Article image
Robert Reich
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Thursday 11 October 2012
“The fundamental question is whether we’re still all in it together – whether as American citizens we continue to have obligations to one another to assure equal opportunity and help for those who need it – or we’re on our own, without a common bond or a common good.”

Memo to Joe, Re: Debate

Article image

TO: VPOTUS

FROM: Robert Reich

RE: Debate

Beware: Paul Ryan will appear affable. He’s less polished and aggressive than Romney, even soft-spoken. And he acts as if he’s saying reasonable things.

But under the surface he’s a rightwing zealot. And nothing he says or believes is reasonable – neither logical nor reflecting the values of the great majority of Americans.

Your job is to smoke Ryan out, exposing his fanaticism. The best way to do this is to force him to take responsibility for the regressive budget he created as chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Ryan won’t be able to pull a Romney — pretending he’s a moderate — because the Ryan budget is out there, with specific numbers.

It’s an astounding document that Romney fully supports. And it fills in the details Romney has left out of his proposals. Mitt Romney is a robot who will say and do whatever he’s programmed to do. Ryan is the robot’s brain. The robot has no heart. It’s your job to enable America to see this.

I suggest you hold up a copy of the Ryan budget in front of the cameras. You might even read selected passages.

Emphasize these points: Ryan’s budget turns Medicare into vouchers. It includes the same $716 billion of savings Romney last week accused the President of cutting out of Medicare – but instead of getting it from providers he gets it from the elderly.

It turns Medicaid over to cash-starved states, with even less federal contribution. This will hurt the poor as well as middle-class elderly in nursing homes.

Over 60 percent of its savings come out of programs for lower-income Americans – like Pell grants and food stamps.

Yet it gives huge tax cuts to the top 1 percent – some $4.7 trillion over the next decade. (This is the same top 1 percent, you might add, who have reaped 93 percent of the gains from the recovery, whose stock portfolios have regained everything they lost and more, and who are now taking home a larger share of total income than at any time in the last eighty years and paying the lowest taxes than at any time since before World War II.)

As a result it doesn’t reduce the federal debt at all. In fact, it worsens it.

On top of all this, Ryan is on record – as is Romney – for wanting to repeal both ObamaCare (taking coverage away from 30 million Americans) and the Dodd-Frank law (thereby giving cover to Wall Street).

Your challenge will be get this across firmly and clearly, with an appropriate degree of indignation – on a medium that rewards style over substance, glibness over detail, and optimistic happy talk over grim reality.

My suggestion: Be cheerfully aggressive. Take Ryan on directly and sharply but do so with a smile. Force him to take responsibility for the regressiveness of his budget and the radicalism of his ideology.

Prepare your closing carefully (unlike the President seemed to have done last week), and tell America the unvarnished truth: Romney and Ryan plan to do a reverse Robin Hood at a time in our nation’s history when the rich have never had it so good while the rest haven’t been as economically insecure since the Great Depression.

Their agenda is all the more remarkable in that we have a growing budget deficit to deal with, along soaring healthcare costs and aging boomers without enough to retire on because their net worth went down the drain with their homes.

The fundamental question is whether we’re still all in it together – whether as American citizens we continue to have obligations to one another to assure equal opportunity and help for those who need it – or we’re on our own, without a common bond or a common good. Romney and Ryan represent the latter view, a view utterly at odds with what we have accomplished as a nation. 

This article was originally posted on Robert Reich's blog.



Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
Author pic
ABOUT Robert Reich

 

ROBERT B. REICH, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including his latest best-seller, “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future;” “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages; and his newest, an e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.

Top Stories

8 comments on "Memo to Joe, Re: Debate"

yellowdogdemo

October 11, 2012 9:39pm

Simon, RMoney "won" because he lied 27 times. You can't debate a liar. Obama's "failed policies" are lowering the unemployment rate, lowering foreclosures, raising new home sales, creating employment. What about the stock market-up double since Bush was prez? So "most decent people" would rather build their financial situations from their own earnings? That make RMoney indecent because his earning came from bankrupting companies, causing unemployment, sending jobs to China.

Ron in NM

October 11, 2012 8:43pm

Just saw the debate a while ago. Ryan was better than I expected, but Biden had him on the ropes a few times. And he was aggressive, and pushed back at Ryan when he started his spiel about the poor record of the Obama administration in cleaning up the mess his Republican predecessor bequeathed to him.

