Rep. Paul Ryan

  • June 7, 2012
    BookTalk
    So Rich, So Poor
    Why It's So Hard to End Poverty in the United States
    By: 
    Peter Edelman

    By Peter Edelman a law professor at Georgetown University, co-director of the University’s Joint Degree in Law and Public Policy, and Faculty Director for the school’s Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy. Edelman is also the chair of the American Constitution Society’s Board of Directors, and will be signing copies of his book at the ACS National Convention next week.


    It’s never hard to find a policy hook to discuss poverty in the United States, but one we have just now is the recent budget for FY 2013 proposed by Paul Ryan and the House Republicans which proposes to slash virtually every program that helps low-income people in our country.  My new book is called So Rich, So Poor: Why It’s So Hard to End Poverty in the United States. Paul Ryan and colleagues are definitely a policy hook for talking about my book.

    I could just say that people like Paul Ryan and the House Republicans are the reason why it’s so hard to end poverty in our nation. That’s not wrong, but the story is much more complicated than that. We have a long list of successful programs without which we’d have 40 million additional people in poverty over and above the 46 million we have now. Don’t let anybody tell you that nothing works. Paul Ryan’s line is that if we have 46 million people in poverty now, it’s because the programs are a failure – because social security, food stamps, the earned income tax credit, housing vouchers, and Medicare and Medicaid are failures. And some people – all too many -- take him seriously.    

    No, we have 46 million people in poverty and tens of millions more struggling every day to make ends meet for other reasons. There are two problems here, actually: the millions who work as hard as they can and can’t get out of poverty or near-poverty, and the smaller (but not small) group who are virtually destitute, with incomes below half the poverty line, or below $9,000 for a family of three. The first group – whose basic problem is the huge number of low-wage jobs now extant in our economy – now constitutes a third of the population, 103 million people who have incomes below twice the poverty line (below $36,000 for a family of three). The second – those in deep poverty – now number 20.5 million, up by almost 8 million since 2000. Both numbers are staggering, each in its own way.

  • September 23, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The yawning gap between the nation’s super wealthy and everyone else is likely the widest it has been since the 1920s. And, as TPM reported recently, Fox’s talking head Brit Hume asked “who cares?”

    Obviously many right-wingers do not care. But history is replete, as Columbia University Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz noted earlier this year in a piece for Vanity Fair, with stories of crumbling societies where the wealthy few ignored the plight of the many.

    “The top 1 percent,” Stiglitz wrote, “have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”

    So as Hume smirks at the growing inequality gap and his colleague Bill O’Reilly claims the discussion of income inequality annoys him, more and more Americans are catching onto the fact that right-wing economic policies pushed for decades are doing nothing for the country except making a tiny few much wealthier. Our infrastructure is eroding, and numerous states, as noted in this piece by The New York Times, are cutting already meager safety nets for the less fortunate. Such cuts are swelling the ranks of the poor and especially shoving larger numbers of children into poverty. According to an Annie E. Casey Foundation report, cited by The Times, by 2009 “about 2.4 million more children’s families lived below the poverty line than in 200, an increase of 18 percent.”  

    The Census Bureau reported earlier this month that the number of people in poverty is at its highest in more than 50 years. Just last year, the Census Bureau reported that another 2.6 million people fell into poverty. A press release announcing the Bureau’s findings, states, “The nation’s official poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1 percent, up from 14.3 percent in 2009 – the third consecutive annual increase in the poverty rate. There were 46.2 million people in poverty in 2010, up from 43.6 million in 2009 – the fourth consecutive annual increase and the largest number in the 52 years of which poverty estimates have been published.”

    Beyond irking knee-jerk pundits, talk of economic inequality also elicits typical cries of “class warfare,” from some congressional lawmakers, as The Times’ Paul Krugman writes, noting Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan who bemoaned as “class warfare,” President Obama’s recent comments that the wealthy in the country pay too little in taxes, and that more should be asked of this group.

    Krugman dismantles the class warfare rhetoric, writing that “it’s people like Mr. Ryan, who want to exempt the very rich from bearing any of the burden of making our finances sustainable, who are waging class war.”

    Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard professor who helped launch the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and is now running for the U.S. Senate, also forcefully countered the right-wing’s take on economic inequality.

    Warren (pictured), who detailed her idea for a consumer protection agency at the 2009 ACS National Convention, said earlier this week, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there, good for you. But I want to be clear, you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers, the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.”

