2
Does 'it's the budget, stupid' resonate with voters?
Paul Ryan (R-WI) (C) looks over documents during a hearing on Capitol Hill June 6, 2012 in Washington, D.C. Republican veep pick Paul Ryan a name for himself by proposing deep cuts in the federal budget. Will his focus on budget issues play well in November?
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Kai Ryssdal: Thankfully, there's the presidential race to liven things up for us. And liven it has, in the person of a young conservative from Wisconsin by the name of Paul Ryan. The newly selected Republican running mate made, as you may know, a name for himself by proposing deep cuts in the federal budget and remaking Medicare and Medicaid along the way.
But in a land of 8.3 percent unemployment and sluggish growth, do the finer points of budget policy really resonate with voters? From Washington, Elizabeth Wynne Johnson takes a look.
Elizabeth Wynne Johnson: Does "it's the budget, stupid" have the same ring to it as "it's the economy, stupid"?
Stanford University political science professor Bruce Cain says this year both issues are going to be vying for voters' attention. Unemployment remains high. At the same time, a showdown looms over what to do about the so-called 'fiscal cliff' of automatic tax increases and spending cuts.
Bruce Cain: Stupid's going to have to be a little smarter this time around, because we're juggling a couple things.
Historically at election time, short-term fears about the economy have trumped longer-term concerns about the deficit.
Tom Schwartz: The one test case we have for that is the 1992 presidential election.
That's professor Tom Schwartz of Vanderbilt University. He's talking about Ross Perot, the iconoclastic budget hawk who took one in five votes that year on a platform of deficit reduction. Of course, the winner was Bill Clinton and his now-famous chestnut about the economy.
Schwartz: Eventually the decision really came down to the fact that you have an unemployment rate of about 7.5 percent and the econ seemed to be stuck, as well. And that proved to be much more crucial than anything to do with the budget deficit.
Cut to this year and Republicans and Democrats couldn't even agree on a budget for next year, choosing instead to fund the government at current levels until the end of the year. Still, Bruce Cain points out neither side, not even Paul Ryan's blueprint that passed the House, balance's the budget anytime soon.
Cain: It's really if you want somewhat larger government with deficits, or somewhat smaller government with deficits.
Which doesn't sound like such a "stark" choice. But that, says Cain, is why there's an old saying that "American politics is fought between 40-yard lines on a football field."
I'm Elizabeth Wynne Johnson for Marketplace.
How about some more analysis on the Ryan "budget"?
Calculate the number of jobs lost as the government budgets are cut. What will that cost in unemployment? What is the real savings?
What would be the increased costs of emergency room care for those losing Medicare, Medicaid and those losing health insurance when they lose their government jobs?
How much more profit will the "for profit medical business" make? What proportion of the GNP will they achieve before the inevitable meltdown.
Who's going to pay for the homeless?
Who is going to educate the people who will be able to qualify for the highly skilled jobs the "job creators" create with their tax windfall? For profit education with their poor quality education but high profits funded by government money? Now that, I can agree to cutting!
Who will pay for the cost of supporting the increased debt caused by the tax cuts and increases in military spending?
How did we forget "voodoo economics"?
BTW, this all reminds me of a ride through the streets of Bombay in the 90s with an Indian multimillionaire entrepreneur to his $3.5million flat for a dinner. Along the way, we watched a crew painting a building when one of the workers fell several floors but caught himself on the bamboo scaffolding. The millionaire said there was nothing to worry about - there were lines of workers waiting to take his job - at $2.00 per day pay.
That's where America is heading...
Ms. Johnson, Never have I angrily shouted at the radio and pounded the steering wheel in frustration. But I did so today after listening to your shockingly glib, ill-informed story.
I expect Marketplace, an actual radio show about money and finance, to report on economic matters, particularly of budget and finance, with some thought and care.
To present the Ryan budget, which Romney endorses, as within the 40 yard line of anything is a gross travesty. This is the most radical budget proposal I've seen in my 50 years, and I'm shocked that you would treat the stark choice facing Americans this fall with such an idiotic, glib summation, which ignores the facts.
Words matter, Ms. Johnson. Reporting matters. Journalism matters. Finding a cute tag line to gloss over your slight investigative skills does not.
I realize you're probably young, and perhaps this political season is just a big show to you. But this budget dismantles almost everything that Americans count on. You do them, and you do journalism, a great disservice with this kind of reporting.