I think Biden was the winner, but Ryan acquitted himself as well as he could, given what little substance he had to defend. Let's hope Joe's performance will put the brakes on Romney's ascent in the polls. and maybe he should give some tough training to his boss for the next debate. If Obama does as poorly in the second debate as he did in the first, it's going to be painful listening to the returns on election night.

anono

October 11, 2012 7:17pm

"most people - decent people- would rather build their financial situation from their own earnings rather than live off wealth stolen from other people at the muzzle of a rifle....."
We need to ask the Iraqi people about that one.

Atlas Simon

October 11, 2012 10:08am

Most Americans identify themselves as conservatives and what Romney did and Ryan did was simply to point out the massive failure of Obama's socialist big brother government strategy. The fact is that Romney didn't win on debating skill- he won because he made sense to rational people.

Heh Bob- most people - decent people- would rather build their financial situation from their own earnings rather than live off wealth stolen from other people at the muzzle of a rifle.....

Ron in NM

October 11, 2012 8:46pm

Ah, yes, the Public Plutocrat has dropped in to stir the pot a little.

Romney didn't win on debating skill, he won on a wonderful acting performance, putting himself across as a moderate when he has been running as a Tea Party favorite.

If Obama is a socialist, you must be the worst kind of Social Darwinist (sorry, Darwin, but that's what they call such self-centered people these days). European socialists consider Obama a political moderate, but I don't know what they'd call you. (What? Most Americans call themselves conservatives? Which gated community do you live in? I thought "moderate" was the most popular term. But I guess things are different with the crowd you hang out with.)

Romney wowed because he disavowed much of what he's been campaigning on, and came across as a reasonable moderate. Since you clearly don't like a moderate like Obama, I'm surprised you would bring up Romney's say-anything-to-make-an-impression TV performance. Didn't a "reasonable" person such as yourself even notice that Romney told so many lies that if he was Pinocchio his nose would reach to China?

Like I say, you just like to stir the pot, Mr. Me-First.

jcmcdowell

October 11, 2012 11:37am

Fundamentally, I agree that "most decent people" would rather build a sound financial future based on their labors. Unfortunately, it's currently impossible. What you consider "entitlements" really are a small part of the social contract we, as all Americans, have agreed to as part of our collection of states to form a nation and pay taxes for a collective good. I think that's Bob's point in his last paragraph.

The question that is not asked, are you interested in rebuilding our country as a global power that not only leads as a beacon of freedom but actually produces something of substance? If you are, we need healthy children, an educational system to innovate and lead into the future, and workers that contribute and are compensated either financially or through social benefit. We are currently lacking in all three categories.

The vast middle class does not "live off wealth stolen from other people." In fact, the opposite could be considered true with runaway healthcare premiums, private oil drilling on public lands, and dramatic reductions in employee benefits as only a few examples. The 1% rich benefit from the same social contract and prosper while the majority stagnant and suffer either through financial hardship or through real physical pain.

If providing some social benefits in exchange for a lifetime of labor is so repugnant, the other option is raise incomes to a standard that allows families to afford the current "entitlements" like health care, food, housing, and education. But in an economy free fall that we inherited from Bush/Cheney, rebuilding the middle class is not a popular or practical answer either.

woetopoe

October 11, 2012 10:50am

"Decent people" don't advocate the destruction of programs that will ultimately lead to massive hardship and death for millions of the sick and
elderly, and will have devastating repercussions for low income children as
well as veterans of all ages. Just so the "mythical" job creators can further
feather their obscenely wealthy nests. "Trickle down" economics has been
"proven" by three decades of decreasing middle class income and opportunities, and that it "only" works for those at the top of the heap.
Suggest you read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" "The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," after, of course, you put down your dog eared copy of "Atlas Shrugged." Then go into an inner city neighborhood and tell the kids you
see that as far as you're concerned they can starve to death. To be honest...
you're veiled "social Darwinist" psyche makes "decent people" want to vomit!

cswanee

October 11, 2012 10:46am

Up until the debate, Romney was saying he wanted to cut taxes even more. During the debate, he changed his mind (again) to say he wanted to keep the tax system revenue neutral, but with some unspecified changes. Obama forgot to point out that during his administration, every one of the three years has seen lower federal revenue (as a percentage of GDP) than in any year since 1950. If low taxes were sufficient, the Obama years should have been boom years. We have had major tax cutting on the wealthy from over 90% to 70%, then to 50%, then to 28%, then a slight rise to 39.6% (and budget surpluses and boom times), then a cut back down to 35% (with a few other minor variations). A compromise between really low rates and reasonable rates on the wealthy might be 60% - it is absurd to call a 40% rate "stealing" wealth. With the vast increases in wealth at the top end of our economy, if our government is "stealing" their wealth, our government is incredibly inept at theft (actually, they are fairly successful at "stealing" from the poor).