  • May 3, 2011

    Editor's Note: The Washington Post's Ezra Klein points out in a "Department of Corrections" post that Rep. Ryan's budget plan contains one, not two provisions that mirror the Affordable Care Act's individual responsibility provision. Our blog post inaccarately reports on the two provisions as well. Klein's post sets the record straight.

    U.S. Paul Ryan’s so-called “Roadmap to Prosperity,” has been widely blasted as a continuation of Republican lawmakers’ efforts to shred the nation’s already thin safety net for the less fortunate.

    Simon Lazarus, public policy counsel for the National Senior Citizens Law Center and author of two ACS Issue Briefs examining the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), digs a bit deeper and finds that the Ryan plan also contains elements essentially identical to the ACA’s individual responsibility provision, which Republican lawmakers loudly attack as a grave threat to liberty. (The individual responsibility provision, as Lazarus notes, is also the center of a slew of lawsuits lodged by far-right politicians. The provision requires certain individuals starting in 2014 to carry health care insurance or pay a tax penalty.)

    In a piece for Slate, Lazarus says Rep. Ryan's (pictured) plan includes two individual insurance mandates that are materially indistinguishable from the supposedly toxic ACA individual responsibility provision, which is no more unconstitutional nor an invasion of personal freedom, than they are – nor than Medicare or Social Security is.

    Lazarus writes:

    One of these Ryan budget proposals—as yet little noticed by pundits or politicians—is almost an exact copy of its equivalent in the Affordable Care Act. It would repeal the current exclusion from employees' income of employer contributions to their health insurance premiums, thus terminating the subsidized employer-sponsored group health regime that covers nearly 60 percent of all Americans. In its place, the Republican plan would substitute a refundable tax credit, to be provided to individuals who purchase health insurance (or to employers who purchase health insurance for their employees). When this new arrangement takes effect in 2022, the tax credit would be set at $2,300 per adult and $1,700 per child, not to exceed $5,700 per family.    

    Like this Ryancare tax incentive, the "individual mandate" section of the ACA, which the White House calls the "individual responsibility" provision, constitutes a pay-or-play option. Beginning Jan. 1, 2014, when the ACA provision takes effect, individuals who do not qualify for exemption on hardship or other specified grounds, must either carry health insurance or pay a tax penalty as part of their annual income tax filing. The ACA caps individuals' penalty liability at 2.5 percent of household income above the filing threshold, or a flat dollar amount ranging from $695 to $2,085, depending on family size.

    Under both provisions, the result is the same: People who choose to carry health insurance have a lower tax bill than they would if they chose not to. In terms of their respective potential impact on individuals' bank accounts and tax liability, the manner in which they affect individuals' financial incentives, and hence the constraining effect on individuals' financial choices to either buy or forgo health insurance, the two "mandate" provisions are identical. (Indeed, in most cases, the financial difference for the individual taxpayer made by the Republican tax credit would be greater—i.e., more "coercive"—than the ACA tax penalty.)

    See the entire article here. For more analysis of the landmark health care law, see Lazarus’s ACS Issue Briefs here and here. For up-to-date information on the legal challenges to the health care reform law, see the ACS website here.

  • April 18, 2011

    Culling through the most recent data from the Internal Revenue Service, The Associated Press notes what many economists have already taken note of: the nation’s wealthiest continue to see their tax burden decline.

    The AP reports that the IRS “tracks tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.”

    If the Tea Party-backed politicos in the U.S. House of Representatives had their way, the tax burden for corporations and wealthy individuals would continue to lessen. A few days ago the House passed a 2012 budget plan pushed by Rep. Paul Ryan that would, as The New York Times reports, reconfigure Medicare and “cut the top corporate and personal income tax rates while also” fundamentally altering Medicaid.

    Echoing language from President Obama’s recent budget talk, Rep. Chris Van Hollen slammed the Ryan budget for providing even more “tax breaks for millionaires while ending the Medicare guarantee for seniors and sticking seniors with the cost of rising health care.”

    During his speech at George Washington University, the president ripped into Ryan’s plan, saying, “There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.”

    In an article for Vanity Fair, Columbia University Business School Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz examined the lack of outrage over the growing gap between the wealthy and everyone else.

    Some people look at the income inequality and shrug their shoulders,” he wrote. “So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year – an economy like America’s – is not likely to do well over the long haul.”

    The Agenda Project has distributed a letter signed by almost 100 millionaires who do urge the federal government to raise their taxes for “the fiscal health of our nation and the well-being of our fellow citizens…”

    Sen. Orrin Hatch ridiculed Obama’s call for the wealthy to carry a greater tax burden, saying that “rich Democrats” should “write a check to the IRS and make an extra payment on their tax returns to pay down the federal debt.”