Days before his 2012 budget was released, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) predicted that he and it would be demagogued by the Left.
Doing its part is the New York Times which began its editorial Monday, "Six months after voters sent Republicans in large numbers to Congress and many statehouses, it is possible to see the full landscape of destruction that their policies would cause — much of which has already begun":
They approved on strict party lines the most regressive social legislation in many decades, embodied in a blueprint by the budget chairman, Paul Ryan. The vote, from which only four Republicans (and all Democrats) dissented, would have been unimaginable just eight years ago to a Republican Party that added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.
Mr. Ryan called the vote “our generation’s defining moment,” and indeed, nothing could more clearly define the choice that will face voters next year.
His bill would end the guarantee provided by Medicare and Medicaid to the elderly and the poor, which has been provided by the federal government with society’s clear assent since 1965. The elderly, in particular, would be cut adrift by Mr. Ryan. People now under 55 would be required to pay at least $6,400 more for health care when they qualified for Medicare, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Notice the hyperbole "destruction" and "The elderly, in particular, would be cut adrift."
The Left have been using this playbook for years, and the question is whether people are going to buy it this time.
After all, cutting adrift is an absolute term. But Ryan's plan, counter to what hysterical and dishonest media have been claiming since its release, does not end Medicare. It necessarily reforms it.
For decades, economists have been predicting the end of Medicare in its current form without serious adjustments. One of those is former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan who just Sunday said on "Meet the Press" that he was suddenly more optimistic about our chances to resolve our budget deficit because people are finally "putting on the table that this issue requires a major cut in entitlement spending."
A "major cut" in Medicare spending means seniors in the future will need to shoulder more of the burden for their healthcare than today's seniors are. There's no denying that unless you're on the left believing folks like Greenspan are wrong and the answer is just raising taxes on the rich.
Unfortunately, that wouldn't solve the problem. Medicare currently has an unfunded liability of $89 trillion, which means that you could take all the income from the so-called rich and Medicare would still go bankrupt in the not so distant future.
With this in mind, Medicare is much like the Titanic - the most luxurious cruise ship to date that's about to hit an iceberg resulting in most of its passengers' deaths.
According to the Times and the rest of the dishonest Left, Ryan's plan sets those onboard adrift.
Not so. What Ryan is offering is almost as nice a ship for seniors, but that they'll have to pay for some of the gas to power the engines.
Those in the lower levels - the less fortunate - will be required to pay less, while those in the upper decks and the suites - the rich - will pay more. But all will have accommodations that allow them to safely continue their voyage with a little more expense than they originally thought.
This is the option Ryan is offering. The Times is offering only that Titanic continue heading towards that iceberg leaving most aboard to drown.
So who really is proposing a policy that results in the elderly being cut adrift leading to their eventual destruction?