would the block-granting of Medicaid work, and what happens if it doesn’t? What programs would be cut to hit Ryan’s spending targets? All of these are huge questions. Leaving them unanswered does nothing to reduce uncertainty.”

5. If Romney wins, Ryan’s budget will be his fiscal blueprint. “If the Romney-Ryan ticket wins, their administration would probably have to choose one or two of the big three items: tax reform, Medicare changes or block-granting Medicaid. . . . Among the three, I’d bet on Medicaid, given how difficult the other two goals are. The fact that the harm from block-granting would be concentrated on the poor, and that Congress would get to leave it to governors to impose the pain, sadly makes that change more politically viable than the others.”

There’s nothing new in this criticism of the Romney-Ryan (or Ryan-Romney) budget (though Orszag’s vita should carry some weight). What I find interesting is that it will never make the mainstream media discussion (or babble). The only election coverage on the TV news (the actual mainstream media) tonight was the “horse race” – who was polling better with seniors or women in the swing states of Florida or Ohio or Wisconsin. Sound bites and gaffes, costumes and scenery make up election coverage on TV, the medium of preference for most voters. Why couldn’t the networks devote a segment each night to one issue, outlining the position of each candidate, and running a fact-check for both sides? It’s called information and would perhaps lead to what Thomas Jefferson saw as most important to a working democracy, an informed electorate. But information – particularly economic information (what we most need at this point) – doesn’t make good TV. Good TV is strippers readying to work the GOP convention in Tampa. Or Obama brewing his own beer in the White House. Or who should be the new American Idol judge. The electorate may be informed. But it still doesn’t know anything.