Voters' Choice, in Sharp Relief
By GERALD F. SEIB
While Democratic President Barack Obama stood before a crowd in Cleveland delivering a speech describing his economic philosophy Wednesday, Republican Rep. Paul Ryan sat in his Racine, Wis., district office, eating a Quiznos sandwich and describing his.
Those parallel discussions are significant, because these bright young men—Mr. Obama is 49, Mr. Ryan 40—have become the opposite poles of economic debate in the current congressional campaign.
Mr. Obama describes an America where the middle class has been squeezed by tax cuts for the wealthy that have left education, research and infrastructure investments under-funded, undermining job creation even as unfettered market forces helped push wealth away from Middle America and toward the top.
Mr. Ryan, ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, describes an America where the middle class finds its aspirations snuffed out by job-killing tax rates and the massive burden of health and Social Security programs that need to be transformed with market forces and eased into the private sector.
Republicans caricature the Obama view as a nanny-state philosophy that strangles growth. Democrats caricature the Ryan view as a Darwinian philosophy in which the social safety net is shredded.
Either way, the words of these two refute the notion that elections don't offer real choices. Listen to Mr. Obama in Wednesday's speech:
Mr. Obama then described his alternative view:
As for a partial privatization of Social Security: "As long as I'm president, no one is going to take the retirement savings of a generation of Americans and hand it over to Wall Street."
Now listen to Mr. Ryan offer his retort in an interview the same afternoon: "They want to divide the world into class structures. We should not take the bait on that."
He describes his alternate philosophy: "I would rather speak to people's aspirations and dreams, with an approach that rewards risk-taking and individual aspirations and success."
The U.S. economy, he says, isn't in the same position as in the last century, "when we were the undisputed economic superpower. We're not. We have to worry about our tax rates."
So Mr. Ryan likes and supports the Obama proposal for tax breaks for business investment and research; indeed, they were part of an economic-stimulus plan he proposed last year. But he vehemently opposes any rollback of income-tax cuts.
His broader view is outlined in a blueprint ambitiously titled "A Roadmap for America's Future." It calls for lightening the tax burden in part by reducing the scope of the government's social contract.
Health coverage would shift from a joint government and employer responsibility to an individual one. Working Americans would get significant tax credits to purchase insurance.
Medicare would be transformed into an annual payment to purchase private insurance for those currently 55 years old and under, and they would get the option of investing a third of their Social Security taxes into private accounts.
All that would help clear the way for a flatter tax code and lower corporate tax rates to spur job creation.
Mr. Ryan knows he has provided Democrats with a big target by putting Medicare and Social Security on the table.
But, he notes wryly, "I didn't think I would become their playbook." In any case, he and the president show there is a real debate under way.
By GERALD F. SEIB
While Democratic President Barack Obama stood before a crowd in Cleveland delivering a speech describing his economic philosophy Wednesday, Republican Rep. Paul Ryan sat in his Racine, Wis., district office, eating a Quiznos sandwich and describing his.
Those parallel discussions are significant, because these bright young men—Mr. Obama is 49, Mr. Ryan 40—have become the opposite poles of economic debate in the current congressional campaign.
Mr. Obama describes an America where the middle class has been squeezed by tax cuts for the wealthy that have left education, research and infrastructure investments under-funded, undermining job creation even as unfettered market forces helped push wealth away from Middle America and toward the top.
Mr. Ryan, ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, describes an America where the middle class finds its aspirations snuffed out by job-killing tax rates and the massive burden of health and Social Security programs that need to be transformed with market forces and eased into the private sector.
Republicans caricature the Obama view as a nanny-state philosophy that strangles growth. Democrats caricature the Ryan view as a Darwinian philosophy in which the social safety net is shredded.
Either way, the words of these two refute the notion that elections don't offer real choices. Listen to Mr. Obama in Wednesday's speech:
"I ran for president because for much of the last decade, a very specific governing philosophy had reigned about how America should work: Cut taxes, especially for millionaires and billionaires. Cut regulations for special interests. Cut trade deals even if they didn't benefit our workers. Cut back on investments in our people and in our future—in education and clean energy, in research and technology. The idea was that if we just had blind faith in the market, if we let corporations play by their own rules, if we left everyone else to fend for themselves that America would grow and America would prosper."
Mr. Obama then described his alternative view:
"But in the words of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, I also believe that government should do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves. And that means making the long-term investments in this country's future that individuals and corporations can't make on their own: investments in education and clean energy, in basic research and technology and infrastructure."
So Mr. Obama calls for a government prodding the economy forward. Thus, he has offered new proposals for rapid tax write-offs to encourage business investments, while also expanding regulation of Wall Street and seeking a rise in income tax rates to pre-George W. Bush levels for those making more than $250,000 a year: "This isn't to punish folks who are better off—God bless them. It's because we can't afford the $700 billion price tag" of extending the Bush tax cut for those Americans.
As for a partial privatization of Social Security: "As long as I'm president, no one is going to take the retirement savings of a generation of Americans and hand it over to Wall Street."
Now listen to Mr. Ryan offer his retort in an interview the same afternoon: "They want to divide the world into class structures. We should not take the bait on that."
He describes his alternate philosophy: "I would rather speak to people's aspirations and dreams, with an approach that rewards risk-taking and individual aspirations and success."
The U.S. economy, he says, isn't in the same position as in the last century, "when we were the undisputed economic superpower. We're not. We have to worry about our tax rates."
So Mr. Ryan likes and supports the Obama proposal for tax breaks for business investment and research; indeed, they were part of an economic-stimulus plan he proposed last year. But he vehemently opposes any rollback of income-tax cuts.
His broader view is outlined in a blueprint ambitiously titled "A Roadmap for America's Future." It calls for lightening the tax burden in part by reducing the scope of the government's social contract.
Health coverage would shift from a joint government and employer responsibility to an individual one. Working Americans would get significant tax credits to purchase insurance.
Medicare would be transformed into an annual payment to purchase private insurance for those currently 55 years old and under, and they would get the option of investing a third of their Social Security taxes into private accounts.
All that would help clear the way for a flatter tax code and lower corporate tax rates to spur job creation.
Mr. Ryan knows he has provided Democrats with a big target by putting Medicare and Social Security on the table.
But, he notes wryly, "I didn't think I would become their playbook." In any case, he and the president show there is a real debate under way